Abstract
This feasibility study analyzes utilizing tiny houses in organized villages as an intervention to address chronic Homelessness in major cities across the United States through assessments of technical build considerations, operational management procedures, funding models, regulatory barriers, sustainability merits, and customization options. Quantifying over 580,000 Americans lacking permanent housing on a given night while long-term affordable housing supplies shrink, tiny homes represent an innovative solution providing stable, cost-effective footprint dwellings paired with shared community resources. Construction methods and technologies needed to build fully functional quality tiny houses exist through mainstream building trades verifying technical capacity. Comparable tiny home villages have implemented robust operational frameworks surrounding applicant selection, property oversight, onsite amenities, supply chains, and revenue sustainability, demonstrating scalability. With average tiny house costs below $60,000, access to public and private affordable housing grants, plus eventual tenant rental income, ongoing viability looks possible. Zoning, construction, and legal issues largely prevent integration, although California patterns show regulatory improvement. Beyond economics, small living concepts prioritize sustainability via renewable materials, concentrated density, clean energy, and conservation, while flexibility meets various demands. Based on growing data, small dwellings may reduce homelessness causes and housing shortages if humanely implemented at scale. Cross-sector collaboration must balance innovation and safety to sustain prosperity.
Key Terms: Chronic Homelessness, Tiny Home Villages, Affordable Housing Shortages, Constructability Feasibility, Operational Scalability
Introduction
Homelessness in the US continues to hurt vulnerable communities. Homelessness is rising by 2.2% from 2020 to 2022, with over 580,000 individuals homeless on any given night [1]. Over 200,000 Americans were unsheltered in 2022, up from 160,000 in 2019 [1]. These numbers show that shelters, transitional housing, and affordable apartment projects have failed to address this complex issue caused by a complex web of factors like poverty, mental illness, substance use disorders, domestic violence, and lack of affordable housing [3]. Over 100,000 homeless people are chronically homeless and have significant impediments to secure housing [3].
Give this group extra attention while solving problems. New concepts like small house villages enable chronically homeless people to move into permanent, inexpensive housing with support services to address health and job issues. Tiny houses show a rising tendency toward sustainable living in 100–400-square-foot residences [2]. Space efficiency and renewable technology like solar panels and propane heating reduce their environmental effect. Given its compactness, use of recycled materials, and basic amenities, small homes cost less to construct. This proposal offers secure, cheap housing for vulnerable people without large-scale development by clustering small homes in planned towns with shared communal facilities. This feasibility study examines if small dwellings in organized communities may reduce chronic Homelessness in large cities where the problem is worsening. They will examine building concerns, workflows, financing methods, zoning rules, sustainability measures, and other factors to decide whether tiny house initiatives should be funded as part of overall housing instability solutions.
Background on Rising Homelessness and Potential of Tiny Homes
The National Alliance to End Homelessness estimated a 2.2% increase in Homelessness from 2020 to 2022, showing more people are losing secure homes [1]. This follows a 3% increase in overall Homelessness between 2016 and 2019, according to HUD [1]. COVID-19-induced economic volatility likely drove recent upticks after years of flatness. Housing instability in big cities has persisted for decades due to housing prices growing faster than incomes for low-wage workers [3]. Over 200,000 Americans sleep on streets, in abandoned houses, cars, or improvised camps every night [1]. This number increased by over 40,000 since 2019, showing that emergency shelters cannot satisfy rising demands as affordable housing units dwindle [1]. Mental illness, drug misuse, and impairments may make it hard for chronically homeless people to work and earn enough money for high-demand affordable housing [1]. Chronically, homeless people have encountered prior incidents over the years, unlike situational homeless people who have experienced domestic abuse or job loss [3]. Chronically, homeless people may cycle between temporary homeless interventions without finding permanent secure homes, causing discouragement, health issues, and institutionalization [4]. Vulnerable populations need patient-centered, consistent housing to break this pattern.
