nach oben

European Journal of Wood and Wood Products

Erschienen in:

02.12.2022 | Review Article

Stakeholder perceptions of wood-based products in the built environment: a literature review

verfasst von: Venla Wallius, Janni Kunttu, Pekka Leskinen, Jo Van Brusselen, Annukka Näyhä

Erschienen in: European Journal of Wood and Wood Products | Ausgabe 2/2023

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Current global environmental challenges, such as climate change, set an urge to seek renewable low-emission alternatives to substitute fossil fuel-derived products while transitioning towards circular bioeconomy. Wood has proven to be a versatile renewable material that is able to substitute fossil-based materials. However, the market potential and uptake of wood-based products is also dependent on the preferences of consumers and other stakeholder groups. This paper presents a systematic literature review of studies examining stakeholder perceptions of wood-based products, which also resulted in the identification of research gaps and suggestions for future research directions. The results show that while there has been an adequate amount of research concerning perceptions of wood construction and wood products in the built environment especially in recent years, the perceptions of other wood-based products and emerging innovations, such as wood-based textiles and chemicals have previously been studied only marginally. The results show that relevant stakeholders can be divided into two major groups: professionals at different places in the forest products value chain and end-users. Stakeholders are interested in wood-based products in the built environment, seen as competitive to conventional non-wood alternatives. Wood-based products are seen as interesting and environmentally friendly, but also expensive and not easily available. Moreover, there is a lack of information regarding product characteristics. To improve the market share of especially new wood-based products, the focus needs to be on both product development as well as providing information, including information on the environmental performance, on different products.

Nächster Artikel The influence of fracture energy on wooden structural members due to contact explosion

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Aguilar FX, Cai Z (2010) Conjoint effect of environmental labeling, disclosure of forest of origin and price on consumer preferences for wood products in the US and UK. Ecol Econ 70(2):308–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.002CrossRef

Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211CrossRef

Ajzen I (2001) Nature and operation of attitudes. Annu Rev Psychol 52:27–58CrossRefPubMed

Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1977) Attitude-behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychol Bull 84(5):888–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888CrossRef

Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

Alderman D (2013) Housing and construction markets. In: UNECE/FAO (ed.) Forest Products Annual Market Review 2012–2013. Geneva Timber and Forest Study Paper 33. Forestry and Timber Section, Geneva, Switzerland, pp 115–122

Alves H, Fernandes C, Raposo M (2016) Social media marketing: a literature review and implications. Psychol Mark 33(12):1029–1038CrossRef

Anderson RC, Hansen EN (2004) Determining consumer preferences for ecolabeled forest products: an experimental approach. J for 102(4):28–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/jof/102.4.28CrossRef

Arnautović-Aksić D (2016) A comparative analysis of architects’ views on wood construction. Spatium 1(36):100–105. https://doi.org/10.2298/SPAT1636100ACrossRef

Aryapratama R, Janssen M (2017) Prospective life cycle assessment of bio-based adipic acid production from forest residues. J Clean Prod 164:434–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2017.06.222CrossRef

Bergman R, Puettmann M, Taylor A, Skog KE (2014) The carbon impacts of wood products. For Prod J 64(78):220–231. https://doi.org/10.13073/FPJ-D-14-00047CrossRef

Berninger K, Kneeshaw D, Messier C (2009) The role of cultural models in local perceptions of SFM—differences and similarities of interest groups from three boreal regions. J Environ Manag 90(2):740–751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.01.004CrossRef

Bysheim K, Nyrud AQ (2009) Using a predictive model to analyze architects’ intentions of using wood in urban construction. For Prod J 59(7–8):65–74

Cai Z, Aguilar FX (2013) Consumer stated purchasing preferences and corporate social responsibility in the wood products industry: a conjoint analysis in the U.S. and China. Ecol Econ 95:118–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.08.017CrossRef

European Commission (2020) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A new Circular Economy Action Plan

