A Marketing Study of Consumer Acceptance & Perceived Greenness of Wood Concrete Products by Murray Sholty THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA April2010 © Murray Sholty, 2010 UNIVERSITY of NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA LmRARY Prince Georae, B.C. ABSTRACT Market research was conducted to determine consumer response and perceptions regarding a novel building material. Mountain Pine Beetle Wood Concrete Products (MPBWCP) are wood based products made from a concrete-like compound, with wood fibre from dead pine trees used in place of aggregate. The properties of MPBWCP make it ideal for a wide variety of applications, such as countertops, tiles, garden blocks and decorative uses. This research entailed a survey completed by 210 respondents in different consumer groups: industrial consumers, professional consumers, home consumers, and environmental organization supporters. The primary fmding of the research was that, on average, consumers are quite interested in learning more about and potentially using MPBWCP as a building material. They also perceive it to be a green product. Significant differences were noted between the groups of survey respondents for several questions, especially when considered on an occupational level. These fmdings will serve as a guide for those involved in the eventual launch of MPBWCP as a commercially available building material, as well as for others attempting to market a wood based product. I TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................... ! TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. II LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................. VI CHAPTER ONE- BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES .............................................. 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM ..................................... ....... .. ........ ... .. .... .. ... .......... ... ................. 2 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF UNBC WOOD CONCRETE ... ..................... .. ..................... . 3 ABOUT MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE WOOD CONCRETE PRODUCTS .......................................... 4 CHAPTER TWO - STUDY OBJECTIVES ..................................................................... 6 SCOPE ... .. ............ . ....... ..... .................... .. ....... ...... .. ........ ..... ...... . ... .......................... .. ......... 6 OBJECTIVES AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ....................... ..... ....... ... .................. . .... .. .. .......... 6 CHAPTER THREE- LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................. 7 STRUCTURE OF LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................. 7 SEGMENTATION OF THE MARKET FOR BUILDING PRODUCTS ....... ... .. .. ............ ....... ........... .. . 7 CONSUMER RESPONSE TO WOOD PRODUCTS .... ........................................ . .. ... ................. ... 8 PERCEPTION AND DISCUSS ION OF COMPOSITE WOOD AND/ OR CONCRETE PRODUCTS ........ 10 MARKETING AND CONSUMER ATTITUDES TOWARDS GREEN PRODUCTS ..... .. .......... . .... . .. .. 10 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................. 13 CHAPTER FOUR- METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 15 OVERALL STUDY DESIGN ........ ........ ... . .............................. ....... ........... .... ................... ..... 15 QUESTIONNAIRE MODEL ........................ .. .. .. ..... ....................... .......... ..... ............. ..... ...... 16 CHAPTER FIVE -RESULTS ........................................................................................ 20 RESPONSE RATE AND RESPONDENTS ................................................................................ 20 II DEMOGRAP HICS ......... ........................... .......................... ....... ......... ... ... .... ... .. .... .... ... ..... . 22 RESEARCH QUESTION 1- D ESCRIPTIV E RESULTS .... ....... ................. ...... .. ................. ....... . 23 RESEARCH QUESTION 2- DESCRIPTIV E RESULTS ................. ........... .......... ............ ........... 23 RESEARCH QUESTION 3- DESCRIPTIV E RESULTS ......... ... .... ....... .. .... .. .... ........ ........... ... .... 25 RESEARCH Q UESTION 4- DESCR IPTIV E RESULTS ........ .... ..... .. .................. ............ ....... .... . 27 ANOV A RESULTS ... ...................... .......... ........... .... ............. ............................. ..... .... ..... 27 CHAPTER SIX- DISCUSSION ..................................................................................... 32 RESEARCH QUESTION 1 -CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS OF MPBWCP ...... ... ...... ...... .............. 32 RESEARCH Q UESTION 2- CONSUMER B UYING INTENTIONS FOR MPBWCP ...................... 33 RESEARCH Q UESTION 3- MPBWCP AS A GREEN PRODUCT .. .... ................. ... ......... .... ...... 35 RESEARCH QUESTION 4- DIFFERENCE IN RESPONSE ACROSS CITIES AND OCCUPATIONS ... 36 ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS TO CONSUMER RESPONSES ......................................... ........ 38 LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY ........................................................................................... 39 CHAPTER SEVEN- CONCLUSION ............................................................................ 41 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 41 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ..... ........... ..... ......... ....... .... ......................... 41 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 42 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 44 APPENDIX A: TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS OF MPBWCP ........... .... ... .......... ... .................. 44 APPENDIX B: Q UESTIONNAIRE - SURVEY ......................................................................... 45 APPENDIX C: REB APPROVAL .............. .. ........................................ ... .............................. 49 APPENDIX D: SURVEY GRAPHS ........................................................................................ 50 APPENDIX E: ANOV AT ABLES .................................. ................ .... ... ................ .... .. ........ 59 III LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Attention paid to different product features in purchasing decisions. 9 Figure 2. Respondents' level of agreement with the statement "I would travel further in order to purchase MPBWCP" (by occupation of respondents). 25 Figure 3. Respondents' willingness to pay for MPBWCP relative to comparable materials (by location of respondents) . 30 Figure 4. Respondents ' level of agreement with the statement "I think MPBWCP is a marketable product" (by location and occupation of respondents). 50 Figure 5. Respondents' level of agreement with the statement "I think MPBWCP is an environmentally friendly product" (by location and occupation of respondents) . 51 Figure 6. Respondents' level of agreement with the statement "I think MPBWCP is an economically sustainable product for communities" (by location and occupation of respondents) . 52 Figure 7. Respondents' level of agreement with the statement "I would switch from my usual brands and buy MPBWCP" (by location of respondents). 53 Figure 8. Respondents ' level of agreement with the statement "I would often compare package label information about the environmental friendliness of MPBWCP" (by location and occupation of respondents). 54 Figure 9. Respondents ' level of agreement with the statement "I would often compare package label information about the economic community sustainability ofMPBWCP" (by location and occupation of respondents). 55 Figure 10. Respondents' level of agreement with the statement "I would travel further in order to purchase MPBWCP" (by location and occupation of respondents). 56 Figure 11. Respondents ' level of agreement with the statement "I would pay attention to advertisements about MPBWCP" (by location and occupation of respondents). 57 Figure 12. Respondents ' willingness to pay for MPBWCP relative to comparable materials (by location and occupation of respondents) . 58 IV LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Consumer groups for survey. 18 Table 2. Online survey respondents. 21 Table 3. Demographic data. 22 Table 4. ANOV A results. 