Environmentally Certified Wood Use by Green Builders and Traditional Builders
Michael Tomco
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF FOREST RESOURCES
University of Washington
March 2016
Program Authorized to Offer Degree
School of Environmental and Forest Sciences
College of the Environment
1
Abstract
The residential construction sector (consisting of both new home construction and repair and remodel
activity) is the largest end use market for softwood lumber in the U.S. and has a substantial impact on
the usage of environmentally certified wood products (ECWP). Residential green building programs
(RGBPs) integrate eco-friendly materials in the design and construction of homes to reduce energy
consumption and environmental impact. Residential buildings are a major source of C02 emissions and
use more energy than any other area of the building sector. The green home building market is growing,
which presents an opportunity for certified wood use in the residential construction market.
This study investigates the awareness and use of environmentally certified wood products by green and
traditional builders in the U.S. residential construction sector. The use of environmentally certified wood
products in residential construction projects is not required to receive an eco-label from an RGBP
therefore it is important to understand the factors influencing a homebuilders decision to use ECWPs.
Understanding the differences between green and traditional builders allows conclusions to be formed
on how to most effectively encourage the use of ECWP in the U.S. residential construction market.
Data was analyzed from 500 survey respondents. The results of this study indicate green and traditional
builders have significantly different levels of awareness and use of ECWPs. The data indicated significant
differences between green and traditional builders when separated by census regions and firm size.
Builders reported their main reasons for using and not using RGBPs and ECWPs revealing differences
between green and traditional builders in their use of these programs. Significant differences were
reported between green and traditional builders in their rating of the importance of environmental
attributes in their selection of building materials. Comparison of the environmental impact of wood
relative to steel and concrete indicate both builder groups consider wood to be more environmentally
friendly on a majority of the attributes and both builder groups reported a positive rating for wood on
all of the attributes considered in the study.
2
Contents
Introduction
5
Literature Review
6
Summary of Body of Knowledge of Certification Programs
6
Discussion of U.S. Residential Construction Sector, Green Building Programs and
8
Role of ECWPs in Green Building Programs
Objective
9
Survey Methodology and Data Collection
9
9
Sample Size Calculation
10
Data Collection
Results and Discussion
11
Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
11
Green Building Program Awareness and Use
13
Main Reasons for Use / Non Use of LEED and NGBS
13
Awareness and Use of Environmentally Certified Wood
16
Main Reasons for Certified Wood Use / Non Use
17
Certified Wood Awareness by Firm Size
20
FSC Certified Wood Awareness and Use by census Regions
23
SFI Certified Wood Awareness and Use by census Regions
25
Building Product Environmental Attributes
26
Wood, Steel, Concrete Comparisons
28
Conclusions
30
References
33
3
List of Figures
Figure 1: Breakdown of green and traditional builders based on reported 2010 revenue
12
Figure 2: Awareness and Use of LEED and NGBS
13
Figure 3: Main reasons for using or planning to use LEED and NGBS
14
Figure 4: Main reasons for not using LEED and NGBS
15
Figure 5: Awareness and Use of Certified Wood.
16
Figure 6: Main reasons for using FSC and SFI wood
17
Figure 7: Main reasons for not using FSC and SFI wood
19
Figure 8: FSC Awareness by Builder Revenue Groups
20
Figure 9: SFI Awareness by Builder Revenue Groups
22
Figure 10: FSC Awareness by Census Region
23
Figure 11: SFI Awareness by Census Region
25
Figure 12: Importance of Building Material Attributes
26
Figure 13: Environmental Perceptions of Wood, Steel and Concrete
28
4
Introduction
Third party forest certification systems are non-state market driven programs developed to recognize
well-managed sustainable utilization of forestlands (Bernstein & Cashore, 2003). Forest certification
systems evaluate firm performance based on social, environmental, and economic criteria through third
party independent assessment of forestry management practices to provide assurance to consumers
that firms who receive certification meet or exceed minimum certification standards (Moore, Cubbage,
& Eicheldinger, 2012). Incentives for certification include perceived price premiums, promotion of an
environmentally responsible image, and market access (Espinoza, Buehlmann, & Smith, 2012; Chen,
Innes & Takina, 2010). Through forest certification and chain-of-custody (CoC) tracking, third party
verified wood certification programs such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Sustainable
Forestry Initiative (SFI) provide consumers with the ability to verify that forest products originated from
sustainably managed forests (Vidal, Kozak, & Cohen, 2005).
As the largest end-use market for softwood lumber in the U.S., the residential construction sector
(consisting of both new home construction and repair and remodel activity) has a substantial impact on
the usage of environmentally certified wood products (ECWP). In 2015, the residential construction
sector consumed approximately two-thirds of all softwood lumber in the U.S. (WWPA, 2015). Factors
driving the use of certified wood by home builders include promotion of an environmentally conscious
image, concern for the environment, and green building codes (Ganguly, Eastin & Rabotyagov, 2008).
The projected increase in green home construction and renovation projects presents an opportunity for
environmentally certified wood in the residential construction sector (Estep, DeVallance & Grushecky,
2013).
Residential green building programs (RGBPs) integrate eco-friendly materials in the design and
construction of homes to reduce energy consumption and environmental impact. Residential buildings
are a major source of C02 emissions, consume more energy than any other area of the building sector
(Estiri, 2015), and account for over 20% of total energy consumption in the U.S. (U.S. DoE, 2011).
Despite growing awareness of green building, debate exists around its definition and it is alternatively
referred to as high performance building and sustainable building (Zuo & Zhao, 2014). Interest in green
building programs across the U.S. has been steadily increasing (Eicholtz et al, 2013), and green homes
have been projected to have a 29% - 38% market share of new home construction by 2016, up from 17%
in 2011 (McGraw-Hill, 2012).
The U.S. Green Building Councils’ Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED for Homes) and
the National Association of Home Builders’ ICC-700-National Green Building Standard (NGBS) award
points for the use of eco-friendly materials in home construction projects including the use of
environmentally certified wood products. LEED for Homes only awards points for the use of Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC) certified wood. The NGBS recognizes all credible third party certified wood
programs, which include, FSC, Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), Programme for the Endorsement of
Forest Certification (PEFC), and the American Tree Farm System (ATFS). Using environmentally certified
wood in a home adds to the total number of points awarded for the project, although it is possible to
receive an eco-label from an RGBP without the use of environmentally certified wood. RGBPs have
increased the market for ECWPs because home builders are able receive points for using certified wood
in framing and structural elements of a home whereas traditionally most wood from certified forests
were used in value-added products (Bowers, Ganguly, & Eastin, 2014). As of late 2015, in North America,
5
there were 67,253,028 ha of FSC certified forests (FSC, 2015) and there were 156,793,659 ha of PEFC
certified forests (PEFC, 2015). PEFC is a global umbrella organization that endorses national and regional
certification systems, such as Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), American Tree Farm System (ATFS),
and Canadian Standards Association (CSA) that have proven compliance with PEFCs guidelines and
criteria (PEFC b).
The growing interest and use of RGBPs provides an incentive for homebuilders to incorporate ECWPs in
their construction projects. The two leading RGBPs in the U.S., LEED for Homes and NGBS, do not
require the use of ECWPs to receive an eco-label certification therefore it is useful to understand the
factors affecting the usage of ECWPs in residential home construction projects among green and
traditional builders. Understanding the differences between green and traditional builders in their
perceptions of building materials, building product environmental attributes, and awareness and use of
ECWPs is important for sustainable forest management and reducing the environmental impact of the
residential construction sector.
Literature Review
Summary of Body of Knowledge of Certification Programs
Forest certification is a non-governmental market based mechanism that aims to promote sustainable
forest management. Forest certification was developed to address public concerns in the 1980s about
biodiversity loss and tropical deforestation (Rametsteiner & Simula, 2003). Perceived ineffectiveness of
inter-governmental organizations in developing programs to promote sustainable forest management
prompted environmental NGOs, retailers, and producers to create the first forest certification programs
in the early 1990s (Klooster, 2005). Public campaigns, boycotts, and bans on tropical wood products,
initially supported by environmental NGOs, were replaced by forest certification as a voluntary market
based approach to creating incentives for producers to engage in environmentally responsible and
sustainable forestry (Nussbaum & Simula, 2005).
