Abstract

Questionnaire development

The data used in this study were collected through an online survey. The questionnaire was designed based upon relevant topics found in research articles and from informal conversation with Forest Service and industry professionals that work in the reclaimed lumber field. The questionnaire consisted of 44 questions. Questions were organized in multiple formats that included five-point scale, open-ended response, dichotomous (yes or no), categorical (ranking), and multiple-choice.

The first section included questions related to demographics. The demographics section consisted of nine questions. These questions included age, gender, race or ethnicity, state of residence, etc. This was necessary to understand the demographic make-up of the respondents. Questions in the second section focused on the wood products industry in general, while the third section asked questions specifically about the reclaimed wood sector. Other sections included open-ended responses in which consumers were asked what they thought of when hearing the term “reclaimed wood.” Other open-ended responses asked that respondents list any wood products companies with which they were familiar. Respondents also were given a chance to provide any additional comments near the end of the survey. Before the finalized version was sent out, colleagues were asked to review the questionnaire. This was to ensure that the questionnaire was concise and not missing any relevant information.

Data collection

The online survey was distributed by Dynata, formerly known as Research Now Survey Sampling International (SSI), a company that provides data collection services for marketing research studies. Dynata serves both large and small businesses, colleges or universities and “nearly 6,000 market research, media and advertising agencies, publishers, consulting and investment firms, and corporate customers around the world (Dynata 2020).

Dynata offers a variety of recruitment methodologies to help meet unique project requirements. One such method is panel-based sampling, which helps identify and recruit respondents to participate in the survey taking process. Each recruitment channel delivers a different population with slightly different results (Dynata 2020). Each survey is distributed to a specific panel based upon the clients' study requirements. Some study requirements might include specific demographics and a set quota for the number of responses. Within this process, respondents are allowed a one-time, single response. The survey is then closed once the target quota is met with the complete number of responses. For the purposes of this research, the authors felt the use of panel-based sampling would provide the best approach for data collection.

In recent years, online participant panels have grown in popularity. The use of Internet surveys is a cost-effective tool that enables quick access to large and diverse samples (Hays et al. 2015). Internet surveys also are less time consuming than traditional methods used to obtain data and allow for a smoother survey taking process without facing question fatigue (Farrell and Peterson 2010, Dillman et al. 2014, Hays et al. 2015).

Data analysis measures

The statistical program SAS Analytics Software^© was used to analyze survey data. Descriptive statistics including frequencies, means, and modes were calculated for each individual question. The chi-square (χ²) test of independence and t tests were calculated to identify associations between respondent demographics and select questions. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to identify significant associations between select demographics and three Likert-like statements. An important statement was selected from each questionnaire section and paired with three demographic variables. These variables were gender, race, and education. The significance level for this study was α = 0.05. In statistical analysis t tests are used when comparing two group means, a one-way ANOVA analysis is used to compare means of more than two groups, and a chi-square test is used to explore the relationship between two categorical variables (Whatley 2022).

Demographics

Each respondent was asked to provide standard demographic information. This included gender, age, race, region, community type, and level of education. Of the responses received, 1,516 were deemed usable. The demographic breakdown of the 1,516 usable survey responses showed that 51 percent of respondents were female and 49 percent were male. This corresponds with the 2020 US Census data where females make up 51 percent of the population and males make up 49 percent (US Census 2020). Prior to survey distribution, respondents were categorized by six different age groups. Of the respondents, the largest age group were individuals 65 or above (22%), followed by individuals 35 to 44 years of age (19%) and 45 to 54 years of age (19%; Table 1).

Table 1. Age group percentage of survey respondents>.

View Fullscreen

In terms of racial background, 76 percent of respondents identified as Caucasian (white), 10 percent as African American (black), 8 percent as Asian, and 6 percent identified as Other. The racial makeup of this study also corresponds with the 2020 US Census, which reported 76 percent as Caucasian, 13 percent as African American, and 6 percent as Asian (US Census 2020). The current educational background revealed that 29 percent of respondents held a bachelor's degree, 24 percent held advanced degrees, 19 percent held a high school degree or less, 15 percent had some college (no degree), and 13 percent held an associate's or technical degree. This differs slightly from the 2020 US Census where individuals identified as having a high school degree or less made up the largest percentage (38%). The second largest group being those holding a bachelor's degree (22%), followed by individuals with some college (17%), those with professional degrees (13%), and individuals who received an associate's or technical degree (10%).