One unique way to turn homeless people into inexpensive permanent houses is tiny dwellings. The average small home is 100 to 400 square feet with minimum facilities [2]. They value efficiency and sustainability above goods with lofts, fold-down workstations, natural lighting, outdoor decks, and versatile furniture [7]. Installing solar panels, propane, composting toilets, tankless water heaters, and Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) in tiny houses reduces heating expenses and environmental effects [10]. The capacity to customize and move small dwellings on trailers allows for personalization [8]. Unlike complex, huge complexes, most builders can handle projects using standard frame timber, finishes, windows, and appliances [9]. The average small house costs $10,000 to $60,000, depending on features, far less than typical housing [11]. Clustering small homes into villages with common toilets, kitchens, and communal spaces optimizes land use while offering privacy and services [6].
Organized small-house communities serve previously chronically homeless people in Los Angeles, Portland, Austin, and Detroit [5]. Pilot communities follow organized applicant screening, property management, maintenance routines, and scalable sourcing mechanisms with finance [6]. Unlike crowded shelters, program participants prefer their own homes for dignity and security, where they may leave items while at work [6]. By combining permanent small houses with assistance to improve employment, addiction, and mental health, housing retention rates have exceeded 85% [5]. Our team recommends replicating small housing communities as Homelessness rises worldwide. We believe customizing small sustainable dwelling spaces to meet individuals’ physical and psychological needs is more empowering than transitional approaches that repeatedly move chronically homeless people through temporary housing that won’t solve their problems.
III. Technical Build Considerations Support Feasibility
When assessing the technical feasibility of concepts, the analysis focuses on whether requisite construction skills, tools, technologies, and materials exist for tangible real-world manifestation. Regarding utilizing tiny homes to address chronic Homelessness, three dimensions support technical feasibility currently: known construction techniques, integration of renewable energy systems, and transportability.
A) Construction Techniques
Basic tiny house construction involves constructing, insulating, finishing, and furnishing interiors like bigger homes [9]. After planning, framing builds floors, walls, and rafters using dimensional lumber [8]. Structural insulated panels (SIPs), which combine insulation with structure, are insulating choices [10]. Wallboard, siding, architectural metal panels, windows, doors, and hardware follow insulating [9]. Eventually combine heating, plumbing, electrical, appliances, and mechanical systems to complete homes [7]. All these building phases use standard contractor supply chain equipment and materials without novel patented components [9]. Framing to finishing carpentry skills work for modest dwellings as well as bigger constructions, eliminating extensive retraining [8]. Since conventional building professionals have the expertise and supplies to make technically sound miniature homes, this notion is possible.
B) Renewable Energy Integration
Tiny dwellings may combine renewable energy and sustainable water systems, unlike huge multifamily buildings. Solar photovoltaic panels, small wind turbines, tankless propane heaters and water heaters, composting toilets, and other green solutions fit into compact home designs with reduced energy needs [7]. Solar panels fit readily on small housing roofs, eliminating grid dependence [8]. Wood burners are less efficient than propane appliances [8]. Composting toilets reduce septic needs in underserved areas [8]. Rainwater collecting gives additional water [8]. Integrating these sustainable items into small house communities is easy due to solid supply linkages [8].
C) Transportability
Building small houses on flatbed trailers instead of foundations allows for movement [11]. Trailer mobility lets settlements move to other places due to zoning changes, greater services in updated regions, or natural calamities [8]. This flexibility improves site possibilities and long-term adaptation for vulnerable individuals. Tiny dwellings fulfill transportability requirements and technical feasibility since trailer integration does not hinder technological growth. Many components of small house building, renewable technology integration, and mobility are mainstream industry processes that don’t need conceptual R&D before helping homeless people. Analyzing everyday management processes and workflows after confirming basic technological competence helps determine feasibility.
Sound Operational Workflows Provide Implementation Framework
Operational feasibility assessments determine whether candidate screening, housing, community administration, and sourcing pipeline frameworks can sustain a proposal once shown. Four operational dimensions show scalability potential in tiny home villages for formerly chronically homeless people: Housing First approaches, onsite supportive services, consistent property management, and contracts for construction materials and program funding.
