The future of wooden multistory construction in the forest bioeconomy : a Delphi study from Finland and Sweden

This is a self-archived – parallel published version of this article in the publication archive of the University of Vaasa. It might differ from the original.

The future of wooden multistory construction in the forest bioeconomy : a Delphi study from Finland and Sweden

Author(s): Toppinen, Anne; Röhr, Axel; Pätäri, Satu; Lähtinen, Katja;

Toivonen, Ritva

Title: The future of wooden multistory construction in the forest bioeconomy : a Delphi study from Finland and Sweden

Year: 2017

Version: Publisher’s PDF

Copyright ©2017 Department of Forest Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umea. Published by Elsevier GmbH. This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial–NoDerivatives 4.0 International (BY-NC-ND) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by- nc-nd/4.0/).

Please cite the original version:

Toppinen, A., Röhr, A., Pätäri, S., Lähtinen, K., & Toivonen, R., (2017). The future of wooden multistory construction in the forest bioeconomy : a Delphi study from Finland and Sweden.

Journal of forest economics 31(1), 3–10.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2017.05.001

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Journal of Forest Economics

j ou rn a l h om e p a g e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / j f e

The future of wooden multistory construction in the forest bioeconomy – A Delphi study from Finland and Sweden ^夽

Anne Toppinen

, Axel Röhr

, Satu Pätäri

, Katja Lähtinen

, Ritva Toivonen

aDepartmentofForestSciences,UniversityofHelsinki,P.O.Box27,00014Helsingin,Yliopisto,Finland

bSchoolofBusinessandManagement,LappeenrantaUniversityofTechnology,P.O.Box20,53851Lappeenranta,Finland

cDepartmentofMarketing,UniversityofVaasa,UniversityConsortiumofSeinäjoki,Kampusranta9C,60320Seinäjoki,Finland

a r t i c l e i n f o

Articlehistory:

Received25November2016 Accepted4May2017 Availableonline23May2017

Keywords:

Woodenmultistoryconstruction Environmentalfriendliness Valuechain

Delphi Foresight

a b s t r a c t

Theriseofwoodenmultistoryconstruction(WMC)intheNordiccountrieshasturnedouttobethemost evidentconstruction-relatednewbusinessopportunityintheemergingbioeconomy.Basedonearlier literature,thefuturegrowthprospectsfortheriseofWMCarerootedintheconcernsregardingenvi- ronmentalissues,aswitnessedinaplethoraofstudiesfocusingoncarbonfootprinting.Butdonew (performance-based)regulations‘favor’WMCordotheygiveamore‘just’comparisonofalternative buildingconcepts?Therefore,moreinformationisneededontheroleofgrowingenvironmentalaware- nessandpreferencesforwoodasarenewableandrecyclablematerialinthemarkets.Ourpaperpresents resultsfromatwo-roundDelphistudyfocusingontherelativestrengthandperceivedinterplaybetween likelihoodandthedesirabilityofenvironmentalconcernsindrivingWMCinFinlandandSweden.Using qualitativeanalysisofexpertinterviewsinthefirstDelphiround,theissuesrelatedtosustainabledevel- opmentappeartohavegrowingimportanceinthemarketplace.However,thepanelistsperceivethat theemphasisonsustainabilityismainlydrivenbythechangingregulationreflectingsocietalneeds,and onlyfewexpertssawitasechoingdirectlyfromchangingindividualconsumerneeds.Inthesecond Delphiround,implementedwithanonlinesurvey,thelikelihoodanddesirabilityofsustainabilityasa megatrendinhousingwasperceivedtogainfurtherimpetustoward2030,bothintheformofconsumer demandforsustainablelivingandwoodconstructionasamodernwayofliving.However,futureresearch isneededtogetabetterunderstandingonthestrengthandscopeofthesedrivers.

©2017DepartmentofForestEconomics,SwedishUniversityofAgriculturalSciences,Ume ˚a.

PublishedbyElsevierGmbH.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense(http://

creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Introduction

Sustainableconstructionisawayforthebuildingindustryto contributetoward sustainabledevelopment,whereaccordingto Bourdeau(1999,p.364)themainchallengeis“totransformthe demandforsustainabledevelopmentintoanopportunity,tocreate andaccessnewmarkets,andtoinnovativeresponseswhichsat- isfytraditionalindustrydemandsandthenewsocietaldemands forsustainabledevelopment”.Thebuildingsectorcontributesto

夽 Thisarticleispartofaspecialissueentitled“ScandinavianSocietyofForest Economics(SSFE)meetingin2016”,publishedintheJournalofForestEconomics 31,2018.

∗Correspondingauthor.

E-mailaddresses:anne.toppinen@helsinki.fi(A.Toppinen), rohr.axel@gmail.com(A.Röhr),satu.patari@lut.fi(S.Pätäri),

katja.lahtinen@uwasa.fi(K.Lähtinen),ritva.toivonen@helsinki.fi(R.Toivonen).

asmuch as42% offinal energyconsumption, 35%of total GHG emissions,50%oftheutilizationofextractedmaterials,and30%

of water consumption in the European Union (EU) (European Commission,2011).Thus,constructionandhousingplayafunda- mentalrolewhenaimingatenhancingsocietalgoalsforsustainable development.Forexample,bydevelopingtheconstructionanduti- lizationof buildingsin theEU,it is claimedthat thetotal final energy consumptioncouldbedecreased byapproximately40%, totalgreenhousegas(GHG)emissionsby35%,andtheuseofbuild- ingmaterialsby50%,respectively(Herczegetal.,2014).

Inrecentyears,thepositivetrendofthespreadofwoodenmul- tistoryconstruction(WMC)intheNordiccountrieshasturnedout tobeamongthemostinterestingnewbusinessopportunitiesin theemergingforestbioeconomy.AlsoaccordingtoBosmanand Rotmans(2016),intheFinnishnationalleveltransitiontobioecon- omy,bio-builtenvironmentbasedonwoodenbuildingsandtheuse ofrenewableconstructionmaterialsisamongthefocalactivities.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2017.05.001

1104-6899/©2017DepartmentofForestEconomics,SwedishUniversityofAgriculturalSciences,Ume ˚a.PublishedbyElsevierGmbH.Thisisanopenaccessarticleunder theCCBY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

4 A.Toppinenetal./JournalofForestEconomics31(2018)3–10

Themarketshareofwoodenmultistoryapartmentscompletedin Finlandwasonly1%in2010,whereasthesharehadgrownto10%

by2015.InSweden,localexamplesexistofstrategictargetswhere evenuptoa50%marketshareinWMCmaybegainedby2020.