When asked about their marital status, over half of respondents identified as married (55%), approximately 24 percent as single, 10 percent as divorced, 7 percent as living with a partner, and 4 percent as widowed. When asked to indicate their region of residence, 40 percent stated that they lived in the South, 21 percent in the Northeast, 20 percent in the West, and 19 percent in the Midwest. The majority of respondents also stated that they live in suburban communities (47%), while 33 percent reside in urban communities, and 20 percent in reside in rural communities.

Knowledge of industry

To understand consumers' current knowledge levels of the wood products industry, respondents were asked to describe how knowledgeable they are regarding the wood products industry. The majority (59%) of respondents indicated being a somewhat knowledgeable audience. The remaining portion (41%) indicated that they held no knowledge whatsoever. A Pearson's chi-squared test detected significant association between respondent's knowledge of the industry and race (P ≤ .001). Respondents that identified as Caucasian were more likely to have prior knowledge of the wood products industry than were their counterparts. Results suggest that wood products knowledge or awareness is not equal among racial groups, thus prompting room for improvement. The wood products industry, traditionally, has been known as a Caucasian-dominated field. This might be a reason that individuals who identified as Caucasian might be more knowledgeable on the subject (Stout et al. 2020). In addition to race, chi-square tests between other demographics (gender, age, education, community type, and region) and respondent's knowledge levels resulted in statistically significant associations. Males, respondents with advanced degrees, and respondents in urban locations also were more likely to have prior knowledge of the wood products industry. These results align with previous studies that show males and individuals that were highly educated were more likely to know more about the wood products industry and have more positive attitudes to the industry (Toppinen et al. 2013, Stout et al. 2020, Montague et al. 2021).

Respondents who stated that they did have some knowledge regarding the industry (n = 901) were asked to identify from where or whom they had learned about the industry. As shown in Figure 1, most respondents had heard about the industry through family (31%) or friends (22%), followed by online (17%), TV (15%), and social media (14%). It is no surprise that family and peers play an important role in informal learning. In an age where social sharing and “influencing” are prominent in everyday living, people seem to value the information they learn from their peers (Emporia State University 2020). Younger generations have even adopted new collaborative mindsets from encouraged informal knowledge sharing (Emporia State University 2020). Word-of-mouth is popular and can influence what a person knows without that person doing extensive research.

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

The finding of respondents learning information online is not surprising. The Internet is an important source of information with a wide coverage and extremely fast access (Al Hassan 2015). Within seconds, knowledge can be at anyone's fingertips. Since its debut, people have become more comfortable with using the Internet as an information outlet. Cable television is also another outlet for information sharing. Many people learn with TV programs like HGTV and the DIY Network, both of which feature nonstop renovations that cover a wide range of projects and budgets (D'Costa 2015). From hardwood floors to high-end kitchen cabinets, wood renovations are common on these programs.

Most people use social media platforms to network with friends, or for entertainment pleasures. However, social media also is heavily used to gather information, and information gathering is listed as one of the top three reasons for social media use (Montague et al. 2019). With different gossip blogs and news outlets having major presence on various social media platforms, consumers are exposed to more information daily through social media alone. However, Montague et al. (2019) also determined that while many use social media to gather information, they do not use it heavily to find information on wood products. This indicates that there may be an opportunity for the industry to increase the promotion of products and information dissemination through social media. The options “school function,” “career center magazine,” and “other” scored relatively low compared with the other options listed (Fig. 1). For those that chose “Other,” most of the respondents themselves had career experience working in the wood products industry or related field.

To further understand how respondents learned about the industry, respondents were then asked if they have any immediate family that had any experience working in the field. A large number of respondents (68%) did not have any family working within the field. Twenty-six percent did have family members with experience in the field, while the remaining 6 percent were unsure. This large percent of responses could suggest that most respondents are learning their information from outside sources such as word-of-mouth, among friends, or from reading information online. Perhaps people indulged in self-learning during the COVID-19 pandemic because most people have taken an interest in DIY (Do It Yourself) projects/home renovations (Zhang and Stottlemyer 2021). Self-learning and the desire to learn how to accomplish a project could easily influence where people gather their information.