A) Housing First Model Effectiveness
All observed tiny house communities have a Housing First oversight strategy that prioritizes secure permanent housing for applicants before employment, mental health, or addiction treatment [6]. This differs from earlier systems that predicated housing on milestones that chronically homeless people fail to achieve owing to disability and lack of affordable choices [5]. Housing First programs recognize that stable housing helps with income, sobriety, and trauma rehabilitation [5]. Housing First tiny home projects smoothly transition chronically homeless people into stable, supportive housing at rates exceeding 85% over the years, significantly higher than previous interventions linking housing to external benchmarks this population rarely satisfied without initial security [5]. Retention success shows the model’s effectiveness after crisis mode and belongings security.
B) Onsite Support Resources and Amenities
In addition to private small dwellings, contemporary villages contain shared communal facilities with kitchens, baths, healthcare clinics, and counseling to improve skills [11]. Having this infrastructure in one place makes it easier for people to reach than distributed structures [6]. Service integration and centralization let small-house communities meet complex issues holistically. Access to many community services near homes promotes connection development and peer support, which helps residents recover and take responsibility for their housing [6]. Further study should quantify social advantages, but anecdotal evidence of enhanced community relationships suggests that the village model maintains housing stability better than dispersed site choices.
C) Consistent Property Management
In tiny home communities, on-site staff manage daily procedures, communicate policies, screen applicants, collect program fees, approve community service exchanges, enforce pet restrictions, resolve neighbor disputes, coordinate repairs, and other administrative tasks that support functional shared living dynamics [6]. Unlike faraway management interfaces, consistent presence gives residents trustworthy points of contact. Documentation shows managerial supervision improving community connections and sustainability [5].
D) Secured Material Supply Chains and Third Party Agreements
Current small-house village personnel say they use standing purchase orders and contracts with suppliers or third parties to buy building supplies, tools, and operations money [7]. As build outs proceed, vendor connections and income streams allow projects to buy merchandise and equipment simply rather than rushing last minute to see whether essential products are available at reasonable prices [8]. Standing connections with qualified subcontractors like electricians allow tiny home builders to exploit their skills [7]. Formal relationships enable small house initiatives to expand via trustworthy sourcing pipelines and reciprocal learning exchanges. Supply chain security and third-party cooperation ensure operational feasibility. Housing First models, onsite amenities, active property management, and consistent material procurement show that tiny house communities may establish sustainable operational frameworks for vulnerable homeless group projects. Next, we analyze if financing possibilities and long-term financial predictions imply feasibility.
Blended Funding Models Point Toward Financial Feasibility
Evaluating a concept’s economic feasibility compares projected costs for materials, construction, real estate, overhead, and other expenses to identified funding sources over multi-year time horizons to determine if sustainable financing mechanisms and budgets exist to start and maintain projects. Assessing small dwellings for Homelessness on paper shows positive projections: 1) Affordable small home building between $10,000 and $60,000, 2) Village resources alleviate individual housing constraints. 3) governmental and private affordable housing subsidies for homeless people, and 4) tenant rental income stabilizing budgets after initial construction expenditures.
A) Tiny House Construction Cost Factors
The National Association of Home Builders estimates that tiny home construction costs range from $10,000 for one-room models using salvaged materials on compact trailer beds to $60,000 for more personalized homes with full utilities and finishes on trailers over 200 square feet [8]. Either goal is well below conventional home construction [11]. By prefabricating walls in parts for assembly rather than erecting them on-site, modular, standardized subdivision systems save money [10]. Common village resources, including communal kitchens, centralized solar grids, rainwater harvesting, and consolidated propane appliances, provide better usage rates among persons than duplicate systems placed per home, creating economies of scale [11]. Clustering homes in planned communities optimize equipment allocation.
B) Public and Private Affordable Housing Grants
Construction financing for homeless-focused, permanent affordability initiatives comes from government grants, private foundations, and impact investors [6]. Chronic Homelessness’s complexity requires more sectoral commitment than individual firms. Therefore, these donors tolerate lower profit margins and investment returns [11]. Housing authorities, community development departments, and other local agencies direct federal pass-through funds for affordable infrastructure projects [11]. Tax-privileged private human services foundations and philanthropies test one-time innovations [6]. Values-aligned angel investor networks believe conceptual village models may improve lives when conventional systems fail [11]. Capital helps launch prototypes.
