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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The details of all publications included in this literature review are included in this published article and its supplementary information file.
References
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.2010.09.002
Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211
Ajzen I (2001) Nature and operation of attitudes. Annu Rev Psychol 52:27–58
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/10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888
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):1029–1038
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/102.4.28
Arnautović-Aksić D (2016) A comparative analysis of architects’ views on wood construction. Spatium 1(36):100–105. https://doi.org/10.2298/SPAT1636100A
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.2017.06.222
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-14-00047
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.2008.01.004
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.2013.08.017
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/57.2.89
D’Amato D, Veijonaho S, Toppinen A (2019) Towards sustainability: forest-based circular bioeconomy business models in Finnish SMEs. For Policy Econ 110:101848
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/su70810461
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/su10093190
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/tfc79967-5
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.x
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/buildings8110159
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/10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.501
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.2017.03.156
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.2008.07.001
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.12.1.546-570
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/su8010098
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.2022.07.019
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.2009.03.013
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/10.1080/02827581.2020.1813798
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.2011.05.012
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 34:405–418
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-2015-0123
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.2015.12.081
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-2018-0116
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.20170107
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.13.3.6280-6299
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/s00107-014-0866-9
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/10.1080/02255189.2019.1520692
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/10.1080/13504620220145401
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 110:101946
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.2012.1129
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.2018.05.164
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.2015.01.090
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/10.1080/17480272.2019.1615548
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/10.1080/02827581.2020.1774642
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/fvy025
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/fs07
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/wsctu11
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/s00107-013-0688-1
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/10.1080/15424065.2010.505518
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.2019.03.024
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/su11123324
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.2017.12.003
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.2016.10.035
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/10.1108/14714171211197508
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.2015.02.067
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.2018.01.216
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/10.1080/17480272.2019.1600164
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.2018.60.2.19
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 7:100777
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.2019.61.2.12
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.2018.10.260
Näyhä A (2021) Backcasting for desirable futures in Finnish forest-based firms. Foresight 23(1):50–72
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/10.1080/00038628.2013.816933c
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/su10061787
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 29:123–134
Persson PB, Hillmeister P, Persson AB (2022) Perception. Acta Physiolog 235:e13842. https://doi.org/10.1111/apha.13842
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.2021.126324
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/10.1108/03090560610680943
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-2018-0005
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.13.3.5289-5302
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.2014.04.007
Riala M, Ilola L (2014) Multi-storey timber construction and bioeconomy—barriers and opportunities. Scand J for Res 29:367–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2014.926980
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/10.1080/17480270802573586
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.126
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/tfc2012-111
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.2018.08.298
Sharma-Wallace L, Velarde SJ, Wreford A (2018) Adaptive governance good practice: show me the evidence! J Environ Manag 222:174–184
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.2018.32
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.2016.03.007
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.2015.09.011
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/s10460-010-9295-5
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/10.1108/00070700910931995
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/f9050255
Straub ET (2009) Understanding technology adoption: theory and future directions for informal learning. Rev Educ Res 79(2):625–649. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325896
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/10.1080/02827581.2017.1287299
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/s11069-018-3301-4
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/su10020116
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.2016.08.001
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/ESUS140341
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.2017.05.001
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/10.1080/01446193.2018.1513162
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.2019.102041
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/cb7274en
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.12586
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-2017-0006
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 65:350–361
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/10.1080/00038628.2014.912198
Xiao Y, Watson M (2019) Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. J Plan Educ Res 39(1):93–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971
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.2016.12.019
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Minna Korhonen for the editorial help. The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the FORBIO—“Sustainable, climate-neutral and resource-efficient forest-based bioeconomy” project (no. 293380 and 314224) funded by the Strategic Research Council at the Academy of Finland.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Wallius, V., Kunttu, J., Leskinen, P. et al. Stakeholder perceptions of wood-based products in the built environment: a literature review. Eur. J. Wood Prod. 81, 287–299 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-022-01905-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-022-01905-4