The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), was founded in 1993 by suppliers, retailers, and environmental
organizations with 130 participants from 26 countries representing a wide variety of social,
environmental, and economic interests (Klooster, 2005). FSC is governed by a tripartite system
consisting of a social, environmental, and economic chamber, each with equal voting rights to prevent
any one chamber from dominating the rule making process (Auld, Guldbrandsen, McDermott, 2008).
FSC currently operates in 80 countries. As of early 2016, there were 67,038,964 ha of FSC certified
forests in North America, representing 36% of all FSC certified area globally. FSC has issued 3,815 chainof-custody certificates and 243 forest management certificates in North America (FSC, 2016). Through
forest management and chain-of-custody certification FSC tracks certified products through the supply
chain from forest to end consumer. Research has indicated a constrained supply of FSC wood in some
areas, in addition to a limited number of FSC certified processors may influence a builders’ decision to
seek points for using certified wood in green building projects (Germain & Penfield, 2010).
Founded in 1999, PEFC is a global umbrella organization that endorses national and regional certification
systems, such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), the American Tree Farm System (ATFS), and the
Canadian Standards Association (CSA), that have proven compliance with PEFCs guidelines and criteria
(PEFC b, 2015). As of late 2015, in North America there were 156,793,659 ha of PEFC certified forests
representing 59% of total PEFC certified area globally. PEFC has issued 441 chain-of-custody certificates
6
in North America (PEFC a, 2015). PEFC and FSC are considered the most prominent forest certification
programs globally with just under 450 million ha of forests certified to their standards. In North America,
certified forests supplied an estimated 13.9% of total round wood production in 2015. Forest
certification globally continues to grow, albeit more slowly in recent years (FAO, 2015).
The American Forest and Paper Association developed the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) in 1994 to
promote sustainable forest management through principles valuing social, economic, and
environmental interests. SFI has certifications for forest management, fiber sourcing, and chain-ofcustody tracking. SFI operates under an 18-member board with equal representation from social,
environmental, and economic sectors. SFI is internationally endorsed by PEFC and therefore recognizes
all PEFC endorsed programs in their chain-of-custody certifications. SFI, by area, is the largest single
certification program, with more than 100 million ha of forests certified in Canada and the U.S. (SFI).
FSC and SFI are the two leading forest certification programs operating in the U.S. FSC and SFI both
promote sustainable forest management yet differences exist between the programs (Rametsteiner &
Simula, 2003). Previous studies have suggested each program has different strengths and weaknesses,
which may reflect the differing origins of the programs (Sample, Price & Mater, 2003). Firms seeking
certification undergo an independent assessment of their forest management practices from an
accredited certification body to determine their readiness to receive certification. Forest management
practices are evaluated in relation to the predefined standards of the certification program. Generally,
certification standards address a broad array of social, environmental, and economic practices (Moore,
Cubbage & Eicheldinger, 2010). An independent audit confirms the certification standards have been
achieved resulting in the initial forest management certification which must be renewed on a regular
basis.
Forest certification operates as a market based incentive program based partially on the perception that
consumers will pay a premium for environmentally certified products, yet research indicates substantial
price premiums have not materialized for certified products (Tippura, Toppinen & Puumalainen, 2015;
Marx & Cuypers, 2010; Van Kooten, Nelson & Vertinsky, 2005). It is also not clear that when a premium
has been achieved that other influences such as limited supply were not contributing factors (Gullison,
2003). Previous studies have reported a wide variability in a consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for
certified wood products (Cai & Aguilar, 2013). Ozanne and Vlosky (2003) reported average willingness to
pay for certified wood items including a 2x4 stud, RTA chair, and new home on average decreased from
1995 – 2000. Cai and Aguilar (2013) report an increase in consumers WTP from meta-analysis of survey
responses conducted between 1995-1999 and 2000-2004, while noting that the structure of a survey
question, such as the amount of product detail provided, may influence the responses. A substantial
amount of research has demonstrated inconsistent behavior by consumers in their willingness to pay for
green products (Forrer & Mo, 2013).
Despite the widespread acceptance and proliferation of certification programs (Auld, Gulbrandsen, &
McDermott, 2008) little is known about their effectiveness in achieving sustainable forest management
(Clark & Kozar, 2011). Consumer awareness of certification programs has increased since their
introduction but consumers have also questioned the effectiveness of forest certification in halting
tropical deforestation (Ozanne & Vlosky, 2003). Roughly 10% of global forests are certified (Tippura,
Toppinen & Puumalainen, 2015) and these forests are predominantly located in the global north with
approximately 90% of certified forests located in the northern hemisphere (FAO, 2015). Studies have
7
suggested the costs of certification are prohibitively high for many forest owners in developing countries
where cost can vary substantially depending on operation size and forest complexity (Marx & Cuypers,
2010).
Previous studies have indicated exporting forest products to Europe and North America influences a
firms’ decision to certify to retain access to those markets (Auld, Gulbrandsen, & McDermott, 2008). A
large portion of tropical wood is consumed domestically (Forrer & Mo, 2013) and tropical timber exports
predominantly go to Asia (Gullison, 2003), where forest certification programs have not been widely
adopted (Bowers et al. 2012). Furthermore, research has raised questions about the viability of
sustainable logging in the tropics given the complex forests, extended recovery times, poor enforcement
of environmental regulations, and questionable dedication to long term sustainability of large multinational timber companies operating in tropical countries (Shearman, Bryan & Laurance, 2012).
Research suggests that FSC and SFI have contributed to improving the social, economic, and
environmental aspects of sustainable forestry with both systems requiring changes in a firms’
management activities in order to obtain certification (Moore, Cubbage & Eicheldinger, 2012). Although
doubt has been raised over the level of trust consumers have in industry sponsored certification
programs (Ozanne & Vlosky, 2003). A comparison of certification audits in Canada by Masters, Tikina,
and Larson (2010) found FSC requested significantly more conditions that needed changing before
certification could take place. A substantial amount of research has highlighted positive impacts of
forest certification globally on forest governance (Forrer & Mo, 2013).
Discussion of U.S. Residential Construction Sector, Green Building Programs, and ECWPs in Green
Building Programs
The two most prominent residential green building programs in the U.S. are the National Association of
Home Builders (NAHB) ICC-700-National Green Building Standard (NGBS) launched in 2007 and the U.S.
Green Building Councils Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED for Homes) launched in
2008. LEED for Homes and NGBS assign point values for the incorporation of predefined green practices
in home construction projects. NGBS certifies projects at the bronze, silver, gold, and emerald level
depending on the number of green practices incorporated in the design and construction of the
building. LEED offers four certification levels: certified, silver, gold, and platinum (USGBC a, 2016).
Research has shown a significant price difference between the LEED for Homes and NGBS program in
total cost of building a green home. The additional cost for building a LEED for Homes certified green
home is $7,450 compared to $2,650 for NGBS (Reposa, 2009).
Both certification systems use third party verification to ensure adherence to and proper
implementation of green building standards. There are approximately 68,690 NGBS green certified
homes (NAHB b, 2016) and 53,554 LEED for Homes certified units (USGBC, 2014). NGBS emphasizes lot
design and development, water efficiency, energy conservation, resource conservation, indoor
environmental quality, and homeowner education (NAHB a, 2016). NGBS awards points for the use of
certified wood from all credible third-party-certified programs. LEED for Homes emphasizes the entire
impact of the project from site selection, water efficiency, materials and resources, energy and
atmosphere, indoor environmental quality, location and linkages, awareness and education, and
innovation (USGBC b, 2016). In contrast to NGBS, LEED for Homes recognizes only FSC certified wood
under the NC 2009 rating system, Materials and Resources credit category, MRc7 credit, which awards 1
point if 50% of wood (by cost) in a home construction project is FSC certified, with the potential for an
8
extra point for exemplary performance when using 95% or more FSC certified wood (LEED a). Additional
points, under the MRc5 credit are available for using regionally sourced material, defined as being from
within 500 miles of the building site for both extraction and manufacturing distance with a prorated
calculation for water and rail shipping (LEED b).
Objective
This study was conducted to gain a better understanding of U.S. residential builders’ awareness and use
of environmentally certified wood products (ECWPs), forest certification programs, and the
environmental performance of wood as a building material relative to steel and concrete.