ManyreasonsexistbehindtheincreaseofWMCinNordiccoun- tries,butforFinlandsomestudies(e.g.Hurmekoskietal.,2015b) mainlycredittheincreasedpopularitytoachangeinbuildingreg- ulationsin2011,whichallowedtheconstructionofWMCsupto eightstorieshighcomparedtotheearlierthree-storylimit.Thus, inadditiontoenvironmentalissues,changingbuildingregulations arealsoboundtobeonekeydrivingforceforthefutureofWMC.

AccordingtoHurmekoskietal.(2015a),environmentalimpacts ofconstructionpracticesareassociatedwithmaterialrenewabil- ityandrecyclability,aswellasinthepossibilitiesforcontribution oftheconstruction materialchoiceintoclimatechangemitiga- tion.Recentlymacroobjectivesencompassingnotonlyresource efficiencyconsiderations,butalsoothersignificantenvironmen- talor functionalperformanceaspectsthathaveaninfluenceon thelifecycleofbuildingshavebeenemphasized.Whileaddressing sustainabledevelopmentisakeytopicinreachingtheacceptability ofsolutionsbasedonbuildingandlivingwithwoodintheforest bioeconomy(Pätärietal.,2016),inthebackgroundthereisalarger environmentalchangeinsocietalvaluestowardsustainabilityand sustainabledevelopment.From thispoint ofview,therelation- shipofenvironmentalconcernandconsumerbehaviorregarding food,mobility,orgeneralenvironmentalattitudescanbeusefulin framingtheresearchontheroleofconsumerlifestyleregarding sustainability(e.g.Autioetal.,2009;Maniatis,2015).

Theimpactchangescausedbyconstructionandtheutilization ofbuildingscanbeaffectede.g.bytheselectionandtransportation ofrawmaterialsandproductsinconstructionprojects,alongwith theutilizationofrenewableenergyduringtheusageofbuildings tomaintaintheintendedindoorclimateandairquality(Häkkinen, 2007).Thepositiveprospectsfortheriseof woodinmultistory constructionslayintheconcernsregardingenvironmentalimpacts andthelong carbon storageoption ofwood, aswitnessed in a plethoraoflifecycleassessmentstudiesfocusingoncarbonfoot- prints(e.g. Cabeza et al., 2014; Gustavsson et al.,2010; Upton etal.,2008).Improvingmaterialefficiency,whichinWMCcanbe achievedthroughindustrialprefabrication,isoneofthekeyissues inconstruction, which affects global warmingthrough reduced greenhouseemissions (Ruuska and Häkkinen, 2014). However, basedupon a backcastingstudy,Hurmekoski etal. (2016)con- cludedthatonlymorestringentregulatorypushforgreenbuilding, andthecourageofwoodelementsupplierstotakenewrolesinthe constructionvaluechaincouldeffectivelyboostthefurtherdiffu- sionofWMC.Nevertheless,theseauthorswereratherpessimistic thateventhemosteffectivemeasurescouldonlyhaveagradual impact,and mainlythrough anincreasingnumber ofsuccessful referenceprojects.

InpreviousWMCstudies,Roosetal.(2010)foundthatarchi- tectsandstructuralengineersinSwedenvaluewoodbecauseofits strength,environmentalfriendliness,easyhandling,andappropri- atenessforuseinconjunctionwithothermaterials.Hemströmetal.

(2011)assessedtheperceptions,attitudes,andinterestofSwedish architectsinusingwoodframesinmultistorybuildings,andfound thatarchitectsandcontractmanagersalsoassociateitwithsev- eraldisadvantagesanduncertainties,primarilywithrespecttofire safety,stability, durability, and acousticproperties. In addition, contractmanagerswerefoundtohavestrongerfaiththanarchi- tectsintheprospectsofwoodframes.RichelieuandKozak(2012) found,whenstudyingtheviewsofarchitectsonusingwoodinthe USfornon-residentialbuildings,thatseveralinformationrequire- mentsmustbemettoenhancetheusageofwoodinthemarkets, includingdesignpossibilities,regulationsandstandards,environ- mentalfootprints,andsustainabledesign.Regardingthechanging

trendsinwoodconstructionaffectingtheentirebusiness,Wang etal.(2014)foundintheirstudyoftheUKmarketthat,asapart oftheriseofthegreenbuildingconcept,thetrendinwoodcon- structionincreasingly includestheuseofhybridstructures(e.g.

combinationsofwoodandsteel)orcomposites(suchaswoodand plastic).

AccordingtoToivonen(2011,2012),bothconsumersandcon- structionmaterialcompaniesconsidertheenvironmentalquality ofwood tobeimportant. Ina studyby Toppinenet al.(2013), elementsrelated totheenvironmentalsustainabilityofwooden productsinhousing,thesocialacceptabilityofproducts,andthe estheticcharacteristicsofwoodcanallbeassociatedwithadistinct consumerlifestyle,consistingofacomplexinterplaybetweencon- sumerbackgrounds,values,andbehavior.AccordingtoToivonen and Hansen(2003), wood is additionallyan attractivematerial comparedtomanyothermaterials.However,environmentalqual- ityistypicallynotthemainqualityattributedrivingconsumers ororganizationalcustomersintheirchoiceofconstructionmateri- als.Fromtheperspectiveofexistingliterature,onlyafewstudies havedirectlylinkedthefutureofWMCtoitskeydriver,i.e.chang- ingsocietalvaluestowardsustainabledevelopment,andthefuture perceptionsofWMCvaluechainactorshavescarcelybeenstudied (see,however,Hurmekoskietal.,2015b,2016;Wangetal.,2014).