28 v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I offer my sincerest gratitude to Dr Alex Ng and Dr. Sungchul Choi, who have supported me throughout my MBA Project with patience and understanding while allowing me the room to work in my own way. I attribute the level and quality of my Masters of Business Administration experience to their encouragement and effort, and without them this project would not have been undertaken. This report would not have been possible unless Dr. Alex Ng and Dr. Sungchul Choi accepted the responsibility of supervising this work, their assistance and guidance from the initial to the fmal stage enabled me to develop a deeper understanding of the subject. One simply could not wish for better supervisors. The entire UNBC Wood Concrete Marketing Team including Dr. Alex Ng, Dr. Sungchul Choi, Sorin Pasca, Diana Clausen, and Matthew Church have provided incredible insight that I needed to complete my MBA Project. I would also like to thank the past and current MBA administration at UNBC, particularly Carol Zoemack, Mike Ivanof, Phil Clough, Dr. Robert Ellis, Dr. Rick Tallman, and Dr. Han Donker, as well as the many professors for their time, dedication and commitment. Finally, I thank my family for supporting me throughout my studies at the University ofNorthem British Columbia. VI DEDICATION I dedicate this report to my family, especially ... to Gabriela, Jonathan, and Andre for their patience, understanding and love; to Dad and Mom for instilling the importance of hard work; to Tony and Kaili for their encouragement. VII CHAPTER ONE- BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Introduction Mountain Pine Beetle Wood Concrete Products, or MPBWCP for short, are made from a concrete-like building material that contains wood fibre from dead pine trees killed by the mountain pine beetle. MPBWCP is a wood based product, but has many of the characteristics of concrete. It has the potential to be a very versatile building material, with potential applications for countertops, flooring, garden tiles, and other non-structural uses. The mountain pine beetle is a major issue in British Columbia, with millions of hectares of pine forest killed. This has the effect of devaluing the wood . Dealing with the impact of the mountain pine beetle is a major concern for the forest industry and the communities that depend on it for their livelihood. The issue of what to do with the billions of trees killed by the mountain pine beetle is not yet adequately addressed. Responding to the pine beetle epidemic is a major concern for the forest industry and the communities that depend on it for their survival. Research into MPBWCP is of value to the British Columbia forest industry because it offers an effective use of the otherwise useless pine fibre from dead trees. For many lumber mills, the poor quality of dead pme beetle wood makes it economically unfeasible to produce traditional lumber products. Without an economically workable alternative, there is minimal motivation for forest companies to log and remove the dead pine forests and to replant new forests. MPBWCP provides a solution in this instance, as it is an alternative that can help maximize the value of the dead pine trees (Making Concrete With Wood 2007). This research explores what, if any, associations with specific consumers: industrial consumers, professional consumers, home or "do-it-yourself' consumers, and environmental organization supporters in various geographical areas Prince George, Vancouver and Los Angeles make between the concepts of "green" (environmentally friendly/sustainable) products. Chapter 1 introduces and states the research problem, and g1ves background and history of UNBC 's development of wood concrete. Chapter 2 outlines the scope, objectives and research questions of this study. Chapter 3 summarizes the extant literature on wood products and their marketing. Chapter 4 discusses the design and methodology of this research. Chapter 5 presents and summarizes the results ofthe research. Chapter 6 provides a discussion of these results regarding MPBWCP. Finally, Chapter 7 offers conclusions. Statement of Problem The purpose of this study is to examine how consumers respond to Mountain Pine Beetle Wood Concrete Products (MPBWCP), and the importance of consumer perception of the product as "Green. " Is MPBWCP a green (environmentally friendly/sustainable) building product with attributes that affect purchasing decisions? "Green" (environmentally friendly/sustainable) products are a subject of increasing interest on local, regional, national and international fronts and the assessing of potential market opportunities is important. 2 Background and History of UNBC Wood Concrete The UNBC Wood Concrete Marketing Team was formed to help bring MPBWCP to market as a commercially viable product. This primary goal is accomplished through three key functions: • Examining the potential for commercialization ofMPBWCP. • Building partnerships with industry, and leverage support from government to further the development ofMPBWCP. • Performing marketing research regarding consumer perceptions ofMPBWCP and disseminating the research outcomes to the public. I have been extensively involved with the UNBC Wood Concrete Marketing Team, as the Project Manager since 2009. Dr. Alex Ng and Dr. Sungchul Choi, professors with the UNBC School of Business serve as the Principal Investigators on the project. Sarin Pasca, the original developer ofMPBWCP, continues to provide technical expertise. The MPBWCP project has attracted a large grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), as well as another grant from the Western Economic Development (WED) Community Adjustment Fund. The major research activities for the "Market Research Towards Commercialization of Mountain Pine Beetle Wood Concrete Products (MPBWCP)," include: Phase 1 (A Preliminary Survey) to examine two domains of sustainability - environmental and economic sustainability, and their effects with price on consumer responses, Phase 2 (Focus Groups) to provide rich, broad and meaningful viewpoints about the marketing questions leading to successful commercialization of wood concrete products and Phase 3 (Conjoint 3 Analysis) to provide more information regarding optimal product types, places of distribution, price levels, and promotion attributes leading to successful commercialization of wood concrete products. The Mustel Group, a market research ftrm from Vancouver, BC was the successful applicant in the request for proposal (RFP) and tender for phase 1. The Mustel Group activities included administration, design/pre-implementation (i.e. screening questionnaire, recruitment of online survey participants), focus groups (participants completed online surveys), quantitative surveys (i.e. online data collection, date ftle and codebook preparation) and project deliverables (i.e. written quantitative methodology, UNBC consent form completion and fmal submission). About Mountain Pine Beetle Wood Concrete Products Mountain Pine Beetle Wood Concrete Products (MPBWCP) use beetle-killed pine wood to form a hybrid wood and concrete product. The pine wood ftbre takes the place of the aggregate in concrete. By using various sizes of wood chips, MPBWCP has the potential to be a highly attractive and unique alternative building product to a variety of consumers, because it combines some of the structural strength of concrete with the aesthetic quality of wood. MPBWCP arose from the research of Sorin Pasca and Dr. Ian Hartley at the University ofNorthern British Columbia (UNBC). The original idea behind MPBWCP was to see if the material could be a suitable replacement for drywall or gypsum board. Over the course of experimentation with the material, several new potential applications were 4 identified, rangmg from countertops to flooring (Making Concrete With Wood 2007). MPBWCP has not yet been certified or tested for structural applications, but this use is under consideration. In the mixing of standard concrete, Portland cement acts as the binder that holds the mineral aggregates (sand, pebbles and crushed stones) together. In the mixing of MPBWCP, the mountain pine beetle wood particles take the place of the mineral aggregates. As such, MPBWCP is a hybrid of ordinary concrete and wood particle boards. The size of the wood particles used to create MPBWCP may vary from the size of sawdust to the size of wood shavings; this offers a wide range of different design options to end-users. Several characteristics of MPBWCP are similar to traditional concrete: water resistance, fire resistance, fungaVterrnite/mold resistance, acoustic insulation, bending strength, and durability. Other properties, such as its light weight, naiVscrew holding capacity, and workability, make MPBWCP closer in nature to wood particle boards. Furthermore, MPBWCP is less dense than concrete, which provides a benefit by reducing the mass of the product. Please refer to Appendix A to view the physical characteristics and technical specifications ofMPBWCP. Moldability is the key characteristic of MPBWCP that distinguishes it from other wood cement products. The wood/cement/water mixture is poured into forms and let to set and cure. In terms of fmishing the product, staining could be the only requirement for applications such as stepping stones or pavers, but grinding, polishing and coating are needed for high end products such as countertops. 