Place Attachment and Mobility in the Context of Tiny Houses: A Generational Analysis in Türkiye
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to review this paper. The study examined place attachment based on the concept of tiny house and discussed whether there is a difference between generations. My comments on the study are given below.
Abstract:
There are many grammatical errors in the summary.
Methodology and measurement methods are also not discussed in this chapter.
It has been stated in the title that the study was conducted in Türkiye. However, I invite the authors to investigate the spelling of Türkiye.
Introduction:
There is a paragraph of explanation between pages 22-33. Although they are very ambitious sentences, I could not see any evidence to referee them.
I also think that the authors are Turkish, because in many sentences it has been mentioned as our country.
It is a sad sight to see the first source on line 42.
Line 47 goes directly to generation. It is far from creating a unity.
The Introduction is completed with only one reference.
Literature:
Although there is a statement such as line 245 studies show, only one source is cited.
In this section, your hypothesis development processes should be discussed and justified.
Methodology
Although lines 291 to 299 are above, they have been rewritten. I also do not find it right to write the literature information in the methodology section.
Lines 310 to 311 are again repeated.
How was the sample determined in the research? Also, is the sampling method used correct? Should you have justified this?
I also invite the authors to explain the common method bias and what has been done.
Findings
It is observed that the text in the tables has generally shifted downwards.
Authors should provide AVE and CR values besides factor loadings
The existence of the multicollinearity problem does not seem to be discussed.
I don't know what line 423 means.‘ort’. ‘S.s’.
Conclusion:
The conclusion is generally inadequate. I strongly recommend a discussion before writing the conclusion. Also, the theoretical and practical implications should have been mentioned.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagethere are too many grammatical mistakes in the study. A proof is needed.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your valuable feedback has greatly contributed to improving the quality of our work. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each of your comments, detailing the revisions made accordingly.
________________________________________
Revision 1: Abstract
Comment: There are many grammatical errors in the summary. Methodology and measurement methods are also not discussed in this chapter. Additionally, the spelling of "Türkiye" should be checked.
Response: We have carefully revised the abstract to correct grammatical errors. Additionally, we have included a brief mention of the methodology and measurement methods. The spelling of "Türkiye" has been verified and corrected where necessary.
________________________________________
Revision 2: Introduction
Comment: There is a paragraph between pages 22-33 that contains ambitious claims without supporting evidence. Additionally, phrases such as "our country" indicate authorship bias. The first reference appears too late in the text, and the transition to generational discussion lacks coherence.
Response: We have revised the introduction to ensure that all claims are backed by appropriate references. The use of "our country" has been replaced with neutral terminology. The first reference has been introduced earlier in the text, and we have improved the transition from general background to generational analysis for better coherence.
________________________________________
Revision 3: Literature Review
Comment: The phrase "studies show" in line 245 is followed by only one reference. Additionally, hypothesis development should be better justified.
Response: We have revised the literature review to ensure that all statements referencing prior studies include multiple citations where applicable. Furthermore, we have elaborated on the hypothesis development, providing clearer justifications based on the reviewed literature.
________________________________________
Revision 4: Methodology
Comment: Lines 291-299 are repetitive. Literature information should not be included in the methodology section. The sample determination process and justification of the sampling method need to be explained more clearly. Additionally, the authors should discuss common method bias and how it was addressed.
Response: The repeated content in lines 291-299 has been removed. Literature information has been relocated to the appropriate section. We have added a detailed explanation of the sample determination process and justified the use of stratified random sampling. Additionally, we have provided a discussion on common method bias and the steps taken to mitigate it.
________________________________________
Revision 5: Findings
Comment: The text in the tables is misaligned. Authors should provide AVE and CR values along with factor loadings. The existence of multicollinearity does not appear to have been discussed. Some abbreviations (e.g., ‘ort.’, ‘S.s.’) are unclear.
Response: We have corrected the table formatting to ensure proper alignment. AVE and CR values have been included along with factor loadings. A discussion on multicollinearity has been added, including relevant statistical tests. Unclear abbreviations have been defined or removed for clarity.
________________________________________
Revision 6: Conclusion
Comment: The conclusion is generally inadequate. A discussion section should be added before the conclusion. Theoretical and practical implications should be mentioned.
Response: We have added a discussion section before the conclusion to better contextualize our findings. The conclusion has been expanded to include theoretical and practical implications of the study.