Althoughtheconsumerperceptionsoftheenvironmentalqual- ityofwooden productscanbeidentified andlogical (Toivonen, 2012),thepracticalmeaningofenvironmentalattributescanstill bevagueforthemajorityofconsumers.InarecentstudybyHoibo etal.(2015)fromNorway,youngerpeoplewithstrongenviron- mental values were foundto be the best target for increasing wood-basedurbanhousing.Thedomesticoriginofwoodmaterials hasbeenfoundtoassociatewithenvironmentalqualityinEurope (Rametsteiner,1998),andalsoinparticularinFinland(Toivonen, 2012).Alsoinothercontexts,theenvironmentalqualityofwood hasbeenfoundtoconnectwithconsumerwillingnesstobuyand eventopaypremiumsforproductsofhigherenvironmentalquality (Hansmannetal.,2006;O’BrienandTeisl,2004).Overall,consumer knowledgeprobablyisyetlikelytoberelativelylowwhenitcomes tobuildingmaterialsimpactonhumanhealth(Keith,2011).

Togainabetterunderstandingontheroleofperceivedenviron- mentalsustainabilityandbuildingregulationsasthetwodriving forcesforthefutureofWMC,wewillstudythevaluechaincon- textsinFinlandandSweden.Thesecountriesareofinterest,not onlybecauseoftheirincreasingsharesofWMC,butalsobecause oftheirnationalbioeconomystrategiesstronglyrelatedtoforests andtheuseofwoodinconstruction.Moreprecisely,aspecialfocus ofourstudyisonevaluatingtheperceivedinterplaybetweenthe likelihoodanddesirabilityofenvironmentalvaluechangesandreg- ulatoryfactorsinthecontextofWMC.Ourtwospecificresearch questionsare: (1) Howdovaluechainactors perceivethe roleof variousenvironmentalconcernswhencharacterizingthesustainable future ofWMC; and(2) What isthelikelihoodanddesirability of sustainability-relateddemandandregulatoryaspectsforthefutureof WMCtoward2030?Ourstudydrawsfromatwo-roundDelphistudy amongFinnishandSwedishexperts.Basedontheanalysis,weare abletomorespecificallypointoutpotentialpathwaysregarding thefuturedevelopmentofWMC,andmakemoreelaboratesugges- tionsforfutureresearchneedsinthisemergingtopicareawithin theforestbioeconomy.

Materialandmethods

Amongvariousforesightapproaches,theDelphimethodology hasestablishedapositionasaneffectivetoolforgatheringexpert opinionsonavarietyofproblemsinvariousdomainsundermarket andtechnologyforecasting,especiallyinsituationswhereexpert

opinionsandviewsaretheonlysourceofinformation(Blindetal., 2001).TheuseofDelphiapproachesisalsogainingmoreground in foresteconomicstocomplement quantitativeapproaches, as pointedout byHurmekoskiand Hetemäki(2013). Forexample, Pätäri(2010)exploredthefutureofforestbioenergyintheinterface betweentheforestandenergyindustries.Inarecentworkaim- ingforpackagingindustryforesight,OlsmatsandKaivo-oja(2014) mappedthegeneraltrendsanddrivers,and evaluatedpotential futuredemands, opportunities,andthreatsfor packaging.Sjølie etal.(2015)usedexpertinformationinanalyzingthefuturedevel- opmentofNorwegianforestindustry,findingthatshort-termshifts ineconomicandpolicyfactors(suchasloweremphasisonenviron- mentalissuesandcheaperfossilfuelsduetoaprolongedglobal recession) maycrucially impactrespondent’sassumptions con- cerningthesignificanceofthesefactorsfortheforestsectorinthe future.Pätärietal.(2016)usedanindustryexpertDelphipanelto identifyagreaterdemandforenergy,volatilityinthefossilfuel markets,and increasing material resource scarcity as themost significantsustainabilitymegaforcesshapingtheEuropeanpulp andpaperindustryuntil2030.Nuutinenetal.(2016)studiedthe adaptationoftheFinnishsawmillindustryinthechangingmarket environmentandpoliciesrelatedtoclimatechangemitigationto betterunderstandthedriversofchangeandtheirpossibleinterac- tioneffectsusingvariousforesightmethods.

Iteration,participantandresponseanonymity,controlledfeed- back, and group statistical response are recognized as the key characteristics of a Delphi study (Blind et al., 2001; Landeta, 2006).Somevariantsof themethodology,suchasPolicyDelphi orArgumentDelphi,highlighttheimportanceoffindingreasons fordissensusratherthanstrivingfor consensusamongtheDel- phipanelists.Thisappearstobeparticularlyvaluableinsituations characterizedwithchangingindustrystrategiesandmarketenvi- ronmentssuchasinourstudy.OneofthekeybenefitsoftheDelphi methodisthatit isbotheasytouseandpractical(Hatcherand Colton,2007), allowingustobringtogethergeographicallydis- persedexpertsatleastduringtwoiterativerounds.Ontheother hand,Delphirequiresrealcommitmentfromtheexpertpaneldue totheexpectationsofbeinginvolvedinmultipleinformationgath- eringrounds.Alsofindingtheexpertsmayprovedifficult,assolid relevantexpertiseisrequiredfromeachpanelist.Anonymityofthe respondentsallowsargumentationbeyondtherolesofthepanel members,andpersonalviewpointscanbebroughtupeasilywith- outgrouppressure(LinstoneandTuroff,2002).

Throughouttheyears, the Delphimethod,along withmany otherforesightapproaches,hasfacedalotofcriticism(e.g.,Hung etal.,2008;Jiangetal.,2017;WinklerandMoser,2016).According toPiirainenetal.(2012,p.464),“ethicsoffuturesstudies,thenature ofknowledgeaboutthefuture,andfuturesmethodology,which togethercontributetothequality,validityandcredibilityoffutures studies” haveevoked discussions withintheexisting literature.

AsregardstheDelphimethod,themajorcritiquehasconcerned themethod’sreliabilityandjudgmentalandforecastingaccuracy, especiallywhenlong-termfutureisexamined(WinklerandMoser, 2016,seealsoLinetal.,2014;ParenteandAnderson-Parente,2011).