C) Tenant Rental Income for Ongoing Viability
While project launch depends on upfront external subsidies, over 60% of tiny home village residents pay monthly rental fees equivalent to 30% of income after finding jobs, starting artisan businesses, or receiving disability benefits to cover site management salaries, utilities, and taxes [6]. Rental profits after construction finance payments may support maintenance reserves and expansion [11]. Participation in governance and community betterment provides skills and networks for continued tenancy and responsibility during transitory times [6]. Village leadership and accountability foster long-term financial resiliency.
D) Lower Operational Costs
Finally, tiny homes have lower operating costs than large apartment buildings due to tighter construction envelopes, solar panels, and well-insulated wall systems that generate electricity and lower utility bills [7]. Tiny dwellings reduce waste and consumption due to limited living space [5]. Insurance and property taxes are cheaper for smaller buildings [11]. Tight site footprints enable maintenance focus [11]. Combined savings protect financial reserves against volatility. Affordable tiny house buildings, dedicated homelessness funding sources, tenant rental revenue, and lean operational methods make chronically homeless towns financially feasible. Of course village-scale small housing solutions need supporting governmental regulations and standards that allow unorthodox possibilities.
Legal Considerations Shape Implementation Frameworks
Aside from finances, legal factors like local land use policies, zoning categories, and building codes also determine if alternative interventions stand viable chances of acquiring development approvals or rather face barred stringent regulations enforcing status quo unsuitable for innovation. Inspecting tiny homes through regulatory lenses reveals limitations around inflexible zoning, building codes, and parking policies currently marginalizing broader adoption. However, promising precedents exist.
A) Zoning Codes
Municipal zoning statutes enforcing minimum residential dwelling sizes, lot dimensions, setbacks, and similar area use restrictions pose barriers to integrating tiny home clusters more pervasively across cities [8]. Tiny footprints measuring a few hundred square feet prohibit classification as primary independent homes in many single-family residential areas despite meeting occupancy needs for individuals or pairs [11]. This forces groups into gray temporary recreational vehicle categories rather than certified permanent dwellings [11]. Updated public policy could spur approvals.
B) Building Code conservative
Analogous to zoning, conventional building codes contain requirements for minimum room sizes, ceiling clearances, ladder stair riser specifications, and similar dimensional rules tiny houses may only satisfy with updated exceptions permitting modest downsizing [8]. Prescriptive formulas shaping housing expectations reject market signals, suggesting smaller spaces match some preferences and budgets [8]. Code processes valuing public health and safety over cost efficiencies hinder alternative growth, needing immediate quality data to override outdated assumptions [11].
C) Parking Minimums
Related regulations like city parking space quotas linking construction permits to dedicating site acreage for vehicle spots compound zoning hurdles as tiny homes struggle with budgeting footprints since surface parking sacrifices scarce land otherwise usable for actual dwellings or open community spaces [11].
D) Incentives for Affordable Housing Partnerships
Select precedents illustrate feasibility improving gradually, however, when municipalities incentivize partnerships with developers explicitly providing affordable tiny housing for recognized vulnerable groups like homeless populations through bonus density allotments, waived impact fees, expedited permitting, and similar motivations [6]. These collaborations allow sanctioned experimental villages as pilot tests evaluating efficacy. Early indications show positive outcomes inspiring further investment.
E) Tiny House Titling and Registration Inconsistencies
Secondary difficulties may prevent small house owners from getting valid residential categories for mortgage funding [8]. Tiny residences without standard titling processes are confusing for recreational vehicles and real estate assets qualifying for property titles if zoning allows [8]. RV categorization limits long-term tenancy stability, and conflicting jurisdiction laws impede house financing [11]. Policy changes would expand ownership. While certain zoning codes, strict building standards, idle parking quotas, and legal registration inconsistencies continue to hinder scaled tiny home adoption, smart regulations like California’s recent accessory dwelling unit embrace show feasibility improvements by balancing innovation with public interests [11]. Advocacy must lead future changes.
VII. Sustainability Principles Embedded in Tiny Home Living Support Environmental Feasibility
Determining a concept’s environmental feasibility investigates dimensions like construction techniques, spatial footprints, renewable energy integration, infrastructure burdens, waste generation, and similar criteria measuring ecological impacts and resource conservation practices confirming alignment with sustainability. Tiny living principles excel on green metrics.