This study seeks to address the following questions: a) how do green builders differ from traditional
builders in general; b) how do green builders differ from traditional builders in their awareness and use
of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) environmentally certified
wood.
Survey Methodology and Data Collection
A web-based survey instrument was used to collect information from respondents within our survey
segment. The survey was powered by Qualtrics (Qualtrics Labs, Inc., version 2011), a web based survey
software. Logical sequencing was used in the survey design allowing respondents to answer only
questions that applied to them; enabling a progressive profiling of respondents. For example, only
builders who were aware of and used FSC certified wood were allowed to report their main reasons for
using it, while respondents who were unaware of FSC wood were allowed to report why they had not
used it. The survey data was uploaded to SPSS-19 for conducting the statistical analysis.
Sample Size Calculation
The survey was designed to analyze two populations i) the whole U.S. residential construction industry
(homebuilders and remodelers) and ii) homebuilder which have used LEED for Homes or NGBS.
Phase i) Sample Size for Whole U.S. Residential Construction Industry
The following formula was used to estimate a sample size from the target population based on specified
confidence level and presumed awareness level (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970).
Equation 1
Where n=required sample size; N=target population size; P=the estimated value for the proportion of a
sample who are aware of ECWPs; d=acceptable margin of error for the estimated value of p; χ2=value for
chi-square for one degree of freedom relative to the desired level of confidence, (1-d).
Based on the sample size determined in the previous formula, the following implicit assumptions are
made for the first survey segment:
9
1. The residential construction industry in the U.S. was assumed to be comprised of 211,647
homebuilders (N), including residential and non-residential homebuilders and home remodelers (U.S.
Census, 2004).
2. Due to varied and unknown levels of awareness regarding different construction materials, a value of
.5 (50%) is used for p since this will give the highest required sample size for the desired accuracy level
(Cochran, 1977).
3. The acceptable margin of error is suggested to be 5% for categorical data (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970);
although an error level 10% (or less) is acceptable for social science research (Bartlett et al., 2001). For
this study, 5% was used as the acceptable margin of error value (d).
Based on the aforesaid assumptions, the corresponding χ2 value for one degree of freedom was
calculated to be 3.84. Using Equation 1 and the pre-stated assumptions, the minimum sample size was
calculated to be 383.5. For convenience, the sample size was set at 400 usable survey responses.
Phase ii) Sample Size for Green Builders
The target population of green builders was conservatively estimated to be, N=8,500, 90% are assumed
to be aware of environmentally certified wood products, therefore, .9 is used for P. Using equation 1,
the minimum sample size for green builders was calculated to be 136.1.
Data Collection
The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) maintains the largest active web based panel of
residential homebuilders and remodelers in the U.S. covering all 50 states and all firm sizes. A sample
frame of 2,000 homebuilders and remodelers was selected using standard random sampling techniques
based on a random number generator. The target response rate was estimated to be 20% ensuring that
400 completed surveys would be collected. An email containing a link to the questionnaire was sent to
the randomly selected homebuilders and remodelers. Weekly reminders were sent to non-respondents.
The email link was disabled after reaching the target response rate of 400 surveys one month after
initiating the survey. A total of 494 responses were received.
The green builder sampling ensures satisfactory representation of builders who had used a residential
green building program in the survey respondents. The Phase-2 sampling of registered green builders
was conducted during October 2011. A publicly available list of builders registered with NGBS and LEED
for Homes was used to obtain the email addresses of 1,010 builders. A link to the web-based survey was
sent to the email addresses and phone calls asking them to participate were used to increase the
response rate.
The phase-2 green builder respondents were combined with the builders from phase-1 who had
participated in a residential green building program to establish the green builder sample for this study.
Phase-2 green builders and phase-1 home builders that had participated in a residential green building
program will hence forth in this study be referred to as green builders. A total of 494 respondents were
collected from phase-1 and 182 respondents from phase-2.
Limitations associated with conducting online surveys are well documented (Wright, 2005). Selfselection bias is a limitation associated with this study because certain groups of people may not be
willing to respond to an email invitation to participate in a web based survey. The data presented in this
10
study was collected within several years of the 2008 economic recession and therefore responses may
have been influenced by the downturn in the residential housing market. To be considered a green
builder for the purposes of this study a builder had to participate in at least 1 residential green building
project, therefore this study may include green builders that are not as committed to green building as
those that have completed more green building projects.
Results and Discussion
This study is based on the phase-1 494 respondents from the survey of residential home builders and
remodelers and the phase-2 survey of 182 green builders. Respondents were identified as green
builders or traditional builders. Builders who had completed at least 1 residential construction project
with a green building program, were categorized as green builders. Traditional builders, for the purposes
of this study, are residential home builders and remodelers who have not participated in any residential
green building program. All of the phase-2 eco-builder respondents were counted as green builders
because these builders had been identified as participating in residential green building programs. The
494 phase-1 respondents of the builder survey and the 182 phase-2 green builder surveys were filtered
by eliminating surveys that were not complete and eliminating respondents who had not completed at
least one homebuilding project in 2010. This process reduced our phase-1 builder survey respondents
from 494 to 399 and our phase-2 green builder respondents from 182 to 101.
Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents
From the 500 respondents, 227 were green builders and 273 were traditional builders. Of the green
builders, 89% were homebuilders and 11% remodelers. Among traditional builders 72% were
homebuilders and 28% were remodelers. A chi-square test of independence was conducted to
determine if there was a statistically significant relationship between green and traditional builders and
their nature of business. The difference in nature of business was statistically significant (p<.05) with
green builders significantly more likely to be homebuilders and remodelers significantly more likely to be
traditional builders.
The area where firms conducted business was evaluated in the survey. Green builders conducted 60% of
their business in urban / suburban areas, 25% in small towns, and 15% in rural areas. Traditional builders
conducted 56% of their business in urban / suburban areas, 31% in small towns, and 13% in rural areas.
Statistical analysis demonstrated no significant differences between green builders and traditional
builders in their area of operation.
The respondents in this survey represented residential construction professionals from the four U.S.
census regions, West, Midwest, South, and Northeast. The Northeast region had higher a proportion of
traditional builders (23%) than green builders (17%) and the Midwest had a higher proportion of
traditional builders (30%) over green builders (22%). The south had a larger proportion of green builders
(38%) compared to traditional builders (30%).The west had a higher proportion of green builders (24%)
than traditional builders (16%). Statistical analysis conducted with a chi-square test of independence
indicated a statistically significant (p<.05) association between census regions and green and traditional
builders (Pearson chi-square value = 11.995, d.f. = 3, p value = .007). A comparison of column
proportions using a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons indicated the West census region
had a significantly higher (p<.05) proportion of green builders than traditional builders. The Midwest
region had a significantly higher proportion of traditional builders than green builders.
11
The dataset represented homebuilders from a wide variety of firm sizes. As is common practice in
construction literature, annual revenue is used as a proxy for firm size. In this study, homebuilders were
segmented into three main revenue groups, small firms had annual revenue under $500,000, medium
firms had revenue between $500,001 and $3 million and large firms had revenue over $3 million (figure
1).
Green and Traditional Builders 2010 Revenue
25%
Medium Revenue
Percentage of respondents
20%
Small Revenue
Large Revenue
15%
10%
5%
0%
0 - $100
$100 to
$250
$250 to
$500
$500 to
$1,000
$1,000 to
$2,000
$2,000 to
$3,000
Annual Revenue in US$1,000
Green Builders
Traditional Builders
Fig. 1. Breakdown of green and traditional builders based on reported 2010 revenue.
12
$3,000 to
$5,000
$5,000 to
$10,000
Over
$10,000
Green Building Program Awareness and Use
Awareness and Use of LEED and NGBS
100%
0.0%
90%
80%
0.0%
27.8%
38.8%
35.2%
70%
60.4%
60%
50%
13.7%
40%
64.1%
20%
46.7%
23.8%
10%
0%
53.8%
12.3%
30%
0.9%
Green
8.1%
3.5%
Traditional
Green
LEED
11.0%
Traditional
NGBS
I haven't heard about it
Heard about it, but have never used it
Heard about it and am planning to use it in the future
Have used it
Fig. 2. Awareness and Use of LEED and NGBS
LEED: Green and traditional builders crosstab Pearson Chi Square value = 10.011 d.f. = 2, p=.007
NGBS: Green and Traditional Builders crosstab Pearson Chi Square value = 1.074, d.f. = 2, p=.585
Respondents were asked to report their awareness and use of the LEED for Homes and NGBS green
building programs. The data indicates green builders favor NGBS over LEED with 60% of green builders
reporting they had used NGBS while 39% had used LEED. Among traditional builders, 28% reported they
had heard of and were planning on using LEED in the future while 35% reported the same for NGBS.