However,itseemsthatmuchofthiscritiquestemsfromthefact thatthereissome“greyness”inthetechnique(HassonandKeeney, 2011)indicatingthatthemethodisquiteflexibleandthereareno strictgeneralguidelinesonhowtoconductanoverallDelphipro- cess(WakefieldandWatson,2014;WinklerandMoser,2016).For example,onemayquestionwhatistherightsamplesizeorsam- plingtechnique.Theflexibilityoftheapproachingeneraldoesnot howevermeanthatacarefullyplannedandexecutedDelphistudy wouldnotbescientificallyrespectable(HassonandKeeney,2011).

LikeJiangetal.(2017,p.2),forexample,haveputit,thekeyidea offorecastingisto“facilitateadiscussionamongdecisionmak- ersandtopicalexpertstobetterunderstandthetrajectoriesand

Fig.1. Stagesofdatacollectionandanalysis.

possiblefutures”.Thus,insteadofprovidingaccuratedescriptions ofthefutureandindisputablefacts,foresightapproachesinform thinkingandhelpinanticipatingfuturedevelopmentsespecially insituationswhereobjectivefactualdatadoesnotexist(Hasson andKeeney,2011;Jiangetal.,2017;WinklerandMoser,2016).

To feed on our two research questions, we conducted a dissensus-based expert Delphi study consisting of interviews (Round1)andanonlinesurvey(Round2).Thetimescaleofthe studywastargetedtowardyear2030,whichisasuitablelength (15years)forthismethod.Additionally,2030isatargetyearin severalEUandinternationalpolicyagendas,includingaEuropean- widegoalforreachinga30%riseinwoodconstruction(formore discussion,seeHurmekoskietal.,2015b).

Inordertostudytheexperts’insightsandideasofthefuture developmentofwoodconstruction,thepanelistsinvolvedinour studywereofFinnishandSwedishorigin,andwererequiredto havein-depthknowledgeandexperienceoftheusageofwoodin multistoryconstructionintheNordicregion.InDelphirounds1 and2,theWMCvaluechainwasbrokeninto(1)forestownership andrawmaterialpurchases,(2)woodproductsindustryandpri- maryprocessing,and(3)buildingindustry.Thus,thisstudyhas excludedforexampleconsultantsandarchitects.Also, themain goalingatheringthepanelwastogainaccesstoindustrystakehold- ers.Wemadeanefforttoensuresufficientanddiverseexpertisein thepanel,butencounteredsomedifficultiesinfindingexpertsfor thepersonalinterviewswiththetargetedhighlevelofprofessional backgroundforourstudyonthefutureofWMC.

A total of 18 experts were interviewed in round 1 during October–December2015,and17respondedtoourround2online surveyinJanuary2016.Asanexceptiontothis,twopanelistspartic- ipatedonlyinround1andonepanelistonlyinround2,asshownin Table1.Thus,onlytwooutof18interviewedpanelistsdidnotreply tothesecondroundonlinequestionnaire,whichindicatesrespon- dents’levelofcommitmenttothestudy.Despiteourbestefforts, thepanelismoreofFinnishorigin(12versus7),male-dominated (16versus3),andthehighestnumberofpanelistsrepresentthe mid-categoryofthevaluechain(Group 2ofthewoodindustry experts).Ascanbeseen,15ofoutof19expertshadovertenyears ofexperiencefromeithertheforestry,woodindustryorconstruc- tionsectors,andactedinleadershiporhighprofessionalexpertise positions,whichimprovesthevalidityandreliabilityofourresults.

Fig.1elaboratestheresearchprocessinitiatedbyacarefullitera- turereviewandformationoftheexpertpanel.Round1consistedof

6 A.Toppinenetal./JournalofForestEconomics31(2018)3–10

Table1

CompositionoftheDelphipanel.

Country Gender Yearsofprofessional experience

Profession Typeoforganization Participationin

rounds

Finland Male 14 SeniorVicePresident Woodindustry 1and2

Finland Female 22 DirectorofCSR Woodindustry 1and2

Finland Male 31 ManagingDirector Forestry 1and2

Finland Female 1 Executive BuildingIndustry 1and2

Finland Male 16 Owner Forestry 1and2

Finland Male 15 ResearchManager Forestry 1and2

Finland Male 3 Fieldmanager Forestry 1and2

Finland Male 26 ProductionDirector BuildingIndustry 1and2

Finland Male 5 SeniorVicePresident Woodindustry 1and2

Finland Male 22 SalesExecutive Woodindustry 1and2

Finland Female 16 PlanningExecutive BuildingIndustry 1and2

Finland Male 23 ManagingDirector WoodIndustryAssociation 1

Sweden Male 21 SeniorAdvisor Forestry 1and2

Sweden Male 15 ManagingDirector Woodindustry 1and2

Sweden Male 11 ManagingDirector Woodindustry 2

Sweden Male 11 President Woodindustry 1

Sweden Male 17 VicePresidentMarketDevelopment Forestry 1and2

Sweden Male 12 Academicexpert BuildingIndustryExpert 1and2

Sweden Male 8 Salesmanager Woodindustry 1and2

personalinterviews,andthequalitativedatawereanalyzedusing thematization.Theinterviewsaddressedoverallstateoftheforest industries,end-usemarkets,sustainabledevelopment,rawmate- rialmarkets,andstructureandcooperationofthevaluechain.In thesecondDelphiround,theemphasiswasgiventothethemes andtopicsthatwereseenasthemostthoughtprovokingorcon- troversialin thefirstphase. Forexample,where thefirstround focusedmoreontherawmaterialmarket,thesecondroundcom- prisedmoreofstatementsregardingtherawmaterialingeneral, asthefirstroundshowedthattherespondentsweremorevocal andinterestedintherawmaterialitselfratherthanthemarkets forit.Similarly,thestatementsregardingthecurrentstateofthe industrywerekepttoaminimum,asthekeyfocusofthestudywas inthefutureofWMCratherthanonitscurrentstate.

