Abstract

Questionnaire

The questionnaire consisted of 40 questions. The questions were in multiple formats including multiple choice, five-point rating scale, open-ended, and categorical (ranking). Demographics, including age, education level, race/ethnicity, and state of residence, made up 7 of the 40 questions. The age question was critical, given our focus on millennials. The age range chosen to define the millennial generation herein consist of those aged 18 to 38 in 2018 (born 1980 through 2000). In addition, questions were provided regarding respondents' self-perception of their own generation and respondent use of social media applications.

The remaining questions focused on the wood products industry and wood products. Industry-specific questions requested respondents' opinions regarding topics such as general knowledge, industry reputation/credibility, and the industry's relationship with the environment. Product-specific questions requested respondents' opinions on wood product characteristics, styles, and durability. Specific questions related to CLT were also asked in this section. Every question was formatted according to Dillman's tailored design method (Dillman et al. 2014).

Before the questionnaire was distributed, it was tested with a small number of people from the desired sample population before mass distribution (Dillman et al. 2014). Pretesting of questionnaires is a recommended method to resolve previously undetected issues and to reduce measurement errors with questions before full testing begins (Dillman et al. 2014).

The pretest occurred with the aid of the panel sample company Research Now SSI. The requirements for the pretest follow those previously described: the age range was set from 18 to 38 years old; all other demographics were random, and it was national. The pretest was conducted in the spring of 2018. Feedback was collected from respondent comments in the open-ended box at the end of the questionnaire. There were 184 responses collected. Of those 184 responses, 40 were discarded because those respondents did not fall in the age range or did not complete the questionnaire. Thus, the pretest yielded 144 usable responses.

Based on the comments provided in the open-ended box by the respondents, two questions were altered to ease the answer process. In one case a question was altered to reduce the number of answer choices, while in the other case the format of the question was changed. For the question that had its format changed, the 144 usable pretest responses were withheld from final data analysis.

This publication focuses solely on the wood products section of the questionnaire.

Data collection

An online survey was conducted nationally in the United States by Research Now Survey Sampling International (SSI),¹ a company providing data collection services for marketing research studies. Research Now SSI serves both large and small businesses, colleges/universities, healthcare providers, market research agencies, and other advertising-related agencies (Research Now SSI 2018a).

Research Now SSI uses panel-based sampling to identify respondents for surveys. The panels are comprised of people who have voluntarily agreed to take the survey and provide answers. The panel to which each survey is distributed depends upon the clients' study requirements. The number of responses requested plus specific demographics constitute some of the possible study/panel requirements. Survey respondents are allowed only a one-time, single response, and when the total number of needed responses is met, the survey is closed.

In order for Research Now SSI to provide a sample reflective of the target population, they use multiple quality-control techniques, including the following:

a three-stage randomization process in matching a participant with a survey they are likely to be able to complete. First, participants are randomly selected from SSI's panels to be invited to take a survey, and these participants are combined with others entering SSI's Dynamix™ sampling platform after responding to online messaging. A set of profiling questions is randomly selected for them to answer (these are methodologically correct questions, never affirmation questions) and upon completion, participants are matched with a survey they are likely to be able to take, using a further element of randomization (Research Now SSI 2018d).

Other examples of quality control measures include “digital fingerprinting that flags duplicate respondents” and “pattern recognition software [that] identifies fraudulent respondents” (Research Now SSI 2018b, 2018c). In addition, SSI “works to optimally blend proprietary sample sources by conducting comparability tests and modeling the blend that will achieve the closest match to census and social benchmarks” (Research Now SSI 2018).

Methods of surveying populations using the internet have evolved because of increasing demand. The methods Research Now SSI has implemented to ensure data quality are aligned with those described by Baker et al. (2010). An increasing number of industries have begun to rely on online panel services for research purposes. According to Callegaro et al. (2014), online surveys have become the leading approach for conducting market research. Reasons for this increase relate to lower costs, faster response time, higher levels of response than with other methods, and issues regarding the reach of different modes (Baker et al. 2010). The value of online panel sampling also goes beyond lower costs and quicker response times. There is evidence of a reduction in measurement error in online surveys versus other modes (Farrell and Petersen 2010).

Sample collection

The only sampling criterion for this study was a specific age range of those born from 1980 to 2000. All other demographics were random. Research Now SSI distributed the survey to a random sample of individuals from an online panel. The target number of responses was 1,500 and responses were collected until the target number was met. The pretest responses were included in the total target of 1,500. Testing for the first wave occurred in March 2018.