Test of Independence
To test if awareness of LEED and NGBS is independent of being a green or traditional builder a chisquare test of independence was conducted. Traditional builders are builders who had not used a RGBP
therefore these builders would not be present in the awareness category, have used it, this column was
excluded from the chi-square test. The chi-square test results only applies to the first three levels of
awareness, haven’t heard about it, heard about it but have never used it, heard about it and I am
planning to use it in the future. The test results were statistically significant for LEED between green and
traditional builders (Figure 2).
Green and Traditional Builders Main Reasons for Use / Non Use of LEED and NGBS
The survey respondents were asked to rank their top three reasons for using or planning to use and not
using LEED and NGBS green building programs. A composite weighted average score was calculated for
the responses by assigning 5 points to the top ranked reason, 3 points for the second ranked reason,
and 1 point for the third ranked reason.
13
Reasons for using or planning
to use LEED, green and
traditional builders
Reasons for using or planning
to use NGBS, green and
traditional builders
Other
Other
The documentation
process is straight…
Architect specified the
program
Increases profitability of
my homes
Reasons
Reasons
Increases profitability of
my homes
Architect specified the
program
Strong demand for green
houses certified under…
Strong demand for green
houses certified under…
Consumer specified the
program
Consumer specified the
program
The documentation
process is straight…
It helps differentiate my
homes in the market
It helps differentiate my
homes in the market
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
0.0
Composite Score
traditional Builders
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Composite score
Green Builders
Traditional Builders
Green Builders
Fig. 3. Main reasons for using or planning to use LEED and NGBS
Main Reasons for Using or planning to Use LEED and NGBS
Green and traditional builders reported the same three main reasons for using or planning to use LEED,
1) it helps differentiate my homes in the market, 2) consumer specified the program, 3) strong demand
for green houses certified under this program. It is interesting to note green and traditional builders
included the straight forward documentation process in their main reasons for using NGBS, this stands
in contrast to the low ranking for LEED on this reason which suggests it is an important reason that
builders use NGBS. The results indicate the importance of green building programs in differentiating
homes in the marketplace with all builders reporting this as the main reason for using a RGBP. The
importance of consumers specifying the use of a RGBP appears to be substantial with this reason
ranking highly across all groups.
14
Reasons for not using LEED,
green and traditional builders
Reasons for not using NGBS,
green and traditional builders
Green building products
are too difficult to obtain
Green building
products are too…
Other
Other
The documentation
process is to…
Reasons
Reasons
We do not have the
necessary training to get…
The documentation
process is too complicated
No Market demand for
certified houses under…
We do not have the
necessary training to…
It is too expensive to
get homes certified…
It is too expensive to get
homes certified under…
No Market demand for
certified houses…
Homebuyers are not
willing to pay a premium…
0.0
Homebuyers are not
willing to pay a…
1.0
2.0
3.0
0.0
Composite Score
Traditional Builders
1.0
2.0
3.0
Composite score
Green Builders
Traditional Builders
Green Builders
Fig. 4. Main reasons for not using LEED and NGBS
Green and Traditional Builders Main Reasons for Not Using LEED and NGBS.
The results indicate the cost of certification is important to builders when choosing a certification
program. The cost of certifying with LEED was reported to be among the most important reasons for
green builders in their decision not to use the program. In contrast, NGBS ranked substantially lower for
the cost of certification among green builders as a reason for not using the program. These results align
with previous research which demonstrated the cost of building a green home under the LEED program
was significantly more expensive than NGBS. In addition to certification costs, traditional builders were
not using LEED and NGBS because they believed there was no market demand for certified homes and
they felt home buyers were not willing to pay a premium for certification.
15
Awareness and Use of Environmentally Certified Wood
FSC and SFI Awareness and Use
Awareness FSC and SFI by Green and Traditional Builders
100%
Percentage of Respondents
90%
2.9%
4.4%
15.0%
16.1%
23.8%
16.1%
80%
70%
60%
37.0%
34.1%
38.5%
36.6%
50%
40%
30%
29.1%
24.7%
46.9%
20%
10%
41.0%
18.9%
15.0%
0%
Green
Traditional
Green
FSC
Builder Group
Traditional
SFI
I haven't heard about it
I am aware of it, but have never used it
I have occasionally used it
I frequently use it
Fig. 5. Awareness and Use of Certified Wood.
FSC: Green and traditional builders crosstab Pearson Chi Square value = 106.506, d.f. = 3, p=.000
SFI: Green and Traditional Builders crosstab Pearson Chi Square value = 58.899, d.f. = 3, p=.000
Survey respondents were asked to provide information about their awareness and use of FSC and SFI
certified wood. Over 50% of green builders were frequent or occasional users of certified wood.
Whereas about 20% of traditional builders were frequent or occasional users. Over 40% of traditional
builders had never heard of either FSC or SFI wood.
Test of Independence
To test if a statistically significant relationship exists between green and traditional builders and certified
wood use statistical analysis using a chi square test of independence and a comparison of column
proportions using the Bonferonni correction for multiple comparisons was conducted. Results
demonstrated green builders were significantly more likely (p <.05) to be frequent users (24%) and
occasional users (37%) of FSC certified wood. Traditional builders were significantly more likely to have
never heard of FSC (47%) and be aware of FSC wood but never used it (34%). Green builders were
significantly more likely to be frequent users (15%) and occasional users (37%) of SFI wood. Traditional
16
users were significantly more likely to have never heard of SFI wood (47%) and be aware of SFI wood but
never used it (38.5%).
The results indicate that green builders were statistically significantly more likely to be frequent and
occasional users of certified wood, even though green builders are not required to incorporate certified
wood in their construction projects to attain a green certification. The data suggests green building
programs contribute to the awareness and use of certified wood by homebuilders in the U.S.
Main Reasons for Certified Wood use / non-use
The survey respondents were asked to rank their top three reasons for using and not using FSC and SFI
certified wood. A composite weighted average score was calculated for the responses by assigning 5
points to the top ranked reason, 3 points for the second ranked reason, and 1 point for the third ranked
reason.
Reasons for using SFI wood,
green and traditional builders
Increases profitability of
my homes
Other
Other
Increases profitability of
my homes
It is an integral part of my
construction…
It is an integral part of
my construction…
Customer Demand
Reliable Availability
Reasons
Reasons
Reasons for using FSC wood,
green and traditional builders
Reliable Availability
Customer Demand
Helps differentiate my
homes from competitors
Helps differentiate my
homes from…
I believe the environmental
benefits are substantial
Increases greener image
of my company
Increases greener image of
my company
I believe the
environmental…
Contributes significantly to
green building points
Traditional Builders
Contributes significantly
to green building points
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Composite score
Composite score
Green Builders
Traditional Builders
Fig. 6. Main reasons for using FSC and SFI wood
17
Green Builders
Main Reasons for Using FSC and SFI Certified Wood
It is interesting to note green builders ranked the contribution of FSC and SFI certified wood to green
building points as the most important reason for using certified wood from both programs. This
demonstrates the importance of green building programs in creating demand for certified wood. In
contrast to the importance of green building points for green builders, for FSC wood traditional builders
ranked environmental benefits and customer demand as important reasons for using FSC wood.
Traditional builders ranked green image and reliable availability as important reasons for using SFI
wood. Environmental benefits of FSC and FSI wood were ranked as one of the main reasons for
traditional builders using both certified wood programs. The role of certified wood in increasing the
profitability of homes was ranked as the least important reason for using FSC and SFI certified wood by
green and traditional builders. The data indicates green and traditional builders chose to use
environmentally certified wood for different reasons with traditional builders valuing customer demand
and environmental benefits while green builders placed more value on promoting a green image and
receiving green building points.