The personal interviews in round 1 lasted from 30min to morethananhour,andwereconductedeitherface-to-faceorby telephone,dependingonhoweachexpertwasencountered.Asum- maryofthefindingsfromround1wassentasfeedbacktothe respondentsbeforesendingthemalinktotheonlinequestionnaire inthesecondround,approximatelyaweeklater.Afterpreliminary processingoftheresultsfromthefirstround,feedbackwasgiven tothepanelistsbysummarizingthekey findings oftheDelphi results,andalsothankingthepanelistsfortheiractiveparticipa- tionintheDelphiprocessandremindingthemaboutparticipation intheforthcomingsecondroundsurvey.Thesecondroundques- tionnairewasformulatedbasedonthemostimportantissuesthat emergedduringthefirstround,alongwithareasneedingfurther clarification.Thesecondroundwasmorestructuredandconsisted of42statementswitha 5-pointLikertscale.A fewopen-ended questionswereadditionallyused(seeRöhr,2016).

Whilebothfirstandsecondroundquestionnaires(fullcontent availableuponrequestfromtheauthors)consistedoffivethemes, ouranalysisherefocusesononemajorsectionofsustainability- relatedissues, although somegeneralmarket environment and industry strategic issues were also interlinked with these. As regards the sustainability, we were interested in finding com- monalitiesanddifferencesregardingtheexperts’perspectiveson sustainability,and toshedding light on topics that theexperts discussedwhen generallyaskedabout sustainabilitywithinthe context.

InDelphistudies,andespeciallyinsituationscharacterizedwith highrequirementsforanin-depthlevelofexpertise,thecomposi- tionoftheexpertpanelismorevitalthanitssize.Moreover,thedata collectedduringthepersonalinterviewsinthefirststagesaturated

toalargeextent,andthefindingsarethereforelikelytorepresent asufficientbodyofinformationfortheanalysisofthetworesearch questionsathand.Nevertheless,itisimportanttokeepinmindthe limitstothegeneralizabilityofourfindings,andforexample,no comparisonacrossthetwocountriescanbemade,mainlydueto thelimitationsinpanelcompositionanditsbackgroundcharacter- isticsandthequalitativenatureofouranalysis.

ResultsoftheDelphirounds Round1personalinterviews

Sustainabilityisaverybroadtopic,whichcanbediscussede.g.

fromtheviewpointsofitsvariousdimensions(e.g.environmental, social,cultural,andeconomic),orbythelevelofvariousdecision- makingbodies(e.g.society,organizations,individuals)(forlinkages toconstructionandliving,seee.g.Hodge,1997).Inourstudy,sus- tainabledevelopment/sustainabilitywasapproachedwitharather wideangleandduringtheinterviewswewerenotaimingtopro- videanexactdefinitionoftheterm.Thegoalwasnotonlytofind commonalitiesanddifferencesinperspectivesamongthepanelists onsustainabilityissues,butalsotoshedlightonwhichtopicsthe intervieweesdiscusswhengenerallyaskedaboutsustainability.

Overall,theconversationsshowedthatclimatechange-related regulation and general attention tothese matters was seen as themaindriverforthegrowingpopularityoftheWMC.Forthe mostpart the discussionswere only concerned withthe envi- ronmentalaspectsofsustainability,althoughoneintervieweedid discusssocialaspectsaswell.However,thispanelisttalkedabout employeesafetyasatopicthatusedtohavegreaterimportance intheWMCvaluechain.TheeffectofWMConbothbiodiversity andclimatechangewereidentified,butforthemostpart,thepan- elistssawpotentialintheaspectsrelatedtoclimatechangeand overall ‘greenness’ of theWMC. Onepaneliststated that wood buildingingeneralisapositive matterinterms ofcarbonstor- ageforconsumersmostconcernedaboutclimatechange,whereas thoseconcernedaboutbiodiversitymightnotpositivelyviewthe wood-basedconstructionindustry.Coherenceofregulationanda rangeofexistingenvironmentalpoliciesdrivingsocietalsustain- abilitywasnotelaboratedinmoredepthatall.Thiswasslightly unexpected,butperhapssimplyassociatedwiththepracticalor professionalorientationofourexperts.

Allintervieweesviewedsustainabilityasanareathatwaseither alreadyimportant,oratleastgrowinginimportance,buttheunder-

lyingcauseofthisimportancewasanareainwhichthepanelists helddifferingviews.Whenenquiredabouthowtheenvironmental consciousnessofconsumersaffectstheindustry,someconsidered there to bean effect,whereas others sawinstitutions, suchas governmentsandNGOs,asdriversforthedemandformoreenvi- ronmentallyfriendlyproducts.However,duetothenatureofthe constructionindustryoverall,theendusersandtheirviewswere seentoonlyhavemarginalimportanceintheconstructionplan- ningprocess.Severalpanelistsdidconsidertheconsumerdemand forgreenbuildingtobegrowing,andpossiblyhavingmoreimpor- tanceinthefuture,asthefollowingexampleshows:“Itjustmaybe thatthedemandfromconsumerswilldirectouractionsmoreinthe future.–Thisisimportanttoyoungerpeople”(Sustainabilityexec- utivefromawoodindustrycompany,22yearsofprofessional experience,Finland)

Moreskepticismtowardsustainabilityasadriverwasidentified bytheintervieweesworkinginthebuildingindustry.Oneofthem perceivedgreenbuildingcertificatesmerelyasatoolto‘keepprop- ertyownerscalm’,whileanotheronestatedthatthey‘onlybuild greenbecausethatiswhattheypersonallywishtodo’,andathird oneobservedthat‘environmentalaspectsaremerelyanundercur- rent,andthatqualityandestheticsmatterthemost’.Thedecision regardingwhichprojectsareundertakendependontheenduser andtheirwillingnesstopayfor certainaspectsofa building,at leastfromtheperspectiveofthebuilder.Thisiselaboratedbythe followingquotes:“Itbeginswiththeconsumer,whattheconsumeris willingtopayforiswhatwewilldo”(Executivefromabuildingcom- pany,26yearsofprofessionalexperience,Finland);and“Iwishto believethatconsciousnessisgrowingthroughpositivethings.–Being ecologicalincombinationwithcomfort[ofliving]will createplea- sure.”(Executivefromabuildingcompany,1yearofprofessional experience,Finland)