The first wave produced 1,234 usable completes, including the 144 usable pretest responses. A second wave was launched in an attempt to attain the 1,500 responses goal. The second wave occurred in April 2018. The second wave resulted in 101 usable responses. The overall total number of responses from both waves was 1,818. However, approximately 339 responses were removed because those respondents did not fall in the age range or did not complete the questionnaire. This filtration resulted in a total of 1,479 usable responses.

Bias potential

Given our use of an online panel company to distribute the survey, measuring nonresponse bias can be a potential issue (Sharp et al. 2011). However, as this study had two “waves” of responses, nonresponse bias was tested by comparing the early versus late responses. Although similar online studies do not test for nonresponse bias, other studies have used this approach in calculating nonresponse bias whereby the number of nonrespondents is unknown (Aguilar and Cai 2010, Lesser et al. 2011, Montague et al. 2016, Bumgardner et al. 2007). The authors wanted to ensure all bias was accounted for and decided to use this method as well.

Two questions were tested for bias. The first asked respondents if they had heard of the wood products industry before taking this survey (binary response variable with levels of “yes” or “no”). The second question asked respondents if their original perceptions of CLT changed after being presented with more information regarding its safety. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (K-S test) statistic was calculated to compare early versus late responses for both questions. The K-S statistic indicated the samples (no. 1 K-S = 0.99, no. 2 K-S = 0.97) came from the same distribution, meaning respondents who completed the survey later were not statistically different from those who completed it early.

Data analysis measures

Descriptive statistics such as frequencies, means, and modes were calculated for all the questions. Further analyses included parametric tests performed on yes-or-no, multiple choice, and all the five-point rating scale questions. For the first part of this research, the Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric, rank-based test was used to assess the likelihood that the distributions of responses to questions that used the five-point scale were similar for different groups of respondents (based on age group, gender, education, race, etc.). For this portion, only descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data collected.

Study limitations

There are limitations to our work that are similar to other research using online surveys. Although panel surveys can be administered quickly and are usually cost efficient, there are some disadvantages. Because results were obtained from an established panel, the responses may not necessarily reflect those of other US consumers as recent studies based on online surveys have acknowledged biases toward “younger age, white, non-Hispanic ethnicity, literate, non-visually impaired, and persons with low time costs” (Craig et al. 2013).

Demographics

The demographic breakdown from the usable surveys revealed 54 percent of respondents were female (n = 796) and 46 percent were male (n = 672). The gender makeup for this study was similar to the entire United States with 51 percent female and 49 percent male (Howden and Meyer 2011, US Census Bureau 2010). The majority of respondents live in the South (35%) and Midwest (23%) while 22 percent were from the West and 20 percent were from the Northeast. In terms of race/ethnicity, 79 percent of the respondents identified as Caucasian (white), 10 percent as African American, 8 percent as Asian, and 2 percent as Other. The racial makeup of this study is on par with the 2010 US Census that reported 78 percent Caucasian, 13 percent African American, and 5 percent Asian (US Census Bureau 2010).

The current level of education completed by respondents indicated 39 percent held college/advanced degrees, 26 percent held a high school degree or less, 22 percent had some college (no degree), and 13 percent held technical/associates degrees. The educational attainment was similar to that of the entire United States, where 31 percent hold college/advanced degrees, 29 percent hold high school degrees, 19 percent have some college (no degree), and 10 percent hold associate degrees (US Census Bureau 2017). Perhaps most important, there was a relatively equal turnout among age groups of survey respondents, as seen in Table 1.

Table 1. Percentage of survey respondents by age group.^a

View Fullscreen

General wood products

To gauge general perceptions toward wood products, respondents were given a list of wood products and asked to select the first word that came to mind when they heard or saw the phrase wood products. The top three words that came to millennials first were trees (33%), lumber (25%), and paper (17%). The full list of options provided to respondents is illustrated in Figure 1.

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

In a separate question, millennials were asked to rank 10 different wood products in terms of perceived popularity. Seventy-one percent of respondents indicated paper and pulp to be the most popular product, followed by lumber at 51 percent. Composites and fuelwood were ranked last with 0.5 and 0.4 percent, respectively.

A list of statements was provided to the respondents to determine how wood products appeal to current millennial consumers. Approximately, 78 percent agreed (assigned value of 4 or 5) wood products will always have a presence in the consumer market (Table 2). Millennials ages 30 to 38 were most likely to strongly agree with that statement compared to respondents ages 18 to 20. Females were more likely to strongly agree and all millennials with a college/advanced degree were more likely to agree that wood products will always have a presence in the consumer market.