Costa S, Garcia S, Ibanez L (2011) Do taste and quality perception influence consumer preferences for wood? An econometric model with latent variables. For Sci 57(2):89–101. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestscience/57.2.89CrossRef

D’Amato D, Veijonaho S, Toppinen A (2019) Towards sustainability: forest-based circular bioeconomy business models in Finnish SMEs. For Policy Econ 110:101848CrossRef

de Besi M, McCormick K (2015) Towards a Bioeconomy in Europe: National. Reg Ind Strategies Sustain 7(8):10461–10478. https://doi.org/10.3390/su70810461CrossRef

Dietz T, Börner J, Förster JJ, von Braun J (2018) Governance of the bioeconomy: a global comparative study of national bioeconomy strategies. Sustainability 10(9):3190. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093190CrossRef

Donkor BN, Kallioranta S, Vlosky RP, Shupe TF (2003) A regional comparison of US homeowner perceptions about treated wood. Forestry Chronicle 79(5):967–975. https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc79967-5CrossRef

Elo S, Kyngäs H (2008) The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs 62:107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.xCrossRefPubMed

Franzini F, Toivonen R, Toppinen A (2018) Why not wood? Benefits and barriers of wood as a multistory construction material: perceptions of municipal civil servants from Finland. Buildings 8(11):159. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings8110159CrossRef

Fredricks AJ, Dossett DL (1983) Attitude-behavior relations: a comparison of the Fishbein-Ajzen and the Bentler-Speckart models. J Pers Soc Psychol 45(3):501. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.501CrossRef

Giurca A, Späth P (2017) A forest-based bioeconomy for Germany? Strengths, weaknesses and policy options for lignocellulosic biorefineries. J Clean Prod 153:51–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.156CrossRef

Gold S, Rubik F (2009) Consumer attitudes towards timber as a construction material and towards timber frame houses—selected findings of a representative survey among the German population. J Clean Prod 17(2):303–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.07.001CrossRef

Gosselin A, Blanchet P, Lehoux N, Cimon Y (2017) Main motivations and barriers for using wood in multi-story and non-residential construction projects. BioResources 12(1):546–570. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.12.1.546-570CrossRef

Hagemann N, Gawel E, Purkus A, Pannicke N, Hauck J (2016) Possible futures towards a wood-based bioeconomy: a scenario analysis for Germany. Sustainability 8:1–24. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8010098CrossRef

Halla T, Laine J (2022) To cut or not to cut – emotions and forest conflicts in digital media. J Rural Stud 94:439–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.07.019CrossRef

Halla T, Karhunkorva R, Laine J, Paaskoski L (2021) Human-forest relationship in Finland. In: Johann E, Kuismin J, Woitsch J (eds) European Forests—our cultural heritage: proceedings of the International Conference European Forests—Our Cultural Heritage. IUFRO, Institute of Ethnology CAS, Prague, pp 169–188

Han H, Hsu LT, Sheu C (2010) Application of the theory of planned behavior to green hotel choice: testing the effect of environmental friendly activities. Tour Manag 31:325–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.03.013CrossRef

Häyrinen L, Toppinen A, Toivonen R (2020) Finnish young adults’ perceptions of the health, well-being and sustainability of wooden interior materials. Scand J for Res 35(7):394–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2020.1813798CrossRef

Hemström K, Mahapatra K, Gustavsson L (2011) Perceptions, attitudes and interest of Swedish architects towards the use of wood frames in multi-storey buildings. Resour Conserv Recycl 55(11):1013–1021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.05.012CrossRef

Hildebrandt J, Hagemann N, Thrän D (2017) The contribution of wood-based construction materials for leveraging a low carbon building sector in Europe. Sustain Cities Soc 34:405–418CrossRef

Høibø O, Hansen E, Nybakk E (2015) Building material preferences with a focus on wood in urban housing: durability and environmental impacts. Can J for Res 45(11):1617–1627. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2015-0123CrossRef

Hu Q, Dewancker B, Zhang T, Wongbumru T (2016) Consumer attitudes towards timber frame houses in China. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 216:841–849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.12.081CrossRef