Respondents were also asked whether they were familiar with at least one wood products company in general. Nearly half (49%) of the respondents stated that they were not familiar with one wood products company. Thirty-three percent acknowledged that they were familiar with at least one company, while 18 percent were unsure. The respondents that chose “yes” (n = 500) were then asked to list that company. Frequent responses mentioned notable companies such as Weyerhaeuser, Georgia Pacific, Home Depot, Lowe's, 84 Lumber, and YellaWood. Weyerhaeuser and Georgia Pacific are known as two of the largest wood products companies in the world, bringing in nearly US$7.1 billion in revenue (Kolmar 2021). Therefore, it makes sense that Weyerhaeuser and Georgia Pacific were some of the frequently mentioned companies. Those same respondents also were asked if they knew whether the companies they listed worked with salvaged lumber. Almost half of the respondents (49%) stated that they were unsure. The remaining responses were split between “yes” (24%) and “no” (27%; Fig. 2). The reason that a large number of respondents were unsure could be because most of the companies mentioned either do not use reclaimed wood, or do not broadcast their use of reclaimed wood.

View Figure

• Download as Powerpoint
• Download Figure

Respondents were then asked to identify when they last purchased a wood product. A large portion of the respondents (46%) had purchased a wood product less than six months prior to their participation in the survey. Eighteen percent of the respondents could not remember when they last made a purchase. Similarly, another 18 percent of the respondents indicated that they had made a purchase within 6 months to a year prior to participation in the survey. Thirteen percent of respondents made purchases 2 to 5 years prior to the survey. The remaining 6 percent stated that they had made purchases more than 5 years ago.

This is on par with the increase in wood products sales during the pandemic. Consumers across the nation went from hoarding toilet paper to buying lumber for DIY projects, which contributed to skyrocketing prices (Zhang and Stottlemyer 2021). Staying at home for a large portion of the pandemic encouraged many people to perform home repairs or upgrades for amenities such as outdoor decks or the purchasing of new wooden furniture (Zhang and Stottlemyer 2021).

For those that responded that they did not purchase wood products within the past year or so, perhaps they are unsure of what is classified as a wood product. There are over 5,000 types of wood products, so it is very unlikely that there were any respondents who did not purchase any wood products within the past year. Perhaps those respondents that indicated that they did not purchase wood did not realize that they were consuming wood products. This could signify a lack of knowledge or awareness among consumers, as suggested in similar studies. For example, Montague et al. (2019) discovered that consumers seem to only identify lumber as wood products. This could be another indicator that the industry might have an issue with the promotion of wood products.

To get an idea of the type of wood products consumers use, respondents were asked which products they were most willing to buy. Respondents indicated they were more willing to buy furniture (37%) and paper (25%) than any other wood product. Options such as kitchen cabinets (6%), fuelwood or charcoal (3%), and composites (oriented strand board, particleboard, flake board; 2%) seemed to be less popular. One percent of the respondents stated that they would be willing to buy other wood products not listed. These products include items such as birdhouses, kitchen table sets (which would be classified as furniture), and wood pellets.

Knowledge of Reclaimed Wood

Before asking questions to gauge perceptions, respondents were asked general questions about reclaimed wood. When asked if they had ever heard of reclaimed wood before, a majority of respondents (55%) stated “yes.” Thirty-three percent stated that they had not heard of it, while the other 12 percent were uncertain. Additionally, respondents were asked if they knew what reclaimed wood was. The results were similar with 44 percent stating “yes,” and 37 percent replying “no,” and the remaining 19 percent selecting “unsure.” Respondents also were asked if they were aware that reclaimed wood was a separate sector of its own. Over half of the respondents (60%) indicated that they were unaware of this, with the remaining 40 percent indicating that they were aware.