Table 2. Millennials' attitude toward general wood products topics.^a

View Fullscreen

Approximately, 75 percent (4 and 5 value) of millennials agreed that wood products are popular among consumers (Table 2). Females were more likely to strongly agree and millennials ages 33 to 35 were more likely to agree that wood products are popular among consumers. Millennials with some college, but no degree, were more likely to strongly agree with that statement as well. While most respondents were likely to agree with wood products having a place in the market and being popular among consumers, it is interesting to note that they had more neutral responses when asked about purchasing wood products in the future and whether they preferred wood furniture (Table 2).

Wood products' appeal

To further understand millennial perceptions and attitudes towards wood products, respondents were provided with statements centered on four main themes. The four themes were environmental impact, physical properties, physical appearance, and durability. Respondents were asked to evaluate each statement using a five-point scale where 5 = strongly agree and 1 = strongly disagree.

When asked about the environmental impact of wood products, 64 percent of millennials agreed (4 and 5) that they do not like to see trees cut down (Table 3). Millennial females were more likely to strongly agree with that statement than males. Sixty percent of millennials agreed (4 and 5) that wood is a sustainable resource. Millennial males were more likely to strongly agree with that statement. All millennials ages 33 to 35 and all millennials with a technical/associates degree were more likely to agree that wood is a sustainable resource.

Table 3. Millennials' attitude regarding the environmental impact of wood products.^a

View Fullscreen

A little less than half of millennials (42%) held a neutral attitude (3) toward the statement “wood is a better quality product with which to build as compared to concrete or steel.” Millennials ages 18 to 20 were more likely to disagree and all millennials with a college/advanced degree were more likely to agree with that statement. A reason for these responses may be that those with higher education are more informed regarding the benefits of building with wood. Younger millennials (ages 18 to 20) were also more likely to disagree with that statement, indicating they may not possess an understanding of the advantages of wood structures.

Finally, 46 percent of millennials disagreed (1 or 2) that wood products should not be built or used. All millennials ages 33 to 35 were more likely to strongly disagree with that statement. Millennial females and all respondents who identified as Caucasian were more likely to disagree with that statement.

The majority of millennials (64%) in this study indicated that they “do not like to see trees cut down.” Females in particular were more likely to strongly agree with that statement. Surprisingly, millennial females were more likely to disagree with “wood products should not be used” yet were more likely to strongly agree with the statement “I do not like to see trees cut down.” The strong agreement toward the statement “I do not like to see trees cut down” may be a cohort effect and a result of climate change issues experienced throughout this generation's lifetime. According to Parment (2013), environmental events experienced during one's coming of age create values that remain relatively unchanged throughout life. While the respondents understand or believe that wood products “should be used,” there is still a strong reaction to seeing felled trees that may be attributed to life experiences.

The second theme focused on the physical properties of wood products (Table 4). Over half of millennials (66%, 4 and 5 values) agreed that wood burns faster than steel melts. All millennial females held neutral attitudes and all millennials with college/advanced degrees were more likely to strongly agree with that statement.

Table 4. Millennials' attitude toward physical properties of wood products.^a

View Fullscreen

Approximately, 65 percent of millennials agreed preservatives help to prevent wood decay. Females were most likely to agree with that statement. All millennials with some college/no degree were more likely to agree with that statement compared to all of those with a high school degree. In comparison, less than half of millennials (41%) agreed that treated wood poses only a minimal risk to human health (Table 4). Millennial females and all millennials with a high school degree were more likely to answer neutral (3) for that statement.

Millennial females were also more likely to agree that preservatives help prevent wood decay. Yet, females held neutral attitudes regarding whether treated wood poses a minimal risk to human health or not. A reason for this may be due to a lack of knowledge regarding treated wood and its relation to human health. Research shows that neutral responses on questionnaires are often selected when respondents are not knowledgeable on the subject (Knauper 1999, Krosnick et al. 2002).

Approximately 46 percent of millennials disagreed with the statement that “overall, I think wood is stronger than steel.” Millennial females were more likely to disagree with that statement. Also, all millennials with a high school degree (37%) held neutral attitudes towards that statement compared to those with a college/advanced degree (24%). Individuals that have some knowledge of wood types and characteristics typically understand that strength is dependent on the size, type, and physical properties of the wood. The responses provided for this statement suggests a lack of knowledge among millennials in terms of wood types and characteristics.