5 CHAPTER TWO - STUDY OBJECTIVES Scope The scope of this research will be focused around the designed research questions which will be examined through the use of collected primary data (survey questionnaires) to develop descriptive research results and exploratory research (literature review) to discuss MPBWCP, a wood based product. Articles from forest products journals on the public perception of wood products and the manner in which consumers respond to wood products, in addition academic articles that deal with the marketing of green products are reviewed. The study will look at three cities from the western side of North America and four distinct groups: industrial consumers, professional consumers, home consumers (DIY), and environmental organizations. Objectives and Research Questions The purpose of this study is to research how consumers evaluate wood concrete products. There are four key questions that are to be investigated within this study: 1. What are consumer attitudes towards MPBWCP? 2. What are consumer buying intentions towards MPBWCP? 3. How do people feel about the greenness ofMPBWCP? 4. Are there explanations as to why people could feel differently about their views on MPBWCP (i.e. occupational group and geography)? 6 CHAPTER THREE- LITERATURE REVIEW Structure of Literature Review The existing academic literature relating to this project covers two distinct areas. MPBWCP is an example of a wood based product, and has several characteristics that make it a "green" product. In the literature review section, I first discuss the segmentation of the market for building products. Next, I examine articles from forest products journals on the public perception of wood and wood-based products and the manner in which consumers respond to these wood products. I then discuss a selection of articles that deal with the marketing of green products and the public' s demand for environmental and economically sustainable products. Segmentation of the Market for Building Products It is an important realization that not all consumers and users of building products are equal. Do-it-yourself (DIY) homeowners represent a large part of the market for building products. These DIYers perform their own work for a variety of reasons, including a desire to improve the value of their homes, a sense of independence, cost savings from doing their own work, and problems fmding or trusting contractors (Williams 2008). Similarly, the demand from certain consumers for "green" building products has come to light over the past decade as a significant market segment. Straughan and Roberts (1999) devised a method to profile and segment green consumers. This research also identified several predictors of green consumers, including perceived consumer effectiveness (a belief that the actions of individuals makes a difference), altruism (a concern for the wellbeing of others), and liberal/left-wing political views. Thompson et al. (2009) found evidence 7 supporting green consumer segmentation specific to the forest products industry. This segmentation existed both for value-added products (such as wood furniture) as well as for non-value-added products (such as plywood). Females and those who knew about environmental certification were more likely to be a part of the green consumer segment. Literature on the segmentation of the building products market related to the demand from industry professionals is minimal or non-existent, based on my research. Still, the fact remains that contractors, wholesalers, homebuilders, and other professionals purchase a great deal of building materials to complete their day to day work. Consumer Response to Wood Products Many different studies over the past decade have examined the market potential for a variety of innovative wood products, as well as products certified under vanous environmental certification programs. Though none of the literature examined focuses specifically on a wood concrete material similar to MPBWCP, the fmdings ofthese studies can be generalized and applied to this project. The research of Ewald Rametsteiner ( 1999) examined the factors that enter into the purchase decisions of wood products (specifically, furniture) by Europeans. This research found that the greatest proportion of respondents placed the most attention on high overall quality, durability, and appealing shape and material. On the other side, the country of origin and the exclusivity of the product were the least important factors affecting purchase decisions of wood products by Europeans. Pricing and environmental considerations were 8 found to be of intermediate importance to the consumers surveyed. The fmdings of Rametsteiner are presented in the following figure . • Special atten!km Some special attonllon %0 • ... ···· · Neutral 20 • LJtllo • atlenlion 40 60 • No att&n!km at all 80 '100 High overall quality Durable Appealing shape Appealing material Economically priced A natural product environmentally compatible In sty1e, modem Product made in home country Somelhfng exclusive Figure 1. Attention paid to different product features in purchasing decisions (Rametsteiner 1999). The research of Tabarsi et al. (2003) involved a survey on the potential for manufacturing using oriented strandboard (OSB), which was sent to nearly 2,000 producers of wood office furniture and doors. The degree of familiarity amongst manufacturers was low for OSB, and there was a perception amongst respondents that technological improvements in manufacturing would be required in order for OSB to succeed commercially. Direct and personal communication with manufacturers was found to be the preferred manner in which to disseminate product information. This last fmding of their research is especially relevant to the successful commercialization of MPBWCP, because effective product dissemination will be necessary to bring about consumer acceptance of the product. 9 Perception and Discussion of Composite Wood and/or Concrete Products Composite wood products are made of wood and some other material. In order to successfully market a wood based product, it is vital to know about the consumer perceptions of these wood based materials. The research of Jonsson et al. (2008) did just that, and examined how Swedish consumers described different types of wood and wood based materials, and also identified preferences. The preferred characteristics of such materials were naturalness, smoothness, "living impression" (e.g. the grain of the wood), and value. On the other hand, the least preferred characteristics were a high level of processing, hardness, and heaviness. Although the research involved Scandinavian respondents, most of the fmdings can be applied to the North American consumer of building products. This research has significant implications for my project, since I am seeking to determine the consumer reaction to a specific wood based composite material (MPBWCP). The one important distinction that must be made is that the study of Jonsson et al. compared wood composites with natural wood itself, while MPBWCP is targeted more as a replacement building material for concrete. Marketing and Consumer Attitudes Towards Green Products Consumer attitudes towards environmentally friendly products have brought about the development of the discipline of green marketing. Green marketing, in its various forms, has been studied extensively over the past ten to fifteen years. 