Perceptions of employment opportunities with reclaimed wood

After examining their levels of knowledge, respondents were given a set of Likert-type questions to determine their perception on wood products and reclaimed lumber. They were then given information regarding the benefits of reclaimed wood. One such benefit included potential job creation in low-income neighborhoods. Respondents were informed that the reclaimed wood industry can increase job exposure for individuals who have a hard time finding labor and were then asked whether learning this information changed their initial perceptions of reclaimed wood. The majority of respondents (69%) agreed that their initial perceptions had changed.

To test to see whether perceptions had truly changed, after receiving additional information, respondents were presented with the same statements a second time. Initial responses (prior to being given information) indicated that respondents already had a positive view of reclaimed wood. However, after learning about the potential to create job exposure, responses showed an more positive outlook (Fig. 2). In addition, Table 2 shows that a majority of respondents (88%; mean of 4.28) were inclined to agree with the statement “reclaimed wood can be profitable for communities.” General agreement with that statement suggests that most respondents do see the value of reclaimed wood. One person even expressed thanks for this survey, stating that working with reclaimed lumber is how they have supported themselves financially. Of the respondents, a little over half (51%) indicated that they have personally thought about recycling wood (Table 2). Previous studies have indicated that recycling is a cultural norm in America and that American consumers care about recycling and the environment (Carton Council 2016). The small number of respondents that recycle wood may indicate that the public may not be fully informed on the recyclability properties of wood.

Table 2. Respondents' perceptions about reclaimed wood.

View Fullscreen

Likewise, the majority of respondents fluctuated between agreeing with (49%) and remaining neutral about (27%) whether they thought about what happens to wood once it had been demolished from old buildings (mean = 2.99; Table 2). Although many do not think about recycling wood personally, 73 percent of respondents were more likely to disagree (mean = 1.62; Table 2) with the statement “demolition practices should not recycle wood from old buildings.” This means that respondents do think wood should be recycled from these waste streams instead of being demolished. There is already documentation on the effects of salvaging practices, but these results indicate greater potential for implementation of reclaimed wood within the industry.

Perception of industry sustainability and waste reduction practices

Before giving respondents statements regarding the environmental impact of the industry, respondents were provided with more information regarding the benefits of reclaimed wood. Respondents were told that the reclaimed wood industry decreases the amount of waste that goes into landfills. Then they were asked if learning this changed their original perceptions of the industry. Sixty-seven percent of respondents indicated that learning this information did affect their initial perceptions of the reclaimed wood industry. The remaining 33 percent did not agree. These results could suggest that respondents lacked an initial understanding of the benefits of recycled wood. Perhaps there is a disconnect in how companies within the industry promote themselves. Research shows that more consumers are looking for sustainable or environmentally friendly products (Hansen et al. 2014, Pätäri et al. 2017, Nielsen 2018, Alamsyah et al. 2020). Understanding the environmental benefits of reclaimed lumber may entice consumers to support recycling wood and reclaimed lumber companies. It also may increase the market demand for reclaimed lumber.

To gain a better understanding of their perceptions of the wood products industry, respondents were asked to consider topics concerning the industry's relationship with the environment and its waste practices (Table 3). Approximately 89 percent of respondents agreed that reusing wood from demolition sites helps reduce landfill waste. Eighty-seven percent of respondents agreed that they understand the importance of wood products in the world. In addition, 70 percent agreed with the statement that cutting down trees causes damage to natural forests, rating it a 4 or 5 on the scale. One respondent stated that “tree companies have destroyed hundreds of acres of beautiful pine forests that once surrounded [her] property. So, [she's] all for minimizing this destructive and heartbreaking practice.” This seems to be a common perception across survey participants, but it is unclear whether participants are aware of forest sustainability practices and current contemporary views on reforestation and forest resilience. Reforestation efforts are a top priority for national forest management following planned timber harvests or catastrophic events (US Forest Service 2022).

Table 3. Respondents' perceptions toward the industry's relationship with the environment.

View Fullscreen

When asked whether they thought the wood products industry harms the environment, 40 percent agreed that the industry did not harm the environment. Thirty percent were neutral, indicating respondents did not know how to feel about that statement. This could be because they do not have a lot of information regarding the industry's environmental practices, thus being unable to hold a strong opinion. According to Krosnick et al.( 2002), respondents are more likely to select neutral in response to a statement when they have little or no former knowledge of the subject. This once again brings up the issue of the industry's current promoting and marketing practices.