There is evidence of a need for improved education and awareness regarding the sustainability and safety of wood products. Results in Table 4 indicate millennials possessed a weak working knowledge of a variety of wood properties. Educational topics involving the rate at which wood burns in different situations as well as the safety associated with wood treatments may be beneficial to promote to the public. In addition, it may be beneficial to enhance millennial understanding of basic wood attributes regarding strength, load bearing capabilities, and environmental building benefits. As millennials are a more environmentally conscious group, informing them on these attributes could help to improve industry relations (Osburg et al. 2016).

Potential methods to educate millennials about wood properties may be through targeted campaigns ranging from traditional paper and ink to modern social media strategies. Each campaign would depend upon the desired goal. While focusing on the environmental aspect is important, the industry may consider posting educational facts about wood on the packaging of products sold to consumers (Osburg et al. 2016). This may be a subtle approach to educate the public on what material the product is made of and its associated properties.

The third theme related to the physical appearance or attractiveness of wood products (Table 5). Most millennials (82%, 4 or 5 values) agreed they find wood products to be beautiful. In particular, females were more likely to strongly agree and all millennials with a college/advanced degree or some college/no degree were more likely to strongly agree with that statement.

Table 5. Millennials' attitude toward the physical appearance of wood products.^a

View Fullscreen

Over half (54%) of millennials disagreed with the statement “wood products do not appeal to my style taste” (Table 5). Millennial females were most likely to strongly disagree with that statement. Over half of millennials (54%) indicated wood products appeal to their style taste. A possible reason for millennial females indicating it appeals to their style may stem from the popularity of the country chic, shabby chic, or rustic interior design trends (American Society of Interior Design 2014; Lerner 2016). The emergence of influential TV shows such as “Fixer Upper” on HGTV and other home renovation shows may also be a factor.

Similarly, over half (52%) of millennials disagreed that wood products look outdated. Again, females (30%) were more likely to strongly disagree with the statement versus males (17%). All respondents who identified as Caucasian were more likely to strongly disagree that wood products look outdated. However, millennials with some college/no degree were more likely to strongly disagree that wood products look outdated. Millennial females were, again, more likely to strongly disagree with that statement, perhaps because of interior design preferences.

As for the physical appearance of wood furniture or other products, millennials find it appealed to their style taste (Table 5). The focus on the appearance of wood products, such as hardwood floors, ties into millennial self-perceptions and values as a generation. Millennials emphasize the importance of their image and reputation beyond that of previous generations; this higher level of self-consciousness for how others perceive them may affect how millennials purchase products (Noble et al. 2009; Parment 2013).

The final theme included statements regarding the durability of wood products. Approximately, 75 percent of millennials agreed overall with the statement “hardwood floors are durable” (Table 6). Millennial females were more likely to strongly agree and millennials with a high school degree were most likely to answer neutral (3). Also, millennials ages 33 to 35 were more likely to strongly agree with that statement.

Table 6. Millennials' attitude towards the durability of wood products.^a

View Fullscreen

Over half of millennials (73%) agreed that hardwood floors contain fewer allergens than carpet (Table 6). Millennials ages 33 to 35 were more likely to strongly agree with that statement versus millennials ages 18 to 20. All millennials with a high school degree held neutral attitudes towards the statement. Also, all females were more likely to strongly agree than males with that statement.

Delving further into millennial attitudes toward flooring, 68 percent agreed they prefer hardwood to carpeted floors. Millennial females were more likely to strongly agree with preferring hardwood floors over carpet. All millennials with a high school degree held neutral attitudes toward that statement.

Cross-laminated timber

There is increasing interest in finding applications for CLT, which is considered a new product in the United States. To understand how millennials would react to this new wood product, respondents were asked questions solely regarding CLT use in construction. Approximately 16 percent of millennials said they had heard of CLT before this survey (Fig. 2). In terms of age, millennials ages 24 to 32 and males were more likely to say they had heard of CLT.

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

After determining current millennial awareness of CLT, respondents were asked two rounds of Likert-type questions to test if perceptions could be changed regarding CLT safety. Before respondents were asked to answer the first round of questions, they were provided a basic definition of CLT. This definition remained on the page as they considered the statements, shown in Table 7. Millennials were asked to indicate how safe or unsafe they would feel in four types of CLT-constructed buildings (entire building made of CLT, 3-story CLT building, 12-story CLT building, and building made of CLT and traditional building materials).