Themostpotentialaspectlinkedwithsustainabilitywasseen asstemmingfromtheecologicalnatureofthewoodenbuilding material.Veryfewpanelistsbelievedthispotentialtocurrentlybe wellcapturedinWMCmarketingandcommunication,whileothers explicitlyobservedthatitisnotutilizedsufficiently.Forexample, twopanelistsblamedthewoodprocessingindustryfornotusing [forest]certificatesmoreeffectivelyasasalestool.Onepanelistsaw sustainabilityasacompetitiveadvantageofWMC,butonlyafter technicalbuildingrequirementsarefirstmet,andoncewood-based solutionsinconstructionareplacedatthesamelevelasalternative materialsintermsofcompetitiveness.Thefollowingquoteillus- tratesthisstance:“It[sustainability]issomethingthatwillhelpus surpass[othermaterials])ifwecangettothesamelevelintermsof competitivenessandtechnicalknowhow.”(Executivefromawood industrycompany,5yearsofprofessionalexperience,Finland)

Overall,panelistsexpecttheimportanceofsustainabilityand theuseofgreenbuildingschemestogrowinthefuture,aswell asofferingpotentialfor spreading WMC.Themain issueswere concernedwithhowtocapitalizeonsustainabilityinthemarket- place.Somepanelistsbelievethewoodindustryitselfisincapable ofbuildingsuccessfulproductsthatutilizepositiveenvironmental aspectstotheiradvantage.Someintervieweesperceivedthatthe positiveeffectsthatWMChasontheissuesdiscussedunderthe sustainabilityumbrellaaretakenforgrantedwithintheindustry itself.Othersperceivedwithsomearrogancethat‘theendusers donotproperlyunderstandsustainability,orthatitisonlyasmall partofthedecisionsthatgointotheprocessofchoosinghousing’.

OneSwedishpanelistfeltthat‘therearetoofewpositiveexamples thatcouldbuildconsumerunderstanding’.Attheveryextreme, somepanelistswerescepticalaboutwhetherconsumersareactu- allywillingtopayanythingforsustainability,asthequotebelow demonstrates:“It[thechoiceofmaterial]isonlyadiscussionabout price”(Salesmanagerforawoodindustrycompany,nineyearsof professionalexperience,Sweden).

Ina fewcases,locally producedfoodwasseen asonechan- neltowardimprovingconsumeralignmentwithsustainableliving.

Thiswasbroughtonbythegrowthofenvironmentalawareness basedoneverydaychoices,aselaboratedbyaninterviewee:“...a morenaturalwayofliving,suchaslocallyproducedfood,acertain kindoflifestyle.,...forthesepeople,woodhasacertainstatus.”(Aca- demicexpert,12yearsofprofessionalexperience,Sweden),and“I thinksustainabilitywillenableastrongerlocalindustry.Swedishmilk isoneexample,asitisalmostsacredtoconsumers,anditissomewhat similarasthewoodindustryoperatingwithlowmargins.Ifwedon’t findsupportforlocalproducts,thenwearedryingouttheindustry.”

(Executiveatawoodindustrycompany,15yearsofprofessional experience,Sweden)

Tosumup,thegrowinginterestinsustainabilitywasseento emergeasamajormarketopportunityforthewoodandwood- buildingindustries. However, the main differencebetween the viewsofpanelistswasregardingwhereandthroughwhichmech- anismsthispotentialcouldbetransformedfromaninterestinto aviablebusiness,asclearlysummarizedbythefollowingquote:

“Thereisadifferencebetweeninterestandwhenit[theimportanceof sustainability]actuallyhappens...Butthedirectionistowardmore greenbuilding,anditisthefuture.”(Fieldmanagerataforestry organization,threeyearsofprofessionalexperience,Finland) Round2onlinesurvey

Sustainability-relatedaspectsintheWMCwerefurtherevalu- atedinRound2byelaboratingboththelikelihoodanddesirability oftenstatements(therestoftheDelphisurveyisnotreportedhere, butthereaderisreferredtoRöhr(2016).Mostofthestatements inDelphiRound2werebasedonissuescommonlyraisedinthe Round1 interviews.Asverylittlespontaneousspeechoccurred concerningregulatoryaspectsaroundsustainability, thesewere notemphasizedinmoredepthduringthesecondstageofourstudy.

Inaddition,somenewissuesraisedbyonlyafewpanelistsinRound 1werealsotakenintoaccount,astheyopeneduppossibilitiesfor moregeneralreflection.

According to the breakdown of responses in Table 2, the sustainability aspectswereexpectedtoincrease significantlyin importancetoward2030.Ingeneral,thedesirabilityaspectwas givenahighervaluethanthelikelihoodofitsoccurrence,indicating theroleofuncertaintyintheexternalmarketenvironment.

Overall,thepanelistsconsidereditbothhighlylikelyanddesir- ablethatconsumersof2030willbedrivenbytheaimtofindmore sustainablesolutionsforhousing.However,therestillappearsto beroomforsustainabilitytogrowasadriverofpurchasingdeci- sionsregardinghousing,andthisavenueasasellingargumentwas seenasverydesirableamongtheindustryprofessionals.Regarding statement“By2030,thelifecyclecostingofbuildingswillhavesignif- icantlymoreeffectondecision-makinginlarge-scalebuildingprojects thanpurchaseprice”,thepanelistsfullyagreedthatitisdesirable andits’likelihoodwasalsoveryhigh(76%).Thistopicwasalready discussedinRound1,anditappearedtocausediverseopinionsas somerespondentsfeltthatitiscurrentlydifficultforwoodtocom- peteonapurchasepriceonly.Themainchannelsthroughwhichthe competitivenessofwoodmaterial-basedbuildingsolutionscould increaseinthefutureweregrowingconsumerdemandforsustain- ablelivingandtheemergenceofwoodconstructionasamodern wayofliving.Aregulatoryenvironmentwasalsoseenasanec- essaryfactorforcreatingfavorabledevelopmentinthebuilding sector,e.g.viatheemergenceofhybridbuildingmaterial-based solutions.