Hurmekoski E, Jonsson R, Korhonen J, Jänis J, Mäkinen M, Leskinen P, Hetemäki L (2018) Diversification of the forest industries: role of new wood-based products. Can J for Res 48:1417–1432. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2018-0116CrossRef

Januzi-Cana A (2017) The role and perception of architects and engineers on timber-based architecture—case of Kosovo. New Arch-Int J Contemp Arch 4(1):52–58. https://doi.org/10.14621/tna.20170107CrossRef

Kaputa V, Barčić AP, Matová H, Motik D (2019) Consumer preferences for wooden furniture in Croatia and Slovakia. BioResources 13(3):6280–6299. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.13.3.6280-6299CrossRef

Karhunkorva R, Kärkkäinen S, Paaskoski L (2017) Metsäsuhteiden kenttä. [The field of forest relationships.] Luston julkaisuja 1. Lusto - Suomen Metsämuseo: Punkaharju. https://issuu.com/luston_julkaisuja/docs/metsasuhteiden_kentta. Accessed 15 Aug 2022

Knauf M (2015) Understanding the consumer: Multi-modal market research on consumer attitudes in Germany towards lightweight furniture and lightweight materials in furniture design. Eur J Wood Prod 73(2):259–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-014-0866-9CrossRef

Knauss S (2019) The myth of the global middle class, globalisation’s fallback success story. Revue Can D’études Dév 40(2):182–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2019.1520692CrossRef

Kollmuss A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res 8(3):239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620220145401CrossRef

Kunttu J, Hurmekoski E, Heräjärvi H, Hujala T, Leskinen P (2020) Preferable utilisation patterns of wood product industries’ by-products in Finland. For Policy Econ 110:101946CrossRef

Kuzman MK, Motik D, Bičanić K, Vlosky RP, Oblak L (2012) A Comparative analysis of consumer attitudes on the use of wood products in Slovenia and Croatia. Drvna Industrija 63(2):71–79. https://doi.org/10.5552/drind.2012.1129CrossRef

Kuzman MK, Klarić S, Pirc Barčić A, Vlosky RP, Janakieska MM, Grošelj P (2018) Architect perceptions of engineered wood products: an exploratory study of selected countries in Central and Southeast Europe. Constr Build Mater 179:360–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.164CrossRef

Laguarda Mallo MF, Espinoza O (2015) Awareness, perceptions and willingness to adopt Cross-Laminated Timber by the architecture community in the United States. J Clean Prod 94:198–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.090CrossRef

Lähtinen K, Harju C, Toppinen A (2019) Consumers’ perceptions on the properties of wood affecting their willingness to live in and prejudices against houses made of timber. Wood Mat Sci Eng 14(5):325–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/17480272.2019.1615548CrossRef

Lakkala M, Luusua A, Pihlajaniemi J (2020) Finnish perceptions of log and log architecture. Scand J for Res 35(5–6):296–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2020.1774642CrossRef

Larasatie P, Guerrero JE, Conroy K, Hall TE, Hansen E, Needham MD (2018) What does the public believe about tall wood buildings? An exploratory study in the US Pacific Northwest. J for 116(5):429–436. https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvy025CrossRef

Leskinen P, Cardellini G, González-García S, Hurmekoski E, Sathre R, Seppälä J, Smyth C, Stern T, Verkerk PJ, Johannes P (2018) Substitution effects of wood-based products in climate change mitigation. Science to Policy 7 European Forest Institute. https://doi.org/10.36333/fs07CrossRef

Leskinen P, Lindner M, Verkerk PJ, Nabuurs GJ, Van Brusselen J, Kulikova E, Hassegawa M, Lerink B (eds) (2020) Russian forests and climate change. What science can tell us 11. European Forest Institute. https://doi.org/10.36333/wsctu11CrossRef

Li SH, Xie H (2013) Building professionals’ attitudes towards the use of wood in building design and construction in Taiwan. Eur J Wood Wood Prod 71(4):497–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-013-0688-1CrossRef