________________________________________
We appreciate your insightful comments, which have helped us enhance the clarity, rigor, and overall contribution of our manuscript. We hope that the revisions meet your expectations and look forward to your further feedback.
Sincerely,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral Comments
The paper provides a thorough review of the Tiny House Movement in Turkey and the
discrepancies within place identity and housing ideals among Generation Y and Z people. The
research is thus able to synthesize quantitative analysis and theoretical insights into mobility,
place identity and generational characteristics. The study is highly relevant considering
emerging interests in non-conventional housing and shifting lifestyle values among the youth.
1. The title is informative and appropriate
2. The abstract is well written, well organized, and brief.
3. The paper adheres to the IMRAD structure.
4. References are current and sufficient
Strength Points
5. Robust Methodology: The research possesses a sound research design and a sample size of
600 respondents (300 in each generation) and uses validated tools such as the Place Identity
Scale.
6. Statistical Rigor: The research demonstrates statistical strength with rich validity and
reliability research as well as proper use of a battery of statistical tests
7. Cultural Context: The article provides some novel insight into the Turkish context of the
Tiny House Movement, which fills a significant void in the literature given that the available
research is predominantly Western.
8. Comprehensive Variables: Study examines several factors determining place identity,
including education, income, employment condition, and housing ownership, and providing a
wide perspective on this phenomenon.
Weak Points
9. Limited Temporal Scope: The cross-sectional design of the study, rather than the
longitudinal, limits the information regarding the acquisition of place identity and housing
preference over time.
10. Geographic Limitation: The study does not include the geographic distribution of
respondents in Turkey, which may fail to take into account these differences at the regional
level of housing choice and place attachment.
11. Limited Qualitative Data: The research is largely dependent on the quantitative approach,
which may neglect a more subtle information related to motives and culture, which can be used
to complement the research by the qualitative analysis.
Specific feedback and Recommendations for Improvement
12. Research Question
The most important research question regards how generational change (Generation Y and Z)
affects place attachment and attitude towards small homes in Turkey. In particular, the research
aims to, with that specificity as a point of departure, explore differences between the generations
in terms of resident choice and openness for, in general terms, unusual or alternative housing
alternatives.
13. Originality and Relevance
Study is unique and of interest for several reasons:
• It makes a substantial geographic gap that is compared by analysing the movement of
tiny house in Turkey since most of the research is being conducted on the Western
contexts.
• It integrates generational theory with place attachment theory.
• This addresses the emerging trend towards alternative types of housing in developing
nations.
14. Novel Contributions
The study contributes to the literature by:
• Evidence of the existence of generational differences in housing preference in a non-
Western society.
• Determining the associations between place attachment scale and acceptance of small
houses.
• An overview of how cultural and generational factors influence housing choices in
Turkey.
15. Methodological Improvements Needed
To aid in securing as much coherence and intelligibility of the methodology section, there is
value in providing a transparent and clearly defined research structure. The research framework
is not only required to integrate and provide a structured and comprehensible overview of the
most relevant sections in the methodology. By performing such an exercise, readers will be
better positioned to comprehend the interrelationships between these elements and the direction
of the entire research process.
16. Conclusions and Evidence
The conclusion is not sufficiently strong in the sense of the interest of the work; the conclusion
should be revised. For the reason that the conclusion is supposed to make the reader see why
your research needs to be important to them once they have read the paper. A concluding
statement is not the repetition of your arguments or a re-phrasing of the research question, but
a summary of key ideas.
A conclusion needs to: A conclusion needs to:
• Rewrite the problem statement covered in the paper
• Summarize your general arguments or findings
• Recommend the main takeaways from your paper
17. References
The reference list is for the most part satisfactory, but would be enhanced by:.
• Inclusion of more up-to-date studies (last 5 years)
• Additional Turkish housing research sources
• Additional generational theory literature
18. Tables and Figures
Tables and figures have to be listed consecutively in the text with a short description heading
above each figure/table. A caption below the figure/table with figure/table number, brief
description of contents, and full source reference must be provided. This uniform format
simplifies maintaining orderly organization and crediting visual content in academic work.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Your constructive feedback has been invaluable in improving the clarity, coherence, and academic rigor of our study. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each of your comments and outline the corresponding revisions made.