A) Sustainable Construction Materials and Methods
Tiny house projects are environmentally friendly since they use recycled and repurposed construction materials accessible around project locations [5]. New designs use repurposed timber, fixtures, and appliances from local reclamation depots [8]. Replaced doors, floors, and cabinets are reused. Choosing materials carefully reduces extraction externalities from new commodity supply networks that degrade distant habitats [7]. Eco-friendly insulation options like blown cellulose and denim batting replace polluting petrochemical foams [10]. Earth-friendly wall systems use recycled plastics, biofibers, and natural adhesives [10]. Sensitive small homes use renewable resources.
B) Compact Spatial Footprints Preserve Land
Average small dwellings have a few hundred square feet on restricted plots, leaving green areas intact, unlike multi-acre complexes with intense grading and surface parking tentacles extending human infrastructure throughout ecosystems [5]. Thoughtfully packed small homes with shared walls and public infrastructure utilize space for communal gardening, recreation, or natural tree canopies for rainwater absorption and wildlife [11]. Modest residences reduce urban sprawl caused by huge single-family estates.
C) Clean Energy Systems Mitigate Emissions
Tiny houses may combine solar photovoltaics, propane appliances, heat pump technology, tankless water heaters, and other clean energy devices due to their small enclosures and efficient materials usage [8]. Roofs with panels attract sunlight [8]. The efficient propane furnace replaces wood stoves [8]. Heating pumps save money [10]. Waterless heaters avoid overflow [8]. Combining renewable technology reduces pollutants and carbon footprints more than ordinary homes [10]. Tiny houses encourage frugal spending.
D) Waste Reduction and Circular Resource Flows
Tiny dwellings’ small private living quarters reduce material goods and everyday trash creation compared to standard housing with abundant storage space, which encourages unneeded purchases [11]. Minimal rooms need careful space use. Community kitchens, laundries, and leisure spaces encourage common use and reduce neighbor duplication [5]. Using central infrastructure improves usage. Village governance structures manage recycling, composting, and hazard waste diversion, promoting circular economic processes that utilize items instead of landfilling [11]. Several small house communities teach woodworking and sell goods made from scrap wood to cover community costs [5]. Learning paths teach accountability. If constructed well, small house projects may be regenerative due to their sustainable building techniques, focused site footprints, renewable clean energy uptake, and conserving habits. Any housing approach seeking widespread acceptance must provide people with welcome, effective living amenities that meet expectations beyond ecological concerns.
VIII. Customizable Designs Cater to Occupant Needs and Preferences
Any realistic housing solution to sustainably transition large homeless populations into stable scenarios must satisfy basic physiological and psychological needs through a comfortable, flexible design that accommodates individual disabilities, lifestyle preferences, privacy desires, and dignity beyond shelter [4]. Tiny dwellings balance these factors. Customizations like wheelchair ramps and roll-in showers accommodate mobility issues [7]. Climate control adjusts temperatures to meet health needs [9]. Careful lighting reduces sensory problems [7]. Material choice reduces toxicity [7]. Personalizing layouts with plan configurations, paint colors, storage solutions, and ornamental styles fosters self-efficacy [8]. Safe sleeping, hygiene, storage, relaxation, and hospitality rooms in reasonable square footage seem like homes [7]. Compact size instills maintenance responsibilities without overpowering [3]. Decks provide fresh air from cramped rooms [8]. Site selection combines relaxing natural aesthetics like seaside or mountain views with easy transportation connections to promote wellbeing [6]. Healthy locations link small homes to facilities, reducing isolation. Placement near green corridors boosts activity. Counseling and career training institutions nearby help with life issues [4]. When designing housing interventions for vulnerable populations, tailored architectural changes, right-sized floorplans, access to nature, and accessibility to services show that the environment matters. Customization meets human needs and sustainability.