Li J, Burnham JF, Lemley T, Britton RM (2010) Citation analysis: comparison of web of Science®, Scopus™, SciFinder®, and Google Scholar. J Electron Resour Med Libr 7(3):196–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/15424065.2010.505518CrossRef

Li D, Zhao L, Ma S, Shao S, Zhang L (2019) What influences an individual’s pro-environmental behavior? A literature review. Resour Conserv Recycl 146:28–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.03.024CrossRef

Lier M, Soini K, Kniivilä M (2021) Vertaileva selvitys eri maiden biotalousstrategioista. [Comparative study of bioeconomy strategies in different countries.] Natural Resources and Bioeconomy Research 2/2021. Natural Resources Institute Finland, Helsinki, p 49

Liobikienė G, Poškus MS (2019) The importance of environmental knowledge for private and public sphere pro-environmental behavior: modifying the value-belief-norm theory. Sustainability 11(12):3324. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123324CrossRef

Luo W, Mineo K, Matsushita K, Kanzaki M (2018) Consumer willingness to pay for modern wooden structures: A comparison between China and Japan. For Policy Econ 91:84–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.12.003CrossRef

Lynch DHJ, Klaassen P, Broerse JEW (2017) Unraveling Dutch citizens’ perceptions on the bio-based economy: The case of bioplastics, bio-jetfuels and small-scale bio-refineries. Ind Crops Prod 106:130–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.10.035CrossRef

Mahapatra K, Gustavsson L, Hemström K (2012) Multi-storey wood-frame buildings in Germany Sweden and the UK. Constr Innov 12(1):62–85. https://doi.org/10.1108/14714171211197508CrossRef

Maniatis P (2016) Investigating factors influencing consumer decision-making while choosing green products. J Clean Prod 132:215–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.067CrossRef

Markström E, Kuzman MK, Bystedt A, Sandberg D, Fredriksson M (2018) Swedish architects view of engineered wood products in buildings. J Clean Prod 181:33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.216CrossRef

Markström E, Kuzman MK, Bystedt A, Sandberg D (2019) Use of wood products in multi-storey residential buildings: views of Swedish actors and suggested measures for an increased use. Wood Mat Sci Eng 14(6):404–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/17480272.2019.1600164CrossRef

Matová H, Kaputa V (2018) Attitudes of active and upcoming architects towards wood: the case study in Slovakia. Acta Fac Xylolog 60(2):199–210. https://doi.org/10.17423/afx.2018.60.2.19CrossRef

Meeusen M, Peuckert J, Quitzow R (2015) Acceptance factors for bio-based products and related information systems. OpenBIO, Deliverable D9.2. https://biobasedeconomy.eu/app/uploads/sites/2/2017/07/Acceptance-factors-for-bio-based-products-and-related-information-systems.pdf. Accessed 16 Dec 2021

Mengist W, Soromessa T, Legese G (2020) Method for conducting systematic literature review and meta-analysis for environmental science research. MethodsX 7:100777CrossRefPubMed

Moresová M, Sedliačiková M, Štefko J, Benčiková D (2019) Perception of wooden houses in the Slovak republic. Acta Fac Xylolog Zvolen 61(2):121–135. https://doi.org/10.17423/afx.2019.61.2.12CrossRef

Näyhä A (2019) Transition in the Finnish forest-based sector: company perspectives on the bioeconomy, circular economy and sustainability. J Clean Prod 209:1294–1306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.260CrossRef

Näyhä A (2021) Backcasting for desirable futures in Finnish forest-based firms. Foresight 23(1):50–72CrossRef

Nyrud AQ, Bringslimark T, Bysheim K (2014) Benefits from wood interior in a hospital room: a preference study. Arch Sci Rev 57(2):125–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2013.816933cCrossRef

O’Connor J, Kozak R, Gaston C, Fell D (2004) Wood use in nonresidential buildings: opportunities and barriers. For Prod J 54(3):19–28

Olšiaková M, Kaputa V, Drličková E, Krssak M (2018) Factors influencing consumers’ preferences for woodframed houses. In: Increasing the use of wood in the global bio-economy: Proceedings of Scientific Papers. Zagreb: WoodEMA. P. 259–266. Available at http://www.woodema.org/proceedings/WoodEMA_2018_Proceedings.pdf. Accessed 20 Nov 2021.