10 Some research has attempted to identify common characteristics amongst consumers of green or eco-labelled wood products. Roos and Nyrud (2008) surveyed consumers of flooring and decking in do-it-yourself stores in Sweden and Denmark. Their sample included both consumers with a preference for green products as well as those without a preference. Focusing on the green consumers, they tended to be less price-sensitive, and made less advance purchase plans of building materials. The subsample of eco-conscious consumers also included a higher share of married, highly educated, and female consumers. Although this research took place in Scandinavian DIY stores, it is reasonable to assume that many of the traits of a green consumer would be similar in North American markets. Bigsby and Ozanne (2002) used conjoint analysis to determine customers ' preferences for environmentally friendly or environmentally certified wood furniture in the New Zealand marketplace. The source, forest type, environmental certification, warranty length, and price of the wood were the five attributes considered. By offering a variety of different product bundles to subjects, the researchers concluded that the source ofthe wood was the most important attribute for buyers, with local (New Zealand) wood preferred over imported wood. Forest type (preference for plantations over natural forests), environmental certification, and warranty length were the next most important aspects, in that order. Price was the least important of the five aspects . Ginsberg and Bloom (2004) also note that consumers are wary of green marketing tactics. Indeed, in their decisions, consumers are unlikely to compromise on the "traditional" elements of a product-such as price and quality. Ginsberg and Brown characterized four levels of green marketing: "lean", "defensive", "shaded", and "extreme", ranging from 11 passive to aggressive marketing tactics. The authors noted that no single green marketing strategy will work for every company; rather, companies should select and follow one of their four strategies. They caution users of green marketing to carefully consider the strategy to be followed . Many different types of environmental certification for wood products currently exist m the global marketplace. The best-known example is the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), which allows certified wood products to carry a recognizable tree-and-checkmark logo . At the same time, there are at a minimum several dozen other environmental certification programs in place around the world. The sheer number of programs is such that one organization, the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification schemes (PEFC), exists to oversee these programs. Like with the FSC, products that meet the certification requirements of the PEFC can carry a logo . With so many certification programs in effect, consumers can easily become overwhelmed (Teisl 2002). Environmental certification was examined in the research of Kozak et al. (2004) Specifically, they looked at consumer attitudes and perceptions towards certification of value-added wood products (e.g. flooring and furniture) . Consumer knowledge of certification programs was found to be severely lacking for the most part. Despite this, many of the participants in the study expressed an interest in purchasing certified value-added wood products in the future. The researchers also found that consumers would be generally willing to pay a small premium for such certification of wood products. Teisl et al. (2002) also examined the many kinds of environmental certification labels carried by wood products. Using focus groups, the researchers determined that 12 environmental labelling on wood products is complicated and that consumers are wary of potential schemes involving such certification. Comparability between environmental labels was a priority for the subjects. Another key fmding was that consumers desire environmental certification from recognizable, trustworthy entities . Environmental certification is not without its challenges. Irland (2007) examined the supply chains for certified wood products in the United States in an attempt to determine why a relatively small amount of the wood harvested from certified forest reached retail outlets with certification labels. A major part ofthe problem is that there can be as many as six or seven different links in the supply chain, most of which would need to participate in the certification process. The level of education on certification programs is low for many of the intermediaries in the supply chain. Irland recommended that a focus be made initially on specialty wood products, where the costs and difficulties of certification could be justified fmancially. This approach would be followed by increasing certification efforts for more wood products afterwards. The implications for MPBWCP are such that all parties involved in the production and processing of the material would need to work together if MPBWCP were to be certified. Summary of Literature Review My research unites the existing literature on wood and wood based products with that on the subject of green marketing and labelling. There are many similarities between MPBWCP and other wood products, but none of the other research I examined dealt directly with a wood concrete compound. 13 The most important fmdings from this study of the literature are twofold: (1) consumers are generally willing to purchase products and materials they see as environmentally friendly or sustainable, but (2) they are wary of claims of a product's greenness, especially when such statements are not backed up by certification from a reliable third-party program (Bigsby and Ozanne 2002). My research will add to the literature, as there is no market research done on acceptance and perceived greenness of wood concrete products like MPBWCP. 14 CHAPTER FOUR- METHODOLOGY Overall Study Design The study collects primary data to respond to the research questions posed. The research design is comprised of two parts: 1) exploratory research is comprised of a literature review and 2) descriptive research using a pre-formed survey questionnaire. The questions were designed to gain further understanding to the reactions of potential consumers to MPBWCP, identify consumers' acceptance of wood concrete products, and whether consumers perceive wood concrete products as green. Both qualitative research (focus groups) and quantitative research (a survey) was undertaken for the study ofMPBWCP. The qualitative research conducted consisted of a dozen focus groups composed of targeted occupations in our targeted cities. The outcomes of the focus groups are not discussed further in this study. In certain circumstances a focus group might not be representative of the whole population, can vary greatly in its participants, the moderator may not have control of the focus group, may lead to irrelevant data, participants may react off of one another, and tougher to analyze because comments might be from the reaction of other members of the focus group. A big factor in the implementation of focus groups is the high cost. In-depth individual interviews could have been an alternative to focus groups; however, the cost and time to conduct this form of data collection made it economically unfeasible. A survey was used to examme MPBWCP on a quantitative level, through the collection of data from a large number of respondents. A survey also allowed for questions that focus on specific research interests, compared with a focus group, where this is more 15 ' .. difficult. This method of data collection is also easier to standardize and administrate which ,. can reduce various types of data collection errors. Along with the data collection benefits, there were cost and time savings. Questionnaire Model The survey questionnaire was designed to examine the two domains of sustainability: environmental sustainability and community economic sustainability. The questionnaire examined how these two sustainability domains effect consumer response and buyer -~ intention. The intended outcome of the survey was to gain further insight and answer the 'i research questions, and provide information for decision making (i.e. regarding the .; commercial potential ofMPBWCP). ·..•. The questionnaire questions were predominately of the type asking respondents to rank their agreement or disagreement with a provided statement. When responding to the scale questions on the questionnaire, individuals could specify their level of agreement to a statement ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree (see Appendix B). There were seven demographic questions, followed by nine questions relating specifically to the research. The questionnaire allows for the collection of data which can be tested for reliability and validity. Respondents followed a set of designed activities: 1. Watched a presentation on Mountain Pine Beetle Wood Concrete Product, time allotted: 15 minutes 2. Completed a short survey (Survey questions) on MPBWCP, 5 minutes 16 .··. . ., Respondents were drawn from three cities: Prince George BC, Vancouver BC, and Los Angeles, California, USA. In those three cities, respondents were drawn from four consumer groups: Industrial Consumers, Professional Consumers, Home Consumers and Environmental Organizations. For the different cities, Los Angeles was picked because the United States is Canada 's most important export market for wood products, Prince George was selected due to the lower costs to conduct research and to represent a rural town demographic, Vancouver represents a major Canadian city demographic. The online quantitative data collection was done on November 4th- 30th 2009. There were 210 useable surveys that were completed in total. The number of participants per group was established so that statistical validity could be accounted while respecting the fmancial constraints of the research budget. 