Skip to main content

Official Journal of the Japan Wood Research Society

Description of green versus environmentally indifferent consumers of wood products in Scandinavia: flooring and decking

Abstract

Swedish and Norwegian potential consumers of eco-labeled wood products in do-it-yourself (DIY) retail stores were investigated in a study that focused on the end customers of two flooring applications and wood for outdoor decks. Data were collected from different populations yielding a multiproduct, multipopulation study. Consumers with preferences for eco-labeled wood products generally focused less on the product type than consumers that reported a low preference for eco-labeled wood properties. The green consumers presented a low price sensitivity and they were more often women. Other characteristics of green consumers observed in the substudies included a higher share of married couples/cohabiters, a secondary education, less advanced plans concerning purchase, and preferences for product warranty. The results can assist producers in making approximate descriptions of green consumers; however, socioeconomic and demographic variables should be complemented by other information that reflects attitudes and intentions to get a more comprehensive idea of green consumers of wood products.

References

  1. Cashore B, Auld G, Newsom D (2003) Forest certification (eco-labelling) programs and their policymaking authority: explaining divergence among North American and European case studies. Forest Pol Econ 5:225–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)/Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2007) Forest products annual market review 2006–2007. United Nations, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ozanne LK, Smith PM (1998) Segmenting the market for environmentally certified wood products. Forest Sci 44:379–388

    Google Scholar 

  4. Veisten K (2002) Potential demand for certified wood products in the United Kingdom and Norway. Forest Sci 48:767–778

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bigsby H, Ozanne LK (2002) The purchase decision: consumers and environmentally certified wood products. Forest Prod J 52: 100–105

    Google Scholar 

  6. Anderson RC, Hansen EN (2004) The impact of environmental certification on preferences for wood furniture: a conjoint analysis approach. Forest Prod J 54:42–50

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hansmann R, Koellner T, Scholz RW (2006) Influence of consumers’ socioecological and economic orientations on preferences for wood with sustainability labels. Forest Pol Econ 8:239–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Peattie K, Crane A (2005) Green marketing: legend, myth, farce or prophesy? Qual Market Res 8:357–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. De Pelsmacker P, Janssons W, Sterckx E, Mielants C (2005) Consumer preferences for the marketing of ethically labelled coffee. Int Market Rev 22:512–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Straughan RD, Roberts JA (1999) Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look at the green consumer behaviour in the new millennium. J Consum Market 16:558–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Diamantopoulos A, Schlegelmilch BB, Sinkovics RR, Bohlenc GM (2003). Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. J Bus Res 56:465–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Broman NO (2000) Means to measure the aesthetic properties of wood. Doctoral Thesis, Division of Wood Technology, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå

    Google Scholar 

  13. Jonsson R (2005) The end consumer’s choice of floorcovering in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom: a comparative pilot study of substitute competition. J Wood Sci 51:154–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Marchal R, Mothe F (1994) Appreciation of oak wood for the French consumers and wood professionals. Annales des Sciences Forestieres 51:213–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. European Commission (2003) Commission directive 2003/2/EC of 6 January 2003 relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of arsenic, tenth adaptation to technical progress to Council Directive 76/769/EEC. http://www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2003/1_004/1_00420030109en00090011.pdf. Cited 15 June 2007

  16. Environmental Protection Agency (2005) Chromated copper arsenate (CCA). http://www.epa.gov/oppad001/reregistration/cca/index.htm#general. Cited 15 June 2007

  17. Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (2005) The reconsideration of registrations of arsenic timber treatment products (CCA and arsenic trioxide) and their associated labels — report of review findings and regulatory outcomes, summary report. http://www.apvma.gov.au/chemrev/arsenic_summary.pdf. Cited 15 June 2007

  18. GBR (2006) The annual report of the flooring industry Verksamhetsberättelse 2005 (in Swedish). GBR, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lindberg A (2004) First impressions last — a Kansei engineering study on laminate flooring at Pergo. LiTH-IKP-Ex — 04/2201-SE. Linköpngs Tekniska Högskola

  20. Hair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (1998) Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  21. Green P, Srinivasan V (1978) Conjoint analysis in marketing: new development with implications for research and practice. J Market 54:3–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Van Kleef E, van Trijp HCM, Luning P (2005) Consumer research in the early stages of new product development: a critical review of methods and techniques. Food Qual Prefer 16:181–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Aaker D, Kumar V, Day GS (2000) Marketing research, 7th edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  24. Green PE, Krieger AM (1991) Segmenting markets with conjoint analysis. J Market 55:20–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wittink DR, Cattin P (1989) Commercial use of conjoint analysis — an update. J Market 53:91–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Anderson JC, Jain DC, Chintagunta PK (1993) Customer value assessment in business markets: a state-of-practice study. J Bus Bus Market 1:8–9

    Google Scholar 

  27. Cooper RG, Kleinschmidt EJ (1994) Determinants of timeliness in product development. J Innovat Manag 11:381–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kaiser FG, Wölfing S, Fuhrer U (1999) Environmental attitude and ecological behaviour. J Ecol Behav 19:1–19

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Roos, A., Nyrud, A.Q. Description of green versus environmentally indifferent consumers of wood products in Scandinavia: flooring and decking. J Wood Sci 54, 402–407 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10086-008-0957-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10086-008-0957-5

Key words

  • Forest certification
  • Eco-labeling
  • Consumer preferences
  • Market segmentation