Orzan G, Cruceru AF, Balaceanu CT, Chivu RG (2018) Consumers’ behavior concerning sustainable packaging: An exploratory study on Romanian consumers. Sustainability (switzerland) 10(6):1787. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061787CrossRef

Ozanne L, Bigsby H, Gan C (2001) A conjoint analysis of New Zealand consumer preference for environmentally certified forest products. USDA Forest Service—General Technical Report PNW, 520, 7–15

Paul J, Modi A, Patel J (2016) Predicting green product consumption using theory of planned behavior and reasoned action. J Retail Consum Serv 29:123–134CrossRef

Persson PB, Hillmeister P, Persson AB (2022) Perception. Acta Physiolog 235:e13842. https://doi.org/10.1111/apha.13842CrossRef

Petruch M, Walcher D (2021) Timber for future? Attitudes towards timber construction by young millennials in Austria—marketing implications from a representative study. J Clean Prod 294:126324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126324CrossRef

Pfau S, Vos J, Dammer L, Arendt O (2017) Public perception of bio-based products. RoadToBio Deliverable D2.2. 2017. https://www.roadtobio.eu/uploadspublications/deliverables/RoadToBio_D22_Public_perception_of_bio-based_products.pdf. Accessed 3 Oct 2021

Pickens J (2005) Attitudes and perceptions. In: Borkowski N (ed) Organizational behavior in health care. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, pp 43–76

Pires GD, Stanton J, Rita P (2006) The internet, consumer empowerment and marketing strategies. Eur J Mark 40(9/10):936–949. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560610680943CrossRef

Ranacher L, Stern T, Schwarzbauer P (2017) Do wood products protect the climate? Public perception of the forest-based sector’s contribution to climate change mitigation. Austrian J for Sci 134(3):281–297

Ranacher L, Höfferer K, Lettner M, Hesser F, Stern T, Rauter R, Schwarzbauer P (2018) What would potential future opinion leaders like to know? An explorative study on the perceptions of four wood-based innovations. Bodenkultur 69(1):47–59. https://doi.org/10.2478/boku-2018-0005CrossRef

Ratnasingam J, Latib HA, Ng WC, Cellathurai M, Chin KA, Senin AL, Lim CL (2019) Preference of using wood and wood products in the construction industry in Peninsular Malaysia. BioResources 13(3):5289–5302. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.13.3.5289-5302CrossRef

Reinhardt R, Gurtner S (2015) Differences between early adopters of disruptive and sustaining innovations. J Bus Res 68(1):137–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.04.007CrossRef

Riala M, Ilola L (2014) Multi-storey timber construction and bioeconomy—barriers and opportunities. Scand J for Res 29:367–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2014.926980CrossRef

Roiko-Jokela H (2016) Metsät, metsätalous ja hyvinvointi 1500–2000. [Forests, forestry and wellbeing 1500-2000]. In: Paaskoski L, Roiko-Jokela H (eds) Metsä tekee hyvää, vol Vuosilusto 11. Suomen Metsämuseo Lusto & Metsähistorian Seura, Punkaharju, pp 10–28

Roos A, Hugosson M (2008) Consumer preferences for wooden and laminate flooring. Wood Mat Sci Eng 3(1–2):29–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/17480270802573586CrossRef

Roos A, Woxblom L, McCluskey D (2010) The influence of architects and structural engineers on timber in construction—perceptions and roles. Silva Fenn 44(5):871–884. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.126CrossRef

Sasatani D, Eastin I (2012) Construction professionals’ environmental perceptions of lumber, concrete and steel in Japan and China. For Chron 88(5):593–599. https://doi.org/10.5558/tfc2012-111CrossRef