Regardingbuildingcertification,andspecificallythecomplex- ityoffutureschemes,anissueraisedbyacoupleofrespondents in Round1,a clearmajority(76%)of thepanelistsfeltthat the bureaucracyinvolvedinthecertificationschemeswillbedifficultto

8 A.Toppinenetal./JournalofForestEconomics31(2018)3–10

Table2

LikelihoodanddesirabilityoftheWMCtoward2030.Scale:low1–2,medium3,high4–5onthe5-pointLikertscale.

Statement Likelihood(%) Desirability(%)

By2030,theconsumerdemandforsustainablelivingisasignificantlystrongerdriverforwoodconstruction Low 0 0

Medium 24 12

High 76 88

By2030,consumerswillviewwoodconstructionasamodernwayofbuilding Low 0 0

Medium 12 6

High 88 94

By2030,thehousingregulationhasbecomemoresuitedforlarge-scalewoodenbuildings Low 6 6

Medium 35 0

High 59 94

By2030,thelifecyclecostingofbuildingswillhavesignificantlymoreeffectondecision-makinginlarge-scale buildingprojectsthanpurchaseprice

Low 0 0

Medium 24 0

High 76 100

By2030,mostbuildingrenovationinurbanspacewillinvolvewoodenbuildingsolutions Low 0 0

Medium 29 18

High 71 82

By2030,large-scalewoodenconstruction,suchaswoodenmultistorybuildingprojects,hasbecomethemost importantsegmentwithinwoodconstruction

Low 12 0

Medium 29 29

High 59 71

By2030,sustainabilityhasbecomeamegatrendinthehousingmarket Low 0 0

Medium 29 6

High 71 94

Thefutureofwoodbuildingisinhybridbuildings,jointlyusingothermaterials,suchasconcreteandsteel, wheretheybringthemostbenefits.

Low 0 0

Medium 12 24

High 88 76

Futurecertificationschemeswillbedifficulttomanageforsmallerbusinesses,duetothebureaucracyinvolved Low 0 65

Medium 24 18

High 76 18

Theimportanceofwoodasaconstructionmaterialwillbemainlybasedonitsenvironmentalimpact Low 24 41

Medium 35 24

High 41 35

manageforsmallerbusinessesinthefuture.Infact,norespondent consideredthisanunlikelyfuture.Simultaneously,65%ofrespon- dentsfeltthisfuturetobeeitherundesirableorveryundesirable.

ThelastclaiminTable2“Theimportanceofwoodasaconstruction materialwillbemainlybasedonitsenvironmentalimpact”received highlyvaryingresponses.Asthequestiondiscussedbelowregard- ingenvironmentalimpactvs.personalhealthsuggested,thehealth issuewasseenasastrongerdriverwhenonlythesetwochoices werepresented.

Thediscussionconcerningthemainreasonswhyanenduser wouldpreferlivinginawoodenbuildingwassomethingthatwas frequentlyapproachedduringtheRound1interviews.Tofurther highlightthistopic,Round2includedaspecificquestionthatwas aimedatunderstandingmore ofthe twoalternative marketing viewpoints:“Whichofthefollowingdoyouseeasthemainrationale forconsumerstochooselivinginawoodenbuilding:A.Thebuilding isenvironmentallyfriendlyorB.Thebuildinghassignificanthealth benefitsincomparisonwithotheralternatives”.Basedoninterviewee responses,personalhealthbenefitssurpassedgenericenvironmen- talbenefitsasthemainrationaleforchoosing woodoverother possiblematerialsinhousing(seeFig.2).

BasedonFig.2,environmentalaspectsappear tobea more importantchoicecriteriaamongsttheprofessionalsidentifiedas mid-categorywood-industryprocessors:fouroutofsixpanelists identified it as theirmain rationale. The majority of panelists, identifiedasforestryprofessionalsandrepresentativesofthebuild- ingindustry,assumedconsumerrationaleforchoosingawooden buildingtobe“thehealthbenefitsarisingfromwood”-argument.

Duetothesmallnumberof panelists,theinsightsin Fig.2 are naturallyjustindicativeandthetopicdeservesfurtherresearch.

Discussion

Sustainabledevelopmentisakeytopicinreachingtheaccept- abilityofbioeconomyintheforestsectorandinsocietyingeneral.

Despitethis,quitelimitedunderstandingexistsontheinterlinkage

betweenenvironmentalsustainabilityandbuildingregulationsas drivingforcesforthefutureofwooduseinthemultistoryconstruc- tionbusiness,whichduetothelong-standingroleofbuildingasa carbonstorageisacorefordevelopingsustainableforestbioecon- omy.Asenvironmentalattitudesinsocietytendtodevelopthrough increasedknowledgeandevenexperienceddiscomfortandharm fromenvironmentalproblems,itisalsoforeseenthatinthefuturea greaterproportionofconsumersislikelytoseekmoreenvironmen- tallyfriendlyalternativesinhousing.Regardingalltheseaspects, woodmaterialinmodernurbanconstructionhassomedefinitive advantages,whichhasbecomevisibleespeciallyamongyounger consumersegments(seeHoiboetal.,2015).Ourstudyhasaimed atelicitingsomenewinsightsonthefutureofWMCbasedonaDel- phiapproachconductedamongvalue-chainactorsinFinlandand Sweden,twoNordiccountriesintheforefrontofadvancingforest bioeconomy.

Thisbackgroundgivesrisetoourfirstresearchquestion:Howdo valuechainactorsperceivetheroleofvariousenvironmentalissuesto characterizethesustainablefutureofWMC?Overall,basedonthe resultsofDelphi Rounds1and 2,most panelistsperceivedthe importanceoftheissuesrelatedtosustainabledevelopmenttoplay anincreasingroleinthehousingmarket,butitwasnotclearto whatextentthiswouldbeoriginatingfromrecognitionofactual enduserneeds.Accordingtothepanelists,thegrowingempha- sisofwoodasasustainablebuildingmaterialinWMCismainly drivenbychangingbuildingregulation,andonlya fewofthem voiceditasechoingfromchangingmoresustainability-oriented consumervalues.Italsobecamequiteevidentthatthepanelists withdominantlypracticalprofessionalbackgroundswishedfora favorableregulatoryenvironmenttoward2030toenhancepositive developmentfortheuseofwoodinthemultistorybuildingsector.