________________________________________
General Comments & Strength Points
We are grateful for your positive evaluation of our manuscript, particularly regarding its robust methodology, statistical rigor, cultural context, and comprehensive analysis of variables. We acknowledge your concerns about the study’s temporal scope, geographic limitations, and qualitative data incorporation, and we address these in our revisions where applicable.
________________________________________
Revision 1: Research Question
Comment: The research question should explicitly address how generational change (Generation Y and Z) affects place attachment and attitudes towards small homes in Turkey.
Response: We have revised the research question in the introduction to clearly emphasize the comparative analysis of generational differences in housing preferences, with a focus on the acceptance of alternative housing models such as tiny houses. This refinement enhances the study's specificity and alignment with its objectives.
________________________________________
Revision 2: Originality and Relevance
Comment: The study contributes uniquely by analyzing tiny house trends in Turkey, integrating generational theory with place attachment, and addressing the emerging trend of alternative housing in developing nations.
Response: We have expanded our discussion in the introduction and literature review to explicitly highlight the study’s novel contributions. This includes a comparative framework between Western and non-Western contexts and a deeper integration of generational theory into place attachment analysis.
________________________________________
Revision 3: Novel Contributions
Comment: The study contributes to the literature by evidencing generational differences in housing preferences, determining the association between place attachment and small house acceptance, and providing an overview of cultural and generational factors influencing housing choices in Turkey.
Response: We have strengthened the discussion section to explicitly outline these contributions and contextualized our findings within the broader literature to emphasize the significance of these generational and cultural insights.
________________________________________
Revision 4: Methodological Improvements
Comment: The methodology section should provide a more structured framework to enhance clarity and coherence.
Response: We have restructured the methodology section by adding a clear research framework diagram that outlines the study's design, data collection process, and analysis methods. This structural enhancement improves readability and helps readers better understand the interconnections between research components.
________________________________________
Revision 5: Conclusions and Evidence
Comment: The conclusion should be more compelling by rewriting the problem statement, summarizing key findings, and emphasizing the main takeaways rather than merely restating previous arguments.
Response: The conclusion has been revised to provide a stronger synthesis of key findings, explicitly connect the study’s implications to policy and urban planning, and suggest directions for future research. We have also refined the concluding remarks to make a more persuasive case for the study’s relevance.
________________________________________
Revision 6: References
Comment: The reference list should include more recent studies (last 5 years), additional Turkish housing research sources, and further generational theory literature.
Response: We have updated the reference list by incorporating additional recent sources on Turkish housing policies, generational mobility trends, and tiny house adoption. This ensures the study remains aligned with the latest research developments.
________________________________________
Revision 7: Tables and Figures
Comment: Tables and figures should be numbered consecutively and accompanied by clear headings and captions.
Response: All tables and figures have been revised to include numbered titles, short description headings above, and detailed captions below. This ensures consistency and proper citation of visual elements within the text.
________________________________________
We deeply appreciate your insightful feedback, which has significantly enhanced our manuscript. We believe the revisions have improved the clarity, coherence, and contribution of our study, and we look forward to your further evaluation.
Sincerely,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1 The paper compares the differences between generation Y and generation Z, but there are no intuitive pictures or descriptions of the two tiny houses, such as a summary of the characteristics of the two tiny houses and the difference between them. This is very important for result analysis and design suggestions.
2 The logic of some conclusions is questionable. For example, in the conclusion part, "The study's results show that Generation Z members' levels of place attachment and 494 attachment to neighborhood and city are relatively lower than those of Generation Y. This 495 implies that Generation Z is more likely to be mobile." Maybe it is not because of the low level of place attachment that Generation Z is more mobile, but because of the strong mobility of generation Z that leads to its low level of place attachment. Reasonable analysis and explanation should be made for this.
3 At present, the paper is mainly based on Lewicka's (2011) place attachment scale, but can we consider whether the scale can be localized? For example, are there Turkish cultural and social factors that affect place attachment? This can form some more valuable academic theoretical innovations.
4 The paper mainly studies the acceptance of micro-houses from the perspective of "generational differences", but can it be considered whether it can be linked to broader social trends such as remote work, sharing economy, and sustainable lifestyles? In this way, the connection between tiny houses and new lifestyles, especially the current WFH lifestyle, is also considered to be included in the parameter study.