Scherer C, Emberger-Klein A, Menrad K (2018) Consumer preferences for outdoor sporting equipment made of bio-based plastics: results of a choice-based-conjoint experiment in Germany. J Clean Prod 203:1085–1094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.298CrossRef

Sharma-Wallace L, Velarde SJ, Wreford A (2018) Adaptive governance good practice: show me the evidence! J Environ Manag 222:174–184CrossRef

Shukri M, Awang Noor AG (2012) Malaysian consumers’ preference and willingness to pay for environmentally certified wooden household furniture. Pertanika J Trop Agric Sci 35(3):603–611

Siegel L, Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles A, Bellert A (2018) Still ‘Minding the gap’ sixteen years later: (re)storying pro-environmental behaviour. Aust J Environ Educ 34(2):189–203. https://doi.org/10.1017/aee.2018.32CrossRef

Sijtsema SJ, Onwezen MC, Reinders MJ, Dagevos H, Partanen A, Meeusen M (2016) Consumer perception of bio-based products—an exploratory study in 5 European countries. NJAS Wagening J Life Sci 77:61–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2016.03.007CrossRef

Sommerhuber PF, Welling J, Krause A (2015) Substitution potentials of recycled HDPE and wood particles from post-consumer packaging waste in Wood-Plastic Composites. Waste Manag (new York, N.y.) 46:76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.09.011CrossRef

Sønderskov KM, Daugbjerg C (2011) The state and consumer confidence in eco-labeling: organic labeling in Denmark, Sweden, The United Kingdom and The United States. Agric Hum Values 28:507–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-010-9295-5CrossRef

Spetic W, Kozak R, Cohen D (2007) Perceptions of wood flooring by Canadian householders. For Prod J 57(6):34–38

Stern T, Haas R, Meixner O (2009) Consumer acceptance of wood-based food additives. Br Food J 111(2):179–195. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700910931995CrossRef

Stern T, Ranacher L, Mair C, Berghäll S, Lähtinen K, Forsblom M, Toppinen A (2018) Perceptions on the importance of forest sector innovations: biofuels, biomaterials, or niche products? Forests 9(5):255. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9050255CrossRef

Straub ET (2009) Understanding technology adoption: theory and future directions for informal learning. Rev Educ Res 79(2):625–649. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325896CrossRef

Strobel K, Nyrud AQ, Bysheim K (2017) Interior wood use: linking user perceptions to physical properties. Scand J for Res 32(8):798–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2017.1287299CrossRef

Stupak I, Tattersall Smith C, Clarke N (2021) Governing sustainability of bioenergy, biomaterial and bioproduct supply chains from forest and agricultural landscapes. Energy Sustain Soc 11(1):1–8

Sun Y, Wang S, Gao L, Li J (2018) Unearthing the effects of personality traits on consumer’s attitude and intention to buy green products. Nat Hazards 93:299–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-018-3301-4CrossRef

Švajlenka J, Kozlovská M (2018) Perception of user criteria in the context of sustainability of modern methods of construction based on wood. Sustainability (switzerland) 10(2):116. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020116CrossRef

Tan LP, Johnstone ML, Yang L (2016) Barriers to green consumption behaviours: the roles of consumers’ green perceptions. Australas Mark J 24:288–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.08.001CrossRef

Textile Exchange (2019) Preferred Fiber & Materials Market Report 2019. https://textileexchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Textile-Exchange_PFMR_2022.pdf. Accessed 10 Dec 2021

Thomas D, Ding G, Crews K (2014) Sustainable timber use in residential construction: perception versus reality. WIT Trans Ecol Environ 186:399–410. https://doi.org/10.2495/ESUS140341CrossRef

Toppinen A, Röhr A, Pätäri S, Lähtinen K, Toivonen R (2018) The future of wooden multistory construction in the forest bioeconomy—a Delphi study from Finland and Sweden. J for Econ 31:3–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2017.05.001CrossRef