18
Reasons for not using SFI
wood, green and traditional
builders
Other
Other
I have plans to start
using it in near future
Not enough green
building points
Not enough green
building points
I have plans to start
using it in near future
I do not believe the
environmental benefits
are substantial
Reasons
Reasons
Reasons for not using FSC
wood, green and traditional
builders
Never felt the need
I do not believe the
environmental benefits…
Never felt the need
Not readily available
Cost not justified by a
buisness standpoint
Cost not justified by a
buisness standpoint
Not readily available
No customer demand
No customer demand
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
0.0
Composite score
Traditional Builders
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Composite score
Green Builders
Traditional Builders
Green builders
Fig. 7. Main reasons for not using FSC and SFI wood
Main Reasons for Not Using FSC and SFI Certified Wood
Green and traditional builders ranked the same top three reasons for not using FSC and SFI certified
wood. No customer demand was ranked as the most important reason by green and traditional builders
for not using FSC and SFI wood. These results indicate the connection between consumer awareness of
certified wood products and their use by homebuilders. The importance of justifying the cost of using
certified wood in a building project is reflected in the results with this reason ranked in the top three
reasons for green and traditional builders for SFI and FSC wood. It is interesting to note SFI ranked more
highly in importance of not being readily available in choosing not to use certified wood. Most
commonly in the literature it is constrained supply of FSC wood mentioned as a factor in its use by
builders. Both builder groups indicated the level of green building points received for FSC and SFI wood
was not an important factor in their decision to not use certified wood. The data suggests increasing the
points builders receive for certified wood in RGBPs may only have a minimal effect on their use of
certified wood. Instead, focusing on increasing customer demand and creating a premium for certified
19
wood use would be more successful strategies to increase the use of certified wood by green and
traditional builders.
Certified Wood Awareness by Firm Size
FSC Awareness by Revenue Groups
100%
12.9%
10.5%
90%
14.6%
20.1%
27.6%
28.6%
2.1%
2.9%
3.5%
Percentage of Builders
80%
31.4%
70%
31.3%
40.3%
60%
36.7%
33.3%
35.8%
50%
40%
24.2%
30%
54.7%
23.8%
20%
10%
52.1%
25.2%
40.3%
22.6%
14.3%
11.4%
0%
Green
Traditional
Green
small
Traditional
medium
Green
Traditional
large
Builder Group
I haven't heard about it
I am aware of it, but have never used it
I have occasionally used it
I frequently use it
Fig. 8. FSC Awareness by Builder Revenue Groups
Green builders and revenue groups crosstab Pearson Chi Square value = 8.141, d.f. = 6, p=.228
Traditional builders and revenue groups crosstab Pearson Chi Square value = 6.629, d.f. = 6, p=.356
A sizable difference exists between the awareness levels of FSC wood among green and traditional
builders. Over half of the small and large traditional builders had never heard of FSC and over 40% for
medium size firms. While over 60% of small and medium green builders have used FSC, either
occasionally or frequently and over half of the large builders. Among green builders, frequent use of FSC
tends to decrease as firm size increases although the difference was not statistically significant (figure
8).
Test of Independence
To test for a statistically significant relationship between awareness of certified wood by green and
traditional builders and firm size a chi-square test of independence was conducted. The results show
across all revenue groups green builders are significantly more likely (p<.05) to be frequent users of FSC
20
certified wood and traditional builders are significantly more likely to have not heard of FSC wood. The
data indicates, across all revenue groups, green builders were associated with having a higher
awareness of FSC certified wood. Data collected on awareness and use of SFI wood indicates similar
results. Green builders across all revenue groups have a statistically significantly higher awareness of SFI
certified wood than traditional builders.
FSC Small: Traditional builders were significantly more likely to have not heard of FSC wood. Green
builders were significantly more likely to be occasional and frequent users of FSC wood. Pearson chisquare value = 35.029, d.f. = 3, p value = .000.
FSC Medium: Traditional builders were significantly more likely to have never heard of FSC and to be
aware but never used FSC wood than green builders. Green builders were significantly more likely to be
occasional and frequent users of FSC wood. Pearson chi-square value = 56.552, d.f. = 3, p value = .000.
FSC Large: Traditional builders were significantly more likely to have never heard of FSC wood. Green
builders were significantly more likely to be occasional and frequent users. Pearson chi-square value =
17.168, d.f. = 3, p value = .001
21
SFI Awareness by Revenue Groups
100%
90%
14.3%
2.1%
4.3%
5.8%
11.3%
17.1%
14.0%
12.5%
18.7%
Percentage of Respondents
80%
70%
31.0%
37.1%
37.2%
60%
39.6%
39.0%
38.8%
50%
40%
22.6%
33.3%
30%
30.9%
45.8%
43.0%
20%
38.1%
29.0%
10%
21.4%
13.0%
0%
Green
Traditional
Green
small
Traditional
medium
Green
Traditional
large
Revenue Group
I haven't heard about it
I am aware of it, but have never used it
I have occasionally used it
I frequently use it
Fig. 9. SFI Awareness by Builder Revenue Groups
Green builders and revenue groups Pearson chi-Square value = 8.545, d.f. = 6, p=.201
Traditional Builders and revenue Pearson chi-Square value = 2.891, d.f. = 6, p=.822
SFI Small: Traditional builders were significantly more likely to have never heard of SFI wood. Green
builders are significantly more likely to be occasional users of SFI wood. Pearson chi-square value =
10.311, d.f. = 3, p value = .016.
SFI Medium: Traditional builders were significantly more likely to have not heard of SFI wood. Green
builders were significantly more likely to be occasional and frequent users of SFI wood. Pearson chisquare value = 36.657, d.f. = 3, p value = .000.
SFI Large: Green builders were significantly more likely to be occasional users of SFI wood. No other
significant associations. Pearson chi-square value = 14.069, d.f. = 3, p value = .003.
(figure 5)
22
FSC Certified Wood Awareness and Use by Census Regions
FSC Awareness by Census Region
100%
90%
2.4%
4.7%
3.7%
11.0%
18.4%
17.2%
19.3%
15.1%
18.2%
26.7%
30.6%
80%
Percentage of Respondents
70%
32.9%
37.7%
29.7%
60%
33.7%
44.7%
43.2%
26.5%
38.4%
50%
40%
32.1%
30%
21.1%
48.4%
32.7%
20%
10%
52.4%
17.4%
44.6%
38.6%
17.4%
15.8%
15.1%
10.2%
0%
Green
Traditional
Green
Northeast
Traditional
Green
Midwest
Traditional
Green
South
Traditional
West
Census Regions
I haven't heard about it
I am aware of it, but have never used it
I have occasionally used it
I frequently use it
Fig. 10. FSC Awareness by Census Region
Green builders by census region Pearson Chi Square value = 11.138, d.f. = 9, p=.266
Traditional Builders by census region Pearson Chi Square value = 6.982, d.f. = 9, p=.639
Survey respondents represented builders from the 4 census regions of the U.S. Previous studies have
demonstrated home builders’ awareness of certified wood varies depending on geographic location
(Ganguly, Eastin, Rabotyagov, 2008). Awareness of FSC certified wood was compared after green and
traditional builders were segregated by census region. Over 50% of green builders in all regions were
either frequent or occasional users of FSC certified wood. More than 70% of traditional builders in all
regions had either not heard of FSC or heard of but never used it.
23
Test of Independence
A chi-square test of independence was conducted to determine if there was a significant (p<.05)
relationship between green and traditional builders and their awareness and use of FSC certified wood
by census region. Statistical analysis using chi-square tests with a comparison of column proportions
using Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons indicate significant associations between green
builders and traditional builders within individual census regions. A chi-square test of independence
between census regions and green builders indicated no statistically significant relationships. Similarly,
traditional builders demonstrated no statistically significant relationships between regions (figure 6).
Northeast: Northeast traditional builders were significantly more likely to have not heard about FSC
wood while green builders were significantly more likely to have occasionally and frequently used FSC
wood. No significant difference between, I am aware but never used. Pearson chi square value 18.857,
d.f.=3, p value = .000.
Midwest: Midwest traditional builders were significantly more likely to have not heard of FSC wood
while green builders were significantly more likely to be frequent users of FSC wood. No other
statistically significant associations in Midwest region. Pearson chi square value 31.219, d.f. = 3, p value
= .000.