17 The respondents were selected from 4 groups: Table 1. Consumer groups for survey. Geographical Market Local Market Regional Market USA Market Prince George Vancouver Los Angeles Participant Segment Industrial Consumers Wholesalers, Retailers, Commercial property construction, Home builders, Home designers Professional Consumers Professional handy men, Home contractors, Small business contractors, Renovators Home Consumers (Do-it-yourself) Home owners, Average consumers Environmental Organizations Members of environmental organizations (Sierra Clubs, David Suzuki Foundation, etc.) and eco-friendly green building organizations (SLO Green Build, The Natural Building Network, etc.) The web-survey participants were recruited through a marketing research firm, the Mustel Group, which followed UNBC's contract protocols and procedures. Data collection for the market research consisted of two components: qualitative focus groups and quantitative on-line surveys. The Mustel Group recruited participants for both components simultaneously, since the qualitative respondents were also eligible for and encouraged to complete the quantitative research phase (Mustel2009). The use of web-surveys was used to meet the tirneframe and budgetary constraints. A random telephone recruitment method was employed as much as possible. Households listed with listed telephone numbers were randomly sampled in the three market regions. Businesses were randomly selected from business telephone databases in the three market regions with stratification on the basis of business sector (SIC industry code). Due to difficulties in recruiting in the Los Angeles area other databases were used to supplement the 18 recruiting effort such as focus group databases and e-Rewards business panels. The research firm ' s incentive to online survey participants was a prize draw for $500.00 cash which was randomly selected, the winner was notified directly (Mustel2009). The confidentially of all participants and respondents was and will be maintained at all times and there will be no identifiers in this report of who and how a person(s) responded. Approval from the UNBC Research Ethics Board for "Market Research Towards Commercialization of Mountain Pine Beetle Wood Concrete Products," - Phase 1 was received for this research, and a copy of the certificate is contained in Appendix C. 19 CHAPTER FIVE -RESULTS Response Rate and Respondents The survey data was collected by the Mustel Group, a Vancouver marketing research firm. In total there were 210 questionnaires completed. Data collection for market research on MPBWCP consisted of quantitative online surveys. The Mustel Group recruited and screened participants for survey, and distributed incentives for their participation. The sample populations for this research were grouped as follows: 1. Do-it-yourself (DIY) consumers: i. completed in past 2 years or plan to complete in next 2 years DIY home project, ii. involving installation of materials such as gypsum, drywall, countertops, flooring, any type of tiles or landscaping products such as stones or concrete pavers or blocks for terracing 2. Environmentally-minded consumers: i. current member of an environmental organization or ii. volunteered or donated to an environmental organization in past 2 years 3. Industrial business (influencers): i. building and construction, wholesale or retail building supply, home design or architecture, ii. buy materials for sale in a wholesale or retail environment or make recommendations to contractors, builders, designers or the public regarding their choice of materials, and/or 20 iii. solely responsible for or recommend/influence building material choices for residential or commercial projects 4. Professional business (builders, contractors and handymen): i. general building and construction, renovations, or general handyman services, ii. including use of materials: gypsum, dry wall, countertops, flooring, tiling, landscaping products such as stones, concrete pavers or blocks for terracing iii. solely responsible for or recommend/influence material choices for residential and/or commercial projects Quantitative, Online Surveys Distribution The respondents of the quantitative survey were distributed as follows: Table 2. Online survey respondents. Web Survey Respondents Total Do-lt-Yourself Consumer Environmental Organization Member/donor/volunteer Industrial Segment (Wholesaler/purchase influenced 49 Prince George 17 7 22 40 Los Angeles 10 4 51 62 9 23 30 Professional Segment (Builder/user) TOTAL 48 8 18 22 210 41 103 66 Vancouver The overall completion rate for the online survey was 57% among those randomly recruited. Results for each question were collected in an Excel spreadsheet, breaking the Ll responses into distinct groups. In each group, answers from the Likert Scale questions were separated in categories from strongly disagree to strongly agree and then summed. When responding to a Likert questionnaire item, participants specify their level of agreement to a statement (Likert 1932). Demographics Survey Questions 1 through 7 asked respondents about basic demographic information regarding age, gender, income level, and other questions of this type. Table 3. Demographic data. Age 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+ 7% 18% 17% 27% 12% 3% Gender Male Female 58% 42% Marital Status Married Unmarried Other/No response 67% 18% 15% Annual Income Less than $20,000 $20,000 - $29,999 $30,000 - $39,999 $40,000 - $49,000 $50,000 - $59,999 $60,000 - $69,999 $70,000 - $79,999 $80,000 - $89,999 $90,000 - $99,999 Over $100,000 No response 3% 5% 6% 7% 11 % 8% 7% 8% 5% 29% 11 % Highest Level of Education Junior high school graduate Senior high school graduate College graduate University graduate Postgraduate Other No response 3% 11% 21% 23% 25% 16% 2% Occupation Professional worker Clerical worker Manager Self-management Labourer Homemaker Student Other 37% 4% 15% 13% 3% 3% 2% 25 % Residence Type House Apartment Townhouse Other 69% 23% 6% 1% Number of Respondents 210 Note: Values have been rounded to the nearest percent. 22 Research Question 1 - Descriptive Results The first research question seeks to gauge consumers (industrial consumers, professional consumers, home consumers and environmental organizations) attitudes towards MPBWCP . Survey questions were posed to respondents, with the first four on a seven-point scale, with a response of 1 corresponding to "strongly disagree" with the statement, 4 being "neither agree nor disagree", and 7 being "strongly agree". Survey Question 8 asked respondents to rate their agreement with the statement "I think MPBWCP is a marketable product". There was a very strong level of agreement with this statement, which bodes well for the marketability of MPBWCP . The mean response value was 6.3 and the median was 7, which represents the highest level agreement with any of the questions in the entire questionnaire. The response to this question is very encouraging to the viability ofMPBWCP, since the respondents to this survey represent a cross-section of likely users of the product. Graphical representations of these survey results are presented in Appendix D. Research Question 2 -Descriptive Results The second research question seeks to determine the buying intentions of consumers for MPBWPC. To answer this research question, the pricing of MPBWCP was examined by survey respondents. This is an important consideration because even if all other aspects of the product are executed perfectly, consumers may not purchase the product if it is priced too high. Survey Question 16 asked respondents how willing they would be to pay more for MPBWCP on a scale of 1 to 7. This question had a unique response scale compared to the 23 other questions. A value of 1 represents a 15% discount to comparable materials, while a value of 7 represents a 15% premium. A value of zero represents an equal willingness to pay for MPBWCP and comparable materials. The mean response of 4.9 and the median of 5 indicate that, on average, consumers are willing to pay a premium of 5% for MPBWCP over comparable materials. Survey Question 11 asked respondents to rate their agreement with the statement "I would switch from my usual brands and buy MPBWCP" . Though not nearly as strong as the previous question, there was a general agreement amongst respondents, with a mean value of 5.3 (slightly agree) and a median of6 (somewhat agree). These values indicate that potential users of MPBWCP would be only slightly or somewhat willing to switch from their usual brands and types of building materials to use MPBWCP for their projects. Survey Question 14 asked respondents to rate their agreement with the statement "I would travel further in order to purchase MPBWCP" . This question yielded a mixed response, with the lowest level of agreement of any of the questions in the questionnaire. The mean response was 4.9 and the median was 5, which corresponds to respondents "slightly agreeing" (on average) with the statement. This finding will be important, since opinions amongst likely users appear mixed regarding the likelihood that they would travel further to purchase MPBWCP. This may mean that it will be necessary to have MPBWCP carried in many locations to ensure that potential users can access the product without travelling further to obtain it. Figure 2 shows the results of Survey Question 14 by the occupation of the respondents. 