When asked about the effect of recycling wood, 66 percent of respondents disagreed with the statement “recycling wood does not have an impact on communities.” Likewise, 63 percent of respondents also disagreed with the statement “recycling wood does not have an impact on the environment.” This implies that the respondents do believe recycling wood is effective. It appears they believe this effect to be positive; one respondent stated, “When I said that there were impacts of reclaimed wood on environment and communities, I meant in a positive way.”

Perceptions of industry promotion practices

Urban and reclaimed wood firms can vary in terms of stature, credibility, facility management, exporting practices, and length of operation (Pitti et al. 2019). Customer profile also can vary ranging from high-volume corporate customers, such as architecture and design firms, down to the individual buyer (Pitti et al. 2019). Based upon the target audience, marketing practices can differ. Thus, there is a need to determine whether these campaigns are effectively reaching consumers. To gauge their perceptions on promotion practices of reclaimed wood within the industry, respondents were given a series of statements. Each respondent was asked to indicate their level of agreement for each statement (Table 4).

Table 4. Respondents' attitudes toward the reclaimed wood industry's marketing practices.

View Fullscreen

Of the respondents, 85 percent agreed that knowing about the environmental benefits of wood products would be beneficial to consumer opinion. Additional comments support these sentiments. One respondent stated that information regarding reclaimed wood is “really good for the general population to be aware of to help save [the] planet.” Another stated that “climate change can literally exterminate us, [so it is best to] sustain the environment.” Others referred to this information as “thought provoking.” Eighty percent of respondents also agreed that wood products companies should increase awareness of their environmental friendliness. The majority of respondents (58%) disagreed with the statement “Salvaged lumber is not marketable, because it might not be financially beneficial in the long run.” This suggests that reclaimed wood is marketable and that consumers would be more inclined to consider purchase if it were properly advertised.

For years there has been discussions among the industry on how to effectively promote and market wood products (Mater 2005, Panwar et al. 2010, Montague et al. 2016). These results show that consumers are looking for more information on wood products and appreciate the sustainability of reclaimed lumber. This also shows that there is an opportunity for the industry to increase the awareness of reclaimed wood, its benefits, and its uses. Thirty-seven percent of respondents indicated that they learned of the wood products industry through some form of digital media, so increasing industry presence through digital platforms may be beneficial.

Approximately 54 percent of respondents stated that they have not seen any advertisements promoting the use of reclaimed wood. Similarly, 79 percent of respondents agreed that reclaimed wood should be marketed better. A previous study (Pitti et al. 2019) indicated that the majority of active reclaimed wood firms had been operating for less than 10 years. Being fairly new in the industry could pose some challenges. Perhaps the industry could further explore how this barrier might affect marketing techniques implemented thus far. Further, t tests and analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests suggest that neither the amount of education, gender, nor race play a role in the way respondents viewed marketing practices.

Importance of the wood products industry

Respondents were asked to rate how important they believed the wood products industry to be on a five-point Likert scale. Leaning more toward a value of “4” or “5,” 81 percent of respondents were more inclined to consider the industry to be important (mean = 4.13). Only a small percentage of respondents selected values “1” or “2,” which label the industry as extremely unimportant (1%) or somewhat unimportant (3%). Fifteen percent of respondents felt neutral toward this statement. An ANOVA test showed there was a significant association between education level and industry importance and between community type and industry importance. Respondents with bachelor's and master's degrees were more inclined to understand the significance of the industry. Likewise, respondents in suburban communities were more inclined to understand the significance of the industry. However, this difference could be due to the majority of respondents being from suburban communities. Further research among equal community populations might provide insight on whether individuals think differently among these three community types. Based upon responses from the “additional comments” section, the majority of respondents thought this survey was extremely informative and realize the importance of the industry.

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. Results were obtained from an established panel, so the responses may not necessarily reflect those of other US consumers. In addition, people are often biased when reporting their own experiences. As a result, one should be cautious in generalizing the findings of this study.