Toppinen A, Sauru M, Pätäri S, Lähtinen K, Tuppura A (2019) Internal and external factors of competitiveness shaping the future of wooden multistory construction in Finland and Sweden. Constr Manag Econ 37(4):201–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2018.1513162CrossRef

Toppinen A, D’Amato D, Stern T (2020) Forest-based circular bioeconomy: Matching sustainability challenges and novel business opportunities? For Policy Econ 110:102041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102041CrossRef

Verkerk PJ, Hassegawa M, Van Brusselen J, Cramm M, Chen X, Imparato Maximo Y, Koç M, Lovrić M, Tekle Tegegne Y (2021) The role of forest products in the global bioeconomy—enabling substitution by wood-based products and contributing to the Sustainable Development Goals. FAO on behalf of the Advisory Committee on Sustainable Forestbased Industries (ACSFI), Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7274enCrossRef

Viholainen N, Kylkilahti E, Autio M, Toppinen A (2020) A home made of wood: consumer experiences of wooden building materials. Int J Consum Stud 44:542–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12586CrossRef

Viļuma A, Bratuškins U (2017) Barriers for use of wood in architecture: the Latvian case. Arch Urban Plan 13(1):43–47. https://doi.org/10.1515/aup-2017-0006CrossRef

Vlosky RP, Shupe TF (2002) Homeowner attitudes and preferences for building materials with an emphasis on treated wood products. For Prod J 52(7–8):90–95

Vlosky RP, Shupe TF (2004a) Buyer perceptions and purchasing patterns related to treated wood use in children’s playground equipment. For Prod J 54(12):307–312

Vlosky RP, Shupe TF (2004b) U.S. homebuilder perceptions about treated wood. For Prod J 54(10):41–48

Vlosky RP, Shupe T, Wu Q (2009a) Perceptions & use of termite resistant treated wood products. Part I: The perspective of homeowners in Formosan subterranean termite infected states. Drvna Ind 60(3):135–144

Vlosky R, Shupe T, Wu Q (2009b) Perceptions & use of termite resistant treated wood products in the United States. Part II: the perspective of home builders and architects in Formosan subterranean termite infected states. Drvna Ind 60(4):219–228

Wang L, Toppinen A, Juslin H (2014) Use of wood in green building: a study of expert perspectives from the UK. J Clean Prod 65:350–361CrossRef

Xia B, O’Neill T, Zuo J, Skitmore M, Chen Q (2014) Perceived obstacles to multi-storey timber-frame construction: an Australian study. Archit Sci Rev 57(3):169–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/00038628.2014.912198CrossRef

Xiao Y, Watson M (2019) Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. J Plan Educ Res 39(1):93–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971CrossRef

Yadav R, Pathak GS (2017) Determinants of consumers’ green purchase behavior in a developing nation: applying and extending the theory of planned behavior. Ecol Econ 134:114–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.12.019CrossRef

Titel: Stakeholder perceptions of wood-based products in the built environment: a literature review
verfasst von: Venla Wallius
Janni Kunttu
Pekka Leskinen
Jo Van Brusselen
Annukka Näyhä
Publikationsdatum: 02.12.2022
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Journal of Wood and Wood Products / Ausgabe 2/2023
Print ISSN: 0018-3768
Elektronische ISSN: 1436-736X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-022-01905-4

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2023

Glulam Timoshenko–Ehrenfest beams with interlaminar debonding and flexibility of finger joints

Embedment behaviour of fully threaded bolts in glued laminated timber

Use of NIR spectroscopy and multivariate regression for prediction of pentosan content in wood pulp

Effect of micronized copper treatments on retention, strength properties, copper leaching and decay resistance of plantation grown Melia dubia Cav. wood

The volatile organic compounds release from acid-alkali pretreated moso bamboo during heat treatment

Performance elevation of bamboo flour/high-density polyethylene composites by pretreating bamboo flour with mussel adhesive proteins-inspired poly(catechol/amine)