24 Q14 (By Profession) I would travel further in order to purchase MPBWCP n = 210 20 18 16 - 14 - · !--- 1- 12 r--- r---r- !--- Hn--i -n-n- - Strongly Disagree (1) Somewhat Disagree (2 ) - Slightly Disagree Neither Agree (3) nor Disagree (4) • Enviro O lndustrial - 1- - !---IY I C DI Y r- r- 1-- r--- f-- r-- r- 1- .: ,,: - r- r- [,j, _ I·· ~~ r----1,:! f-- Slightly Agree (5) Somewhat Agree (6) Fnl 0 Professional I-< ~ '-- - -< Strongly Agree (7) Level of AgreemenUOisagreement Figure 2. Respondents' level of agreement with the statement "I would travel further in order to purchase MPBWCP" (by occupation of respondents). Survey Question 15 asked respondents to rate their agreement with the statement "I would pay attention to advertisements about MPBWCP". There was a very strong response showing agreement to this statement, with a mean value of 6.1 and a median of 6. The results for this question are somewhat surprising, since advertising can be easily ignored by consumers. Graphical representations of the full survey results are presented in Appendix D. Research Question 3 -Descriptive Results The third research question 3 seeks to determine how consumers feel about the greenness ofMPBWCP as a building product. As with the previous questions, a response of 25 1 corresponded to "strongly disagree" with the statement, 4 was "neither agree nor disagree", and 7 was "strongly agree" . Survey Question 9 asked respondents to rate their agreement with the statement "I think MPBWCP is an environmentally friendly product". There was a very strong level of agreement with this statement amongst respondents, with a mean response value of 6.1 and a median of 6. The response to this question demonstrates that likely users of MPBWCP perceived that the product was environmentally friendly. Survey Question 10 asked respondents to rate their agreement with the statement "I think MPBWCP is an economically sustainable product for communities" . As with the previous question, there was a strong level of agreement. The mean response value was 6.0 and the median was 6, which correspond to a high level of agreement with the statement. Finally, two questions were asked to respondents regarding the content of package label information. Survey Question 12 asked respondents to rate their agreement with the statement "I would often compare package label information about the environmental friendliness of MPBWCP". The mean response value was 5.7 and the median value was 6. Similarly, Survey Question 13 asked respondents to rate their agreement with the statement "I would often compare package label information about the economic community sustainability of MPBWCP" . The mean response value here was 5.5 and the median was 6. Combined, both Survey Questions 12 and 13 provide strong support that the likely users of MPBWCP would read and compare product labelling concerning both the environmental and economic aspects ofthe product. 26 Graphical representations of these survey results are presented in Appendix D. Research Question 4 -Descriptive Results The fourth research question seeks to determine whether there are differences between the evaluations of potential consumers based on their location and consumer group. The survey was given to respondents in Prince George, Vancouver, and Los Angeles to respondents who were either do-it-yourself homeowners, supporters of environmental groups, building professionals, or people in the building materials industry. With a great distance between locations and non-similarities in groups, there is the potential for differences to exist in the survey results. ANOVA Results A single-variable analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed in order to test the differences in survey results between the different cities and the different MPBWCP consumer groups of respondents. An ANOVA is a statistical test of the equality of means across different groups (in this case, the mean under examination is the mean response to each of the survey questions). Two ANOVAs are calculated with Microsoft Excel for each of the survey questions: one for the different cities and the other for the different professions. The ANOVA was performed using the following null hypotheses: • Cities: Ho = no difference in response across the different cities. • Occupations: Ho = no difference in response across the different occupations. 27 A null hypothesis is used by convention for the analysis of variance between different means. However, this still allows for specific research hypotheses to be considered using the results from the ANOV A. In the output of an ANOVA, the comparison of the calculated F-statistic with the critical F value allows for the acceptance or rejection of the null hypothesis. IfF -calculated is greater than F-critical, then the null hypothesis should be rejected. Table 4, which follows, summarizes the results of the analysis of variance. The complete ANOVA output is presented in Appendix E. Table 4. ANOV A results. Survey Question 1 to 7 8 (by city) 8 (by occupation) 9 (by city) 9 (by occupation) 10 (by city) 10 (by occupation) 11 (by city) City/Occupation Mean Response ANOVA F LA PG VAN DIY ENV IND PROF LA PG VAN DIY ENV IND PROF LA PG VAN DIY ENV IND PROF LA PG VAN Fcritical Demographic questions - Not analyzed using ANOVA 6.03 6.59 4.55 3.04 6.39 6.43 6.53 2.17 2.65 6.08 6.27 5.83 6.17 1.89 3.04 6.16 5.96 6.24 2.65 2.82 5.77 6.31 5.73 6.29 3.00 3.04 6.01 5.94 6.25 1.95 2.65 5.73 6.04 5.09 5.56 2.37 3.04 5.41 28 Ho Reject Accept Accept Reject Accept Accept Accept 11 (by occupation) 12 (by city) 12 (by occupation) 13 (by city) 13 (by occupation) 14 (by city) 14 (by occupation) 15 (by city) 15 (by occupation) 16 (by city) 16 (by occupation) DIY ENV IND PROF LA PG VAN DIY ENV IND PROF LA PG VAN DIY ENV IND PROF LA PG VAN DIY ENV IND PROF LA PG VAN DIY ENV IND PROF LA PG VAN DIY ENV IND PROF 5.41 5.80 5.00 5.21 5.52 5.51 5.85 5.84 5.96 5.29 5.73 5.42 5.29 5.68 5.69 5.69 5.13 5.69 4.64 4.90 5.09 5.14 5.47 4.58 4.50 5.80 6.37 6.09 6.37 6.39 5.58 5.98 4.77 4.63 5.17 5.06 5.39 4.63 4.75 4.82 2.65 Reject 1.96 3.04 Accept 3.24 2.65 Reject 1.44 3.04 Accept 2.51 2.65 Accept 2.01 3.04 Accept 5.81 2.65 Reject 3.34 3.04 Reject 7.11 2.65 Reject 4.11 3.04 Reject 4.65 2.65 Reject The results of the ANOV A in Table 4 show that in several instances over the survey, there are differences in mean response across the cities and the occupations surveyed. Those differences were significant where the null hypothesis was rejected (Table 4). The most apparent overall trend from the analysis of variance is that differences in mean response are most often significant for different occupations. When examining responses by occupation of the respondents, there is a rejection of the null hypothesis in six of the nine questions (Survey 29 Questions 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16)- in other words, the mean response is different across the four occupations. On the other hand, there was only a rejection of the null hypothesis in three questions (Survey Questions 8, 15, and 16) when sorted by city. This seems to indicate that the consumer group of the respondent has a greater impact on the response to the survey than does the city. This suggests these different consumer groups are real given their different responses to MPBWCP. For both the city and occupational groups, there were significant differences in the mean response for Survey Questions 15 and 16, which relate to consumer interest in advertising about MPBWCP and willingness to pay a premium (versus comparable materials) for MPBWCP. This indicates that these two questions elicited a broad range of responses, which differed based on the city and occupation of the respondent. Q16 (By Geographic Area) How willing would you be to pay for MPBWCP n = 210 35 - 3o r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I 25 r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .--- r---- : 2o r - - - - - - - - - - - - - " ~ " ~ 15 r - - - - - - - - - - - - - r- I - f-- r- r---- f-- - Los Angeles r- .. 