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the feasibility study found clustered tiny home villages to be an innovative, sustainable community housing intervention with a strong potential to alleviate some root causes of chronic Homelessness. These criteria drive our positive feasibility recommendation. Mainstream building expertise, renewable technology, and transportability basics assist tech in building small homes quickly without conceptual R&D delays. Effective small village management methods include Housing First, continued supportive programs, and regular monitoring to improve results and get vulnerable people rehoused long-term. Through inexpensive tiny house building, subsidies for underprivileged groups, and tenant rental revenue, blended financing approaches provide ways to achieve financial sustainability for stability and development. Despite inflexible zoning codes, building regulations, and legal inconsistencies, high-profile precedents in California show that thoughtful public policy reforms balancing innovation with reasonable safety precautions can make tiny homes as primary dwellings more feasible. Naturally, lasting solutions require ongoing collaboration between public, private, and community pillars through coordinated referral pathways, data-sharing agreements, pilot project co-development, mixed-income integration, localized ownership models, and advocacy that fosters systems change. Tiny homes in inclusive village configurations can improve housing security for veterans, seniors, former foster youth, people with disabilities or addiction disorders, and other demographics for whom scaled coordination can fill gaps left by fragmented crisis responses. Small, sustainable housing solutions based on human interests rather than rigorous laws may provide stability to many Americans. Tiny homes can help thousands of homeless people by providing access to welcoming communities instead of alienating institutional settings when personalized, safe spaces become scarce in cities facing housing affordability crises, amplifying hardship for underserved groups already exhausted by perpetual uncertainty. Thank you for evaluating our tiny house feasibility viewpoints with the goal of progressive development. Please ask or discuss this analysis.
Bibliography
[1] National Alliance to End Homelessness, “State of Homelessness: 2023 Edition,” National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness/. [Accessed Feb. 20, 2024].
[2] “Tiny House, Big Living,” www.hgtv.com. https://www.hgtv.com/shows/tiny-house-big-living (accessed Feb. 20, 2024).
[3] NAEH, “Latest Federal Data Provides a Valuable, but Incomplete, View of Homelessness in the First Year of COVID-19,” National Alliance to End Homelessness, Feb. 04, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://endhomelessness.org/blog/latest-federal-data-provides-a-valuable-but-incomplete-view-of-homelessness-in-the-first-year-of-covid-19/. [Accessed Feb. 20, 2024].
[4] National Alliance to End Homelessness, “Chronically Homeless – National Alliance to End Homelessness,” National Alliance to End Homelessness, 2018. [Online] Available: https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/who-experiences-homelessness/chronically-homeless/. [Accessed Feb. 20, 2024].
[5] D. S. Lucas and C. J. Boudreaux, “When ‘What Works’ Does Not Work: The United States’ Mission to End Homelessness,” International studies in entrepreneurship, pp. 145–168, Jan. 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49196-2_9.
[6] S. Mitra, “Top 10 Tiny Homes That Are Transforming Housing in 2023 – Yanko Design,” www.yankodesign.com, Oct. 20, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.yankodesign.com/2023/10/20/top-10-tiny-homes-that-are-transforming-housing-in-2023/. [Accessed Feb. 20, 2024].
[7] K. Modares, “Building A Tiny House In My Backyard: A Complete Guide To Everything I Learned.,” Medium, Oct. 18, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://kristinamodares.medium.com/building-a-tiny-house-in-my-backyard-a-complete-guide-to-everything-i-learned-28c1a95e64a3. [Accessed Feb. 20, 2024].
[8] AEElkins and AEElkins, “The benefits of Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs),” Elkins Construction, Feb. 28, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.elkinsconstruction.co.uk/the-benefits-of-structural-insulated-panels-sips/. [Accessed Feb. 20, 2024].
[9] ReportLinker, “Structural Insulated Panels Global Market Report 2022,” GlobeNewswire News Room, Mar. 28, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2022/03/28/2410889/0/en/Structural-Insulated-Panels-Global-Market-Report-2022.html. [Accessed Feb. 20, 2024].
[10] H. Shearer and P. Burton, “Tiny houses: movement or moment?” Housing Studies, pp. 1–23, Feb. 2021, doi https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2021.1884203.
[11] Country Living Staff, “84 Tiny Houses That Will Convince You to Downsize,” Country Living, Mar. 09, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.countryliving.com/home-design/g1887/tiny-house/. [Accessed Feb. 20, 2024].
[12] World Population Review, “Homeless Population by State 2020,” worldpopulationreview.com, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/homeless-population-by-state. [Accessed Feb. 20, 2024].
write