5 The paper uses a questionnaire survey, but in terms of data cleaning, are extreme values handled? Is the normal distribution of the data checked?
6 If there are resources, qualitative interviews can be added to supplement the explanatory power of the questionnaire results. Because this study is more social science-oriented, especially place attachment is essentially a perceptual thing.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language can be checked again.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Dear Reviewer,
We appreciate your insightful feedback and valuable suggestions, which have greatly contributed to improving our manuscript. Below, we provide a detailed point-by-point response to each of your comments and outline the revisions made accordingly.
________________________________________
Revision 1: Intuitive Visuals and Description of Tiny Houses
Comment: The paper compares Generation Y and Generation Z, but it lacks intuitive pictures or descriptions of the two types of tiny houses. A summary of their characteristics and differences is essential for result analysis and design suggestions.
Response: We have now included a dedicated section summarizing the characteristics of Fixed Tiny Houses and Mobile Tiny Houses, including a comparison table in Section (2.3. Tiny house movement in Türkiye). Additionally, we have incorporated figures illustrating these house types to provide readers with a clearer understanding of their features and implications.
________________________________________
Revision 2: Clarification of Place Attachment and Mobility Relationship
Comment: The logic of some conclusions is questionable. The claim that low place attachment leads to greater mobility in Generation Z may need re-evaluation, as it could be that their high mobility reduces place attachment rather than the reverse.
Response: We acknowledge this important distinction and have revised our discussion in Section (4. Findings and Discussion) to present a more balanced analysis. We now explore both possible causal directions, considering whether high mobility fosters lower place attachment or vice versa, and we support this discussion with relevant literature references (e.g., Urry, 2007; Twenge, 2017).
________________________________________
Revision 3: Cultural and Social Context of Place Attachment
Comment: The study relies heavily on Lewicka’s (2011) place attachment scale, but can it be localized? Are there Turkish cultural and social factors influencing place attachment?
Response: We agree that cultural context is crucial. In response, we have included a subsection discussing Turkish socio-cultural dynamics that may impact place attachment (Section 1. Introduction& 4.4. Limitations and Future Research Directions). We have also referenced relevant Turkish studies (e.g., Göregenli et al., 2014; Göksoy & Hacıhasanoğlu, 2023) to contextualize our findings within Türkiye’s unique socio-spatial framework. While we retain Lewicka’s scale for cross-cultural comparability, we discuss its limitations and potential adaptations for a Turkish setting.
________________________________________
Revision 4: Broader Social Trends and Tiny Houses
Comment: The study examines micro-house acceptance through generational differences but could also explore broader social trends such as remote work, the sharing economy, and sustainable lifestyles.
Response: This is a valuable suggestion. We have now expanded our discussion in Section (4. Findings and Discussion & subtitles) to incorporate how remote work (WFH lifestyle), and sustainability movements influence tiny house preferences. This addition strengthens the study’s connection to contemporary societal transformations beyond generational perspectives.
________________________________________
Revision 5: Data Cleaning and Distribution Checks
Comment: The study uses a questionnaire, but how were extreme values handled? Was the normal distribution of the data verified?
Response: We appreciate this technical point. We have now explicitly outlined our data cleaning procedures in the methodology section (Section 3.3. & 3.4. Validity and Reliability Findings of the Place Attachment Scale). To address outliers, we applied Harman’s single-factor test for common method bias.________________________________________
Revision 6: Inclusion of Qualitative Data
Comment: If resources allow, qualitative interviews could be added to supplement the explanatory power of the questionnaire, given that place attachment is inherently perceptual.
Response: While our study is primarily quantitative, we recognize the value of qualitative insights. We acknowledge this as a limitation and suggest future research directions for qualitative explorations (Section 4.4. Limitations and Future Research Directions).
________________________________________
We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback, which has significantly improved the depth and clarity of our manuscript. We believe that the revisions have strengthened our study’s theoretical, methodological, and empirical contributions. We look forward to any further suggestions you may have.
Sincerely,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsall requested revisions have been made.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have significantly enhanced the manuscript through extensive revisions, resulting in a work of exceptional quality that offers groundbreaking insights. This paper now stands as a highly valuable contribution to the field, worthy of publication in a top-tier scientific journal.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author revised the comments and the quality of the paper improved significantly.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate.