10 r - - - - - - - - - -- t ': 0 ~ --- --~--- --- --~-15%(1) -10% (2) -5% (3) - ) 0% (4 ) ' ~- _ ,,? 1 \ +5%(5) . ---i - - '· +1 0% (6) ~~ Vancouver George I - - ["""': b_ +15% (7) Willingness to Pay {versus comparable materials) Figure 3. Respondents' willingness to pay for MPBWCP relative to comparable materials (by location of respondents). 30 As indicated by Table 4, residents of Prince George were most likely of the three cities to pay attention to advertising about MPBWCP, but the least likely to be willing to pay a premium for the product. When differentiating by occupation, industrial and professional consumers were less willing to pay a premium for MPBWCP compared to do-it-yourself and environmental consumers (Table 4). An interpretation of these results is offered in the Discussion. 31 CHAPTER SIX- DISCUSSION The questions contained in the survey sought to answer four key research questions, regarding how consumers respond to MPBWCP as a building material, their likelihood of buying it, how consumers perceived the greenness ofMPBWCP, and what differences exist in the responses of various segments of consumers. The results of the survey are important in the determination of whether or not MPBWCP can succeed as a viable building material in a competitive marketplace. Research Question 1- Consumer Perceptions ofMPBWCP The responses to the survey questions pertaining to Research Question 1 gave a clear indication of consumer interest towards MPBWCP. Overall, there was a very strong positive reaction towards MPBWCP as a marketable building product. The survey respondents were, surprisingly, quite favourable towards paying attention to advertising featuring information about MPBWCP. This is important because future consumers of MPBWCP would only purchase the product if they were reasonably informed on its applications and specifications. On average, the surveyed consumers were willing to pay about a five percent premium for MPBWCP versus comparable materials. As mentioned earlier, the research of Rametsteiner (1999) is quite valuable in the understanding of which traits consumers most desire in wood products, as well as the traits for which they care the least. The most important characteristics were, in order: • Quality • Durability • Appealing shape and material 32 • Economical pricing Some characteristics of wood products were determined to be of less importance to consumers, including product exclusivity and point of origin. The production of information and marketing highlighting the important points listed above will aid in the decision-making process for potential consumers ofMPBWCP, and should steer them towards considering the product for the building material purchases. The research of Bigsby and Ozanne (2002) shows that the point of origin or source of wood based products was important to respondents. This fmding supports MPBWCP, because it too supports local economies. A thorough rev1ew of the literature on green marketing and environmental certification initiatives shows that consumers are generally interested in purchasing building materials and other products that carry certification. However, these same consumers are quite wary of false claims and unknown certification programs. Research Question 2- Consumer Buying Intentions for MPBWCP The responses to the survey questions pertaining to Research Question 2 demonstrated that there is a high level of interest amongst respondents in purchasing and using MPBWCP for their building material needs. The main issue that arose from the survey regarding Research Question 2 was that survey respondents were (on average) only slightly willing to travel further in order to purchase MPBWCP. I believe that this is the case because consumers, particularly those who are employed full-time, are busy and have little free time to travel further to purchase their building products. Although the fmdings of Straughan and Roberts (1999) and Thompson 33 (2009) seem to suggest that environmentally conscious consumers might travel further, this would not necessarily be the case for the professional and industrial consumers of building materials. This implication is discussed further in the analysis of Research Question 4, which follows. The slight willingness to travel further in order to purchase MPBWCP will be problematic, since consumers will only travel further if they know about the product ahead of time and are set on buying it. In addition, respondents claimed to be only slightly willing to switch to MPBWCP from their usual brands. I believe that this could be overcome by an education effort on the benefits and advantages ofMPBWCP as a building material. With time, as more construction involving MPBWCP is complete, consumers should have an improved willingness to switch from their usual brands of materials. The survey results have shown, on average, consumers are willing to pay a premium of 5% for MPBWCP over comparable materials. This small premium could erode under prolonged tough economic times as consumer willingness to spend extra money diminishes. Even though the unpleasant economic state of affairs has had a negative effect on consumer purchasing, the acceptance of green products is still very high. This reveals that the majority of consumers consider a product's environmental impact before purchasing. Environmental concerns are still dominant despite hard financial times. This could indicate that consumers' principles towards the value of green products do not change during an economic downturn. 34 ,. Research Question 3 -MPBWCP as a Green Product As mentioned above, the results of the survey showed a great deal of promise for . MPBWCP as a viable product that surveyed consumers would use. Survey respondents were highly in agreement that MBPWCP is both an environmentally friendly product and an economically sustainable product for communities. Whether or not either of those statements is a completely accurate characterization of MPBWCP is a question that remains to be answered, but it is a major positive to have potential consumers tend to view the product that way initially. Product labelling is a key part of green marketing. As discussed in the review of the \ academic literature, there are many different environmental certification and labelling ····· ; programs in effect in the domestic and global marketplaces (Teisl 2002 and Kozak 2004). These articles focused on environmental certification and labelling, but in the survey, respondents were asked whether they would compare labelling information about both environmental friendliness and also what was referred to as "economic community sustainability". This economic community sustainability labelling would provide consumers with information on the geographic source of the wood used to make the product, and also potentially information about how the forestry industry supports such communities. For the most part, respondents said they were somewhat likely to read and compare the information presented on both kinds of labels. Respondents were slightly more likely to compare the environmental friendliness label (mean response of 5.7) than they were to compare the economic community sustainability label (mean response of5 .5). 35 ·.·· ~ :• Future marketers of MPBWCP will need to be mindful of the possibility of "greenwashing", which occurs when overly boastful claims about the environmental sustainability of a product are made in hopes of attracting interest from environmentally conscious consumers. Such tactics can easily backfire, harming the image and reputation of the product. Despite this, the academic literature and our survey results indicate that consumers do have a genuine interest in learning more about how building products compare in terms ofboth environmental and economic community sustainability. Research Question 4 -Difference in Response across Cities and Occupations The analysis of variance (ANOV A) provided insight into the differences between the responses from the three cities and four occupations surveyed. One of the most striking fmdings of the ANOVA was the differences in mean occurred in greater frequency when the survey responses were grouped by the consumer group of the respondent (for six ofthe nine survey questions). There were only significant differences in mean when the responses were grouped by city in three of nine questions. This finding makes sense in hindsight, since it is reasonable to imagine that those members of a common occupation (say do-it-yourself homeowners) share a set of common characteristics that are quite different from other occupations (such as building professionals). Marketing recognizes that home consumers are different from industrial buyers. Environmental group supporters also appear to represent a