South: Southern traditional builders were significantly more likely to have not heard of FSC and to be
aware but never used FSC. Southern green builders were significantly more likely to be occasional and
frequent users of FSC wood. Pearson chi square value 45.976, d.f. = 3, p value =.000.
West: Traditional builders in the West region were significantly more likely to have never heard of FSC
wood. Green builders in the West were significantly more likely to be occasional users. Comparison of
column proportion could not be done for frequent users because there are 0 frequent users for
traditional builders but this assumed to be significant. Pearson chi square value 15.795, d.f. = 3, p value
= .001.
The data indicates across all census regions traditional builders are significantly more likely to have
never heard of FSC certified wood. Green builders were significantly more likely to be frequent users of
FSC certified wood. The data suggest that RGBPs have a considerable influence on the awareness and
usage of FSC certified wood across the U.S.
24
SFI Certified Wood Awareness and Use
SFI Awareness by Census Region
100%
10.5%
2.4%
6.3%
90%
15.6%
7.3%
12.8%
28.6%
9.4%
18.2%
18.1%
13.4%
Percentage of Respondents
80%
70%
36.8%
34.9%
32.8%
60%
41.5%
38.4%
39.0%
30.6%
52.3%
50%
40%
31.6%
27.9%
30%
32.1%
24.5%
45.3%
20%
44.6%
40.2%
29.5%
10%
21.1%
20.9%
16.3%
17.0%
0%
Green
Traditional
Green
Northeast
Traditional
Green
Midwest
Traditional
Green
South
Traditional
West
Census Regions
I haven't heard about it
I am aware of it, but have never used it
I have occasionally used it
I frequently use it
Fig. 11. SFI Awareness by Census Region
Green Builders by census region Pearson chi-Square value = 9.935, d.f. = 9, p=.356
Traditional Builders by census region Pearson chi-Square value = 10.421, d.f. = 9, p=.317
Test of Independence
Statistical analysis was conducted using a chi-square test of independence with a comparison of column
proportions using Bonferroni correction to indicate significant associations (p<.05) between green and
traditional builders within census regions. A chi-square test of independence between green builders
and census regions indicated no statistically significant associations. Similarly, statistical analysis
between traditional builders and census regions showed no statistically significant associations (figure
7).
Northeast: Traditional builders in the Northeast were significantly more likely to have not heard of SFI
wood. Green builders were significantly more likely to be occasional users of SFI wood. No other
significant associations for the region. Pearson chi square value 18.857, d.f. =3, p value = .000.
25
Midwest: Midwest traditional builder were significantly more likely to have not heard of SFI wood.
Green builders are significantly more likely to be frequent users of SFI wood. No other significant
association for the region. Pearson chi square value = 31.219, d.f. = 3, p value = .000.
South: Traditional builders in South region were significantly more likely to have never heard of SFI
wood while green builders were significantly more likely to be occasional users of SFI wood. Pearson chi
square value 45.976, d.f. = 3, p value = .000.
West: Traditional builder in the West were significantly more likely to be aware but have never used SFI
wood. Green builders are significantly more likely to be occasional users of SFI wood. No responses for
traditional builders for frequent users so no column proportion was compared but assumed to be
significant. Pearson chi square value 15.795, d.f. 3, p value = .001.
The data indicates that across all census regions green builders were more likely to be occasional and
frequent users of SFI certified wood. It is noteworthy that traditional builders in the West region were
less likely than any other region to have never heard of SFI certified wood.
Building Product Environmental Attributes
Attribute Rating 1 = "Not at all important", 2 = "Not important", 3 =
"Nuetral", 4 = "Important", 5 = "Extremely important"
Importance of Building Material Attributes
5
4
3
2
1
Green Builders
Traditional Builders
26
Fig. 12. Importance of Building Material Attributes
*statistically significant at p<.05
long life, green builders (M=4.45, SD=.581), traditional builders (M=4.30, SD=.568), conditions t(498)=2.904, p=.004; low
maintenance, green builders (M=4.33, SD=.654), traditional builders (M=4.21, SD=.596), conditions t(498)=2.319, p=.021;
energy efficiency, green builders (M=4.42, SD=.663), traditional builders (M=4.10, SD=.685), conditions t(498)=5.404, p=.000;,
locally produced material, green builders (M=3.41, SD=1.015), traditional builders (M=3.15, SD=.931), conditions t(498)=2.887,
p=.004; recyclability of the material, green builders (M=3.36, SD=1.010), traditional builders (M=3.11, SD=.917), conditions
t(498)=2.914, p=.004; made with renewable raw materials, green builders (M=3.42, SD=.985), traditional builders (M=3.06,
SD=.893), conditions t(498)=4.281, p=.000; made with recycled materials, green builders (M=3.35, SD=.967), traditional builders
(M=2.95, SD=.873), conditions t(498)=4.848, p=.000; energy usage during the manufacture process, green builders (M=3.05,
SD=1.092), traditional builders (M=2.85, SD=.997), conditions t(498)=2.133, p=.033; and C02 emissions during manufacturing,
green builders (M=2.95, SD=1.096), traditional builders (M=2.72, SD=1.010), conditions t(498)=2.431, p=.015.
Respondents were asked to rate the importance of building material attributes on a scale of 1 to 5 with
1 indicating not at all important, 3 indicating neutral, and 5 indicating extremely important. Based on
the responses the attributes can be separated into two groups, “important” and “neutral /
unimportant”. Attributes such as availability, long life, overall price, low maintenance, energy efficiency,
ease of installation, and consumer demand were considered important attributes to both green and
traditional builders. Neutral / unimportant attributes for both builder groups were, locally produced
material, recyclability of the material, made with renewable raw materials, energy usage during the
manufacture process, and C02 emissions during manufacturing.
The data suggests technical and economic attributes were considered more important for green and
traditional builders. Green builders ranked significantly higher the importance of environmental
attributes of building materials in material selection. The data suggests green builders have higher levels
of awareness for the environmental impact of building materials.
Statistical analysis was conducted using independent samples t-test to test for statistically significant
differences in the mean ranking of green builders and traditional builders. The results indicate green
builders ranked statistically significantly higher the attributes; long life, low maintenance, energy
efficiency, locally produced material, recyclability of the material, made with renewable raw materials,
made with recycled materials, energy usage during the manufacture process, and C02 emissions during
manufacturing (figure 8).
27
Wood, Steel, Concrete Comparison
5
4
3
2
1
Has low CO2 Highly renewable Contributes to Uses low energy
emission during
material
high energy
during the
the
efficiency of the manufacturing
manufacturing
completed house
process
process
Has long life
concrete
steel*
wood
concrete*
steel*
wood
concrete*
steel*
wood
concrete
steel*
wood*
concrete
steel*
wood
concrete*
steel*
0
wood
Mean Ranking of by Respondents: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 =
disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree
Wood, Steel, Concrete: Perceptions by Green and Traditional
Builders
Recyclable
Attribute
Green Builders
Traditional Builders
Fig. 13. Environmental Perceptions of Wood, Steel and Concrete
*statistically significant at p<.05
Respondents were asked to rate the environmental performance of wood compared to steel and
concrete on the basis of 6 environmental attributes. The environmental attributes considered in the
survey were; 1) C02 emissions during the manufacturing process, 2) highly renewable material, 3)
contributes to the high energy efficiency of the completed house, 4) uses low energy in the
manufacturing process, 5) has a long life, and 6) recyclable. The ranking was based on a five point Likert
scale with one indicating strongly disagree, three meaning neutral, and 5 indicating strongly agree. The
data shows wood ranked higher than steel on 4 out of the 6 attributes and higher than concrete on 5 of
the 6 attributes. Builders in general ranked steel and concrete higher than wood for the attribute, has
long life, and builders ranked steel higher than wood for the attribute, recyclable. The data indicates
wood had a positive ranking by green and traditional builders, above three, for all of the environmental
attributes (figure 9).
Green and traditional builders reported their perceptions of environmental attributes for the materials
wood, steel, and concrete. Green builders n = 227 and traditional builders n = 273. Statistical analysis
using an independent samples t-test was conducted to compare differences in mean ranking between
green and traditional builders in their perception of the environmental attributes for wood, steel, and
28
concrete. There were statistically significant differences between the builder groups in their perceptions
of the environmental attributes for wood, steel, and concrete.