Despitethis,theactualuptakeofwoodinmultistoryconstruction couldstilltakeconsiderabletimeandeffort(seealsoHurmekoski etal.,2016),andhappen,forexample,viatheemergenceofhybrid buildingmaterial-basedsolutions(Wangetal.,2014).Coherenceof buildingregulations,suchasthemismatchbetweentopicalenergy

Fig.2.AssumedmainrationaleforconsumerstochoosebetweenalternativebenefitsarisingfromWMC.

efficiencyquestions andtheroleofbuildingsasalong-standing carbonstorage,wereexamplesofissuesnotdiscussedinRound1, possiblyduetopanelcompositionincludingaratherlimitedinput frome.g.thecompetingconcretebasedbuildingsector.

RegardingoursecondresearchquestionofWhatisthelike- lihood and desirability of sustainability-related demand and regulatory aspects for the future of WMC toward 2030?, our Round2resultsconfirmedtheweightofperceivedlikelihoodof sustainability-drivenWMCtobelowerthanthedesirabilityofthe foreseendevelopment.However,thepanelistssawitasbothhighly likelyanddesirablethatconsumersin2030willbeincreasingly drivenbytheaimoffindingsustainablesolutionsforhousing.In parallel,asmentioned,therewasahighuniformitythatafavor- ableregulatoryenvironment“pro-wood”isalsoneededtocreate positivedevelopmentintheWMCsector.Whenitcomestohealth issuesandmaterialsusedforhousing,consumersmayhavelim- itedknowledge(Keith,2011),whileincreaseduseoffiresprinkler systemsinbuildingsisanissueofconcern.Therewasalsosome indicationthathigheragepanelistsaremoreskepticalonwhether consumersareactuallywillingtopayforhigherlevelofsustain- ability in housing per se. This could reflect the traditional (or conservative)mind-setofourpanelistswithonaverageover15 yearsofprofessionalexperienceinforestry-wood-construction– valuechain.However,ourdatawasnotsufficienttodwellthisissue anyfurther.

Ourfindingsaresomewhatinlinewithearlierconsumerstud- iesongenericwoodenconstructionmaterialsintheNordiccontext.

Forexample,RoosandNyrud(2008)foundthat“green”consumers forSwedish andNorwegianDIY-markets forflooring anddeck- ingweremoreoftenwomen,hadahigherlevelofeducation,and preferreditemswithproductwarranties.AccordingtoToivonen (2011), consumers e.g. relatedomestic originas an interlinked attributewiththeenvironmentalquality of(wooden) products.

Holopainen et al. (2014) found consumers of the Finnish out- door decking market to associate their needsto acquire more information withenvironmental effects of wooden productsto socialaspectsofsustainability,includinglegaloriginandemployee responsibility. These results point out that there is a segment of consumers associated with a sustainability-oriented lifestyle (suchasLOHAScategorization,seee.g.BeltzandPeattie,2012or Häyrinenetal.,2016inthecontextofforestry),andislikelyto growinthefuture.Thiswouldbeinlinewithourresultswhere sustainability-relatedconcerns aremore commonly broughtup amongyoungeragepanelmembers.

Environmentalandenvironment/humanhealth-relatedwood productcharacteristicsarecurrentlygaininggrowingattentionin consumerdecision-making(seeforexampleBurnardandKutnar, 2015,Keith,2011).Thistrendissupportedbyanincreasinggeneral interestinpersonalhealthand environmentalproblemsalready beingofmajorscalein manyheavilypopulatedregionsaround the world. However, there is still likely to be a gap between sustainability-related attitudes and behavior regarding wooden productsevenamongyoungergenerationintheNordiccountries.

Thus,oneimportantroadforfutureresearchwouldbetoanalyzein moredetailhowconsumersactuallydecomposethemultifaceted conceptofsustainabilityaroundWMC,andtostudyhowtheyvalue thevariousaspectsofsustainabilityinconnectionwiththeirper- sonalhousingandlivingdecisions.

Interestingly,accordingtoourstudy,oneimportantchannelto improveconsumeralignment withsustainablelivingoriginated fromlocally produced food,and the growthof consumerenvi- ronmentalawarenessbasedontheseeverydaychoices.Itwould thereforebeworthwhileforfutureresearchtomoreexplicitlylink theanalysisofconsumerbehaviorconcerningwoodandfoodprod- ucts(e.g.Autioetal.,2009;Reischetal.,2013),orofgreenproducts ingeneral(Maniatis,2015).Analysingsustainableconstructionnot onlyfrommaterialchoicepointofviewcanbealsoworthwhile,for exampleincludingaspectsrelatedtosocialsustainabilityofpro- ductionandconsumption (seee.g. Toppinenetal.,2013; Wang etal.,2014).

Based ontheobservedfew differencesonhowthefutureof WMCwasperceivedacrossthevaluechainstages,itwouldbeinter- estinginfutureresearchtoalsofocusonanalyzingthefutureof WMCratherasabusinessecosystemconsistingofarichernetwork ofactorsthaninourvalue-chainbasedset-up(Pulkkaetal.,2016).

Furthermore,variousoptionsfororchestratingnewbusinessmodel development(Bregeetal.,2014;LessingandBrege,2015)shouldbe furtherinvestigated.Fromthisperspective,itwouldbenecessaryto drawevidencefrompracticalexamplesonrecentoron-goingcon- structionprojectsincertainlocationstogathermorespecificand up-to-dateunderstandingofthestructureandfunctioningofthe wood-basedconstructionecosysteminbothcountriesandbeyond them.

Finally,itisimportanttoacknowledgethattheDelphiapproach hasalsoreceivedcriticismanditsreputationhasbeenslightlytar- nishedduetoexamplesfromtheliteraturewherecarelessselection ofexperts,poorlyformulatedquestions,orlackoftimetocarryout thestudyhavetakenplace(forareview,seee.g.Landeta,2006).