Table 7. Rounds 1 and 2—millennials' attitudes toward cross-laminated timber (CLT) building safety.^a

View Fullscreen

Half of millennials (50%) said they would feel safe in an entire building made of CLT. Millennial males were more likely to say they would feel very safe in an entire building made of CLT. All millennials with a high school degree held neutral attitudes toward that statement.

However, when the height of the CLT building was given in detail, millennial attitudes on CLT safety performance shifted. Approximately, 46 percent said they would feel safe in a three-story CLT building. Millennial males were more likely to say they felt very safe and all respondents with a high school degree were more likely to answer neutral (3) for that statement. Millennials who identified as Caucasian or Asian were also more likely to say they would feel safe in a three-story CLT building.

Approximately 30 percent of millennials indicated they would feel unsafe in a 12-story CLT building. Again, millennial males were most likely to say they would feel safe in a 12-story building. All millennials with a high school degree held neutral attitudes toward this statement.

After considering Round 1 of the statements, millennials were then provided additional information regarding CLT. Respondents were provided with a definition and description of CLT and information about CLT's fire and decay resistance. Following this information, respondents were asked if learning this additional information changed their original perceptions of CLT. Sixty-seven percent of millennials said their perceptions were changed. Only the 67 percent who answered “yes” were directed to the second round of Likert-type questions. The format of the second round of questions was exactly the same as the first. The same four statements were shown for millennials to consider.

Over half of millennials who answered Round 2 said they would feel safe in every CLT building described in the four statements (Table 7). Millennials shifted to answer more positively in the second round versus the first round of statements. There were 77 percent of respondents who said they would feel safe in a three-story CLT building, a 31 percent increase from the same statement in Round 1 (46%, Table 7). Millennials ages 24 to 26 and ages 36 to 38 were more likely to say they would feel very safe in a three-story CLT building versus ages 21 to 23. Similarly, regarding safety in a 12-story CLT building, millennials ages 33 to 38 were more likely to say they would feel safe versus ages 21 to 23.

Comparing Rounds 1 and 2 of the CLT questions, there was a change in millennial perception after additional information was provided. Millennials were more likely to indicate they felt safer in Round 2 compared to Round 1, as seen in Figure 3.

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

The results in Figure 3 indicate there is potential to change uncertain or negative perceptions with informative facts about wood products. In terms of the marketability of CLT, 64 percent of millennials said they thought this product would have a place in the US residential and commercial construction market. Males were more likely to answer “no” to CLT having a place in the US market. Yet, all millennials with college/advanced degrees (72%) were more likely to answer “yes” to CLT having a place in the US market compared to those with a high school degree (54%).

Finally, respondents were asked to answer an open-ended question regarding the future use of CLT in building construction in the United States. There were hundreds of comments left ranging from “I think HGTV should feature it” to “the information makes CLT sound very appealing as an alternative to traditional building materials.” Many comments expressed a desire to know more about CLT. In particular, they wanted information regarding material pricing, durability, longevity, and environmental friendliness. Showing interest in cost effectiveness is not surprising as millennials are faced with certain financial burdens such as student loans. Thus, products that are effectively priced may hold more value to millennials.

The industry has an opportunity to improve the awareness of CLT as a product and aid in shaping positive perception toward the product. Regarding the 16 percent of respondents who knew about CLT, males and those who identified as Asian were more likely to have a prior knowledge of the product. The prior knowledge held by many Asian respondents may be due to the known presence of CLT in European and Asian countries. As stated previously, CLT is a relatively new material to the United States.

Previous studies done by Laguarda-Mallo and Espinoza (2015, 2018) surveyed both the architecture community and engineering firms regarding CLT. Both communities expressed a lack of knowledge regarding CLT but had interest in knowing more. They also indicated a willingness to potentially use the product if it became more widely available in the United States.

Perceptions of the millennials surveyed here appear to mirror those of the studies by Laguarda-Mallo and Espinoza (2015, 2018). Millennials' attitudes were improved toward CLT when they were provided additional information regarding its physical and mechanical properties. Millennials also indicated they believed CLT would have a place in the US construction market in the future.

Many respondents mentioned the innovation of CLT moves this product application beyond traditional construction methods. There were many millennials who had thoughts for the “future” of the housing market and use of sustainable materials. Overall, it appears millennials hold a positive view toward wood products and believe they are environmentally friendly.