For the attribute, has low C02 emissions during the manufacturing process, a significant difference was
reported for steel between green builders (M=2.29, SD=.837) and traditional builders (M=2.49,
SD=.887), conditions; t(498)=-2.585, p=.010. A significant difference was reported for concrete between
green builders (M=2.60, SD= .983) and traditional builders (M=3.04, SD=.776), conditions; t(498)=-5.506,
p= .000.
Traditional builders more strongly agree that steel and concrete have low C02 emissions during the
manufacturing process as compared to green builders.
For the attribute, highly renewable material, a significant difference was reported for wood between
green builders (M=4.16, SD=.826) and traditional builders (M=4.00, SD=.905), conditions; t(498)=1.982,
p= .048. A significant difference was reported for steel between green builders (M=3.05, SD=1.252) and
traditional builders (M=3.29, SD=1.068.), conditions; t(498)=-2.322, p= .021.
Green builders more strongly agree that wood is a highly renewable material than traditional builders.
Traditional builders agree more strongly than green builders with the perception that steel and concrete
are highly renewable materials, concrete is not a significant difference.
For the attribute, contributes to high energy efficiency of the completed house, a significant difference
was reported for wood between green builders (M=3.01, SD=1.066) and traditional builders (M=3.29,
SD=.845), conditions; t(498)=-3.230, p= .001. A significant difference was reported for steel between
green builders (M=2.50, SD=.933) and traditional builders (M=2.66, SD=.855.), conditions; t(498)=-2.063,
p= .040.
Traditional builders agreed more strongly than green builders with the perception that wood and steel
contribute to the high energy efficiency of the completed house.
For the attribute, uses low energy during the manufacturing process, a significant difference was
reported for steel between green builders (M=2.09, SD=.828) and traditional builders (M=2.36,
SD=.824), conditions; t(498)=-3.543, p= .000. A significant difference was reported for concrete between
green builders (M=2.57, SD=.963) and traditional builders (M=2.91, SD=.813), conditions; t(498)=-4.273,
p= .000.
Traditional builders agree more strongly than green builders with the perception that steel and concrete
to use low energy during the manufacturing process.
For the attribute, has long life, a significant difference was reported for steel between green builders
(M=4.45, SD=.711) and traditional builders (M=4.29, SD=.660), conditions; t(498)=2.545, p= .011. A
significant difference was reported for concrete between green builders (M=4.40, SD=.724) and
traditional builders (M=4.22, SD=.709), conditions; t(498)=2.748, p= .006.
Green builders perceive steel and concrete to have a long life significantly more than traditional
builders.
For the attribute, recyclable, a significant difference was reported for steel between green builders
(M=4.45, SD=.679) and traditional builders (M=4.24, SD=.728), conditions; t(498)=3.273, p= .001.
29
Green builders more strongly agree that steel and concrete are recyclable than traditional builders, with
steel being a significant difference. These results suggest both green and traditional builders view wood
as an environmentally friendly building material as demonstrated by the positive ranking for all of the
attributes. Both builder groups view wood as superior to steel in 4 of the 6 attributes and superior to
concrete in 5 of the 6 attributes.
The data indicates green and traditional builders have similar views of the environmental performance
of wood as a building material, they differed significantly on only one attribute. Green and traditional
builders showed significant differences on their view of steel on all of the attributes and concrete on 3
of the 6 attributes. In general, traditional builders had a more favorable opinion of steel and concrete
than green builders on the more environmental attributes and green builders tended to have a more
favorable opinion of steel and concrete on the last two attributes, which are more based on knowledge
of the material.
Conclusions
The analysis presented in this study demonstrates significant differences between green and traditional
builders in their use of FSC and SFI environmentally certified wood. The significant association between
census regions and green and traditional builders indicates that builders in the west region were
significantly more likely to be green builders while builders in the Midwest are significantly more likely
to be traditional builders. The data indicates green and traditional builders were not evenly distributed
throughout the U.S. Green builders were significantly more likely to be frequent users of FSC certified
wood and occasional users of SFI certified wood across all census regions. The data suggests a builders’
involvement in a green building program has a considerable influence on their use of environmentally
certified wood. Therefore, manufacturers seeking to supply certified wood to green builders may benefit
from concentrating on regions with a larger population of green builders, in particular, urban / suburban
areas where green builders construct about 60% of their homes.
The study found significant differences in the use and awareness levels of FSC and SFI certified wood
between green and traditional builders when grouped into small, medium, and large firms based on
revenue. Green builders were significantly more likely to be frequent users of both FSC and SFI certified
wood in all revenue groups. The data shows small and medium size green builders were more than two
times as likely to be frequent users of certified wood as large green builders. Specifically marketing
certified wood to small and medium size green homebuilders may be a productive strategy given that
they are the most frequent users. The data indicates roughly 40% of traditional builders of all sizes had
not heard of FSC or SFI certified wood, therefore given the projected increase of green building in the
U.S. this group presents a large market for environmentally certified wood products.
The results of this study indicate builders view the cost of certification and the complicated
documentation process as main reasons for not using LEED for Homes. Reducing the certification costs
and complexity of the documentation process would address the main reasons builders chose not to use
LEED for Homes. Green and traditional builders use LEED and NGBS mainly because it helps differentiate
their homes in the market. Highlighting the benefits and factors that differentiate a green home from a
conventional home would ensure continued support for RGBPs among green and traditional builders.
Increasing consumer education about the benefits of green homes from an environmental and
economic perspective would help to increase homebuilders use of RGBPs given that a lack of consumer
30
demand and consumers not willing to pay a premium for green homes were reported as main reasons
for not using these programs.
Green and traditional builders differed only slightly in their main reason for not using FSC and SFI
certified wood with their top reason being, no customer demand. Educating consumers on the benefits
of forest certification and environmentally certified wood would address the main reason both builder
groups chose not to use certified wood. Green builders indicated their top reason for using FSC and SFI
wood was it contributes significantly to green building points, which demonstrates the importance of
RGBPs in the demand for certified wood among homebuilders. Expanding the role of certified wood in
RGBPs, either by increasing points for certified wood use or possibly subtracting points for not using
certified wood, would have an impact on FSC and SFI use by homebuilders. Furthermore, green builders
ranked promoting a green image of their company as a main reason for using certified wood. Increasing
public awareness of the environmental benefits of certified wood as well as expanding a homebuilders
ability to publicly display their use of certified wood would serve to support one of their main reasons
for choosing certified wood.
Environmental attributes of building materials were statistically significantly rated as more important by
green builders indicating a higher awareness of the environmental impact of building materials. In
general, green builders and traditional builders both ranked the economic / technical attributes of
building materials more positively than the environmental attributes. Manufacturers supplying builders
with green products may benefit from understanding the importance green builders place on
environmental attributes of building materials.
Comparing the environmental performance of wood relative to steel and concrete, green and traditional
builders ranked wood more positively than steel on 4 of the 6 attributes and rated wood more positively
than concrete on 5 of the 6 attributes. Green and traditional builders tend to have similar positive views
of the environmental performance of wood relative to steel and concrete. Both builder groups gave
wood a positive rating, above 3.0, on all of the 6 environmental attributes. Highlighting the
environmental benefits of using wood as a building material relative to steel and concrete should result
in increased use of certified wood in building projects considering both builder groups reported the
environmental benefits of certified wood was one of the most important reasons in their choice to use
FSC and SFI wood.
The continued growth of residential green building programs and the residential green building market
suggests the importance of environmentally certified wood products will increase. Both builder groups
appear to be waiting for consumer demand for certified wood to increase before incorporating more
FSC and SFI wood in their home construction and remodeling projects. Educating consumers on the
environmental benefits of certified wood should have a positive impact on the use of FSC and SFI wood
by green and traditional builders going forward. Furthermore, traditional builders who were more likely
to be remodelers and therefore have more interaction with a homeowner as compared to a
homebuilder would be more likely to incorporate more ECWPs in their remodeling projects as
consumers request certified products. This would also allow green builders to more effectively promote
a green image of their company as home buyers become more aware of the importance of certified
wood on improving forest governance globally. At the same time, traditional builders, not motivated by
green building points, could take advantage of consumer awareness to increase their use of certified
31
wood given they already hold the opinion that certified wood provides a substantial environmental
benefit.
