Brooks and Mueller: Mobile Home Prevalence in the USA

In Factors Affecting Mobile Home Prevalence in the United States: Poverty, Natural Amenities, and Employment in Natural Resources, Matthew M. Brooks and J. Tom Mueller (both Economics, Sociology, and Education - Penn State at the time of this publication) pursue a “geographic understanding of mobile home prevalence” in order to reveal factors that influence where mobile homes are located, and why.

The United States Census Bureau and Department of Housing and Urban Development define mobile homes as housing assembled in a manufacturing plant and then transported to the site of use, where it is placed on a permanent chassis or base frame. According to the authors, most of the prior research on mobile homes had occurred at an individual level or focused on the consequences of housing provision in mobile homes. There was, however, little to no literature on the prevalence of said mobile homes and why mobile homes are more likely to be in some communities compared to others.

The authors evaluated mobile home prevalence across 3,108 counties and assessed several possible influences in these patterns, including demographic data, employment in natural resources and construction occupations, and natural amenities. The highest percentage of mobile home prevalence in a county was 60.17%, the lowest was 0.0%, and the average prevalence was 12.54%.

Geographic distribution of county level percentages of households who live in mobile homes for the United States in 2015. Source: 2011–2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimates

The analysis found that although the strongest predictor of mobile home prevalence was the percentage of the population near poverty, other variables played a significant role. Labor force participation, unemployment, employment in natural resource industries, and environmental factors (in particular, year-round temperatures) all play an important role in influencing the percentage of a county’s population living in mobile homes.

It is important to note that the authors acknowledge there are two sides to mobile home life: positives (housing provision and affordability) and negatives (social stigma, social isolation, legal and financial inequality). Yet, because residence in a mobile home is often “associated with negative social, economic, and health-related outcomes,” knowing more about mobile home prevalence may inform future housing policy development.