32
References
Auld, G., Gulbrandsen, L. H., & McDermott, C. L. (2008). Certification Schemes and the Impacts on
Forests and Forestry. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 33(1), 187–211.
http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.environ.33.013007.103754
Bartlett, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. (2001). Organizational research: Determining appropriate
sample size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning and Performance Journal, 19(1),
43–50.
Bernstein, S., & Cashore, B. (2003). Nonstate Global Governance : Is Forest Certification a Legitimate
Alternative to a Global Forest Convention ? Hard Choices, Soft Law: Voluntary Standards In Global
Trade, Environment And Social Governance, (Rosenau), 33–64.
Bowers, T., Eastin, I., Ganguly, I., Cao, J., & Seol, M. (2012). Forest certification in Asia: The changing
marketplace for value-added wood product manufacturers in China and Vietnam. The Forestry
Chronicle, 88(05), 578–584. http://doi.org/10.5558/tfc2012-109
Bowers, T., Ganguly, I., Eastin, I., (2014). Eco-labeled wood products in the U.S. residential construction
industry : Architects ’ awareness and usage of certified wood and green building programs,
90(october), 605–613.
Cai, Z., & Aguilar, F. X. (2013). Meta-analysis of consumer’s willingness-to-pay premiums for certified
wood products. Journal of Forest Economics, 19(1), 15–31.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2012.06.007
Chen, J., Innes, J. ., & Tikina, a. (2010). Private cost-benefits of voluntary forest product certification.
International Forestry Review, 12(1), 1–12. http://doi:10.1505/ifor.12.1.1
Cochran, W. G. (1977). Sampling Techniques: Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Clark, M. R., & Kozar, J. S. (2011). Comparing sustainable Forest Management certifications standards: A
Meta-Analysis. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 3.
Eichholtz, P., Kok, N., Quigley, J. M., Borenstein, S., Davis, L., Fisher, L., Wallace, N. (2013). The
Economics of Green Building. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(March), 50–63.
Espinoza, O., Buehlmann, U., & Smith, B. (2012). Forest certification and green building standards:
Overview and use in the U.S. hardwood industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 33, 30–41.
http://doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.004
Estep, G. D., DeVallance, D. B., & Grushecky, S. (2013). Affordable Home Builder Demand for Green and
Certified Wood Products. Forest Products Journal, 63(1-2), 4–11. http://doi.org/10.13073/FPJ-D12-00120
33
Estiri, H. (2015). The indirect role of households in shaping US residential energy demand patterns.
Energy Policy, 86, 585–594. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.08.008
FAO (2015) Forest Products Annual Market Review. [WWW document]. URL
http://www.unece.org/forests/fpamr2015.html
FSC 2015 https://ic.fsc.org/preview.facts-figures-december-2015.a-5253.pdf
FSC 2016 https://ic.fsc.org/preview.facts-figures-january-2016.a-5385.pdf
Ganguly, I., Eastin, I., & Rabotyagov, S. (2008). Usage and Awareness of Certified Wood by Residential
Homebuilders. Retrieved from
http://www.cintrafor.org/publications/newsletter/C4news2008winter.pdf
Ganguly, I., Bowers, T., Eastin, I., & Cantrell, R. (2013). Role of Green Building Programs in Enhancing the
Usage of Environmentally Certified Wood in the U.S. Residential Construction Industry.
International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 9(3), 183–202.
http://doi.org/10.1080/15578771.2012.705803
Germain, R. H., & Penfield, P. C. (2010). The Potential Certified Wood Supply Chain Bottleneck and Its
Impact on Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Construction Projects in New York State
Project in New York State. Forest Products Journal, 60(2), 114–118.
Gullison, R. E. (2003). Does forest certification conserve biodiversity? Oryx, 37(02), 153–165.
http://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605303000346
Klooster, D. (2005). Environmental certification of forests: The evolution of environmental governance in
a commodity network. Journal of Rural Studies, 21(4), 403–417.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2005.08.005
Krejcie, R.V. & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607-610.
LEED a. LEED User MRc7 Credit. [Online] http://www.leeduser.com/credit/nc-2009/MRc7
LEED b. LEED User MRc5 Credit. [Online] http://www.leeduser.com/credit/nc-v2.2/mrc5
Marx, A., & Cuypers, D. (2010). Forest certification as a global environmental governance tool: What is
the macro-effectiveness of the Forest Stewardship Council? Regulation & Governance, 4(4), 408–
434. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5991.2010.01088.x
Moore, S. E., Cubbage, F., & Eicheldinger, C. (2012). Impacts of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and
Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) Forest Certification in North America. Journal of Forestry, 79–
88. http://doi.org/10.5849/jof.10-050
34
McGraw-Hill Construction. (2012). New and Remodeled Green Homes: Transforming the Residential
Marketplace. [WWW document]. URL http://www3.cec.org/islandoragb/en/islandora/object/greenbuilding%3A52/datastream/OBJ-EN/view
NAHB a (2016) Citing internet sources [WWW document]. URL
http://www.homeinnovation.com/services/certification/green_homes
NAHB b (2016) Citing internet sources [WWW document]. URL http://www.homeinnovation.com/green
Nussbaum & Simula (2013). Forest Certification Handbook 2nd edition. London, UK: Earthscan.
Ozanne, L. K., & Vlosky, R. P. (2003). Certification from the US consumer perspective: A comparison from
1995 and 2000. Forest Products Journal, 53(3), 13–21. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=9367913&site=ehost-live
PEFC 2015 PEFC Global Statistics: SFM & CoC Certification [Online].
http://www.pefc.org/images/documents/PEFC_Global_Certificates_-_November_2015.pdf
PEFC a Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification 2015 Facts and Figures [Online].
http://www.pefc.org/about-pefc/who-we-are/facts-a-figures
PEFC b Sustainable Forest Management [Online]. http://www.pefc.org/standards/sustainable-forestmanagement
Rametsteiner, E., & Simula, M. (2003). Forest certification—an instrument to promote sustainable forest
management? Journal of Environmental Management, 67, 87–98. http://doi.org/10.1016/S03014797(02)00191-3
Reposa, J. H. (2009). Comparison of USGBC LEED for Homes and the NAHB National Green Building
Program. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 5(2), 108–120.
http://doi.org/10.1080/15578770902952736
SFI Basics of SFI [WWW document]. URL http://www.sfiprogram.org/about-us/basics-of-sfi/
Sample, V. A., Price, W., & Mater, C. M. (2003). Certification on Public and University Lands: Evaluations
of FSC and SFI by the Forest Managers. Journal of Forestry, 101(8), 21–25. Retrieved from
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/saf/jof/2003/00000101/00000008/art00007
Shearman, P., Bryan, J., & Laurance, W. F. (2012). Are we approaching “peak timber” in the tropics?
Biological Conservation, 151, 17–21. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.10.036
U.S. DoE. (2011). Buildings energy databook. Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Department, 286.
http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/ChapterIntro2.aspx?2#5
Tuppura, A., Toppinen, A., & Puumalainen, K. (2015). Forest Certification and ISO 14001: Current State
and Motivation in Forest Companies. Business Strategy and the Environment, n/a–n/a.
http://doi.org/10.1002/bse.187
35
U.S. Census (2004). Economic census industry series reports construction: 2002. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration.
USGBC a (2016) Citing internet sources [WWW document]. URL http://www.usgbc.org/leed
USGBC b (2016) Citing internet sources [WWW document]. URL http://www.usgbc.org/guide/homes
USGBC c (2014) LEED in Motion: Residential. Citing internet sources [WWW document]. URL
http://go.usgbc.org/homes
Vidal, N., Kozak, R., & Cohen, D. (2005). Chain of custody certification: an assessment of the North
American solid wood sector. Forest Policy and Economics, 7(4), 345–355.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00071-6
Wright, k. (2005). Researching Internet-Based Populations: Advantages and Disadvantages of Online
Survey Research, Online Questionnaire Authoring Software Packages, and Web Survey Services.
The Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3).
WWPA (2015) 2015 statistical yearbook of the western lumber industry. Portland OR: Western Wood
Products Association
Zuo, J., & Zhao, Z.-Y. (2014). Green building research–current status and future agenda: A review.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 30, 271–281.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.10.021
36