distinguishable market segment, based on the ANOVA results (Table 4). This fmding supports the outcome of the research of Thompson et al. (2009), which determined that green consumers represented a distinguishable market segment. The cities surveyed are all North American cities with reasonably high standards of living, so it is not a stretch of the 36 ;" imagination to assume that their populations have many traits in common relating to the purchase of building materials. The results of the ANOVA showed that for the last two questions in the survey, which asked about interest in advertisements and willingness to pay a premmm for MPBWCP, there were significant differences in the mean response for both cities and for occupations. Residents of the Los Angeles were the least interested in advertising for MBPWCP. Residents of Prince George were the least interested in paying a premium for MPBWCP (versus comparable materials), perhaps because they know that the mountain pine beetle epidemic has created an abundance of inexpensive pine fibre. For these same two questions, respondents who were do-it-yourself homeowners or supporters of environmental groups were the most likely to express an interest in advertising for the product and to pay a premium price for MPBWCP. Similar to the distinguishable market segment of green consumers, this indicates that do-it-yourself consumers also represent a market segmentwhich is supported by some of the fmdings of Williams (2008) . Respondents from the professional and industry groups were less likely to pay attention to advertising and to pay a premium, possibly because they are relatively more busy and cost-conscious. These same groups of do-it-yourself homeowners and environmental supporter were slightly more likely (than the other consumer groups) to be willing to switch to MPBWCP and to compare labelling information about the environmental and economic sustainability. However, for some ofthe questions there wasn't a statistically significant difference between the mean survey responses ofthe different groups, most notably for survey questions 10 and 13 , which asked about whether MPBWCP were an economically sustainable product and 37 whether respondents would read about econorruc community sustainability labelling. As stated previously, differences between the survey cities were less prevalent than between the different occupation groups. The full data for the ANOV A is contained in Appendix E. Alternative explanations to consumer responses It is possible that there are alternative ways in which to explain the responses of the survey. First, it is likely that the processes for choosing building materials vary across different occupations surveyed. For instance, professional and industrial consumers will typically have criteria outlined for selected products, while do-it-yourself consumers can act with less formal planning, or even on impulse. In general, the respondents from the various occupational groups and cities will have different experiences with building products, and this can factor into all the responses to the survey questions. One ofthe questions in the survey asked respondents about the premium (or discount) they would be willing to pay to obtain MPBWCP . This is potentially problematic because consumers, in reality, will be making their purchasing decisions will a specific application in mind (i.e. a countertop or floor tiles). They may have a willingness to pay a premium for one product but expect a discount for another. Further analysis on a product level would be required for certainty on this matter. A related factor is that MBPWCP is a new product and consumers would demand more information (beyond what was provided prior to the survey) in order to make an informed purchasing decision. The survey did not provide respondents with a specific defmition of the word "green", and left that decision to each respondent to make. The definition of "green" for one 38 consumer is almost certainly different for the definition of another consumer, although there would be similarities between the defmitions. Limitations of this Study There are several potential limitations to this research study, the first being that Western Canada (British Columbia) and the Western United States (Los Angeles) were the only geographic regions analyzed. This was intentional, as the sale of MPBWCP, at least initially, is targeted to these regions ofNorth America. As such, the results from this study may only be helpful to the specific region of study, and there may be certain regional and geographical influences. It is possible that MBPWCP will eventually be marketed to consumers in Eastern North America, Europe, and Asia, but these regions were also excluded from the survey. A further limitation to this study was that obtaining survey participants is costly, due to the challenge of obtaining respondents who have working lives, as opposed to many marketing studies that recruit students. Thus it is necessary to select a sample of representative cities (Prince George, Vancouver, Los Angeles) in which to conduct the survey. This selection meant that the opinions of residents of smaller centres were not included in the survey results. The collected survey results reflect the opinions of residents from mid to large sized centres. Another potential limitation is that the survey respondents were only asked to provide opinions regarding MPBWCP in general, and not regarding specific applications like countertops which could provide more reliable responses. In reality, they would be purchasing products made from MPBWCP (e.g. countertops or tiles), so consumer opinions 39 could vary for each of the individual wood concrete products. For instance, the decision (and the decision-making process) for a consumer to purchase a countertop made from MPBWCP would be quite different from that of a consumer purchasing garden blocks made of MPBWCP. Further research will be required to determine the viability of individual products made from MPBWCP . 40 CHAPTER SEVEN- CONCLUSION Conclusion Mountain Pine Beetle Wood Concrete Products (MPBWCP) continue to be developed and new applications are in the works. My research sought to determine how consumers feel about MPBWCP, especially as a green building material. The results of the survey indicate that MBPWCP are of substantial interest to consumers and industry professionals across Western North America. Surveyed respondents were, on average, very interested in learning about and using MBPWCP. They saw MPBWCP as a viable product in a competitive marketplace, which bodes well for its future as a building product. These respondents would also be somewhat likely to examine and compare labelling information on wood products about environmental and community economic sustainability. Some differences were noted across different consumer occupational groups, with significant differences between environmentally conscious consumers and professionaVindustrial consumers of building materials. Overall, there was a fairly uniform strong positive response to MPBWCP, which is an encouraging result of its future as a building product. Recommendations for Future Research Further study into different products made from MPBWCP through a conjoint analysis would provide more information regarding optimal product types, places of distribution, price levels, and promotion attributes leading to successful commercialization of wood concrete products. This conjoint analysis would examine consumer responses to different "bundles" of product attributes for MPBWCP. 41 REFERENCES . Bigsby, H., Ozanne, L.K. "The purchase decision: Consumers and environmentally certified wood products." Forest Products Journal, 2002: Bigsby, H., Ozanne, L.K. 2002. "The purchase decision: Consumers and e52(7/8), pp. 100-105. Ginsberg, J.M., Bloom, P.N. "Choosing the Right Green Marketing Strategy." MIT Sloan Management Review, 46(1), 2004: pp. 79-84. Irland, L.C. "Developing Markets for Certified Wood Products: Greening the Supply Chain for Construction Materials." Greening the Supply Chain for Construction Materials, 2007: pp. 201-216. Jonsson, 0., Lindberg, S., Roos, A., Hugosson, M., Lindstrom, M. "Jonsson, 0 Lindberg, S., Roos, A., Hugosson, M., Lindstrom, M." Wood and Fiber Science, 40(4), 2008: pp. 663-678. Kozak, R.A., Cohen, D.H., Lerner, J., Bull, G.Q. "Western Canadian consumer attitudes towards certified value-added wood products: An exploratory assessment." Forest Products Journal, 2004: 54(9), pp. 21-24. Likert, Rensis. "A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes." Archives of Psychology, 1932: 52. Making Concrete With Wood. September 1, 2007. http://www. unbc.ca/media/2007 /09_ concrete.htrnl (accessed March 16, 201 0). Mustel. Mountain Pine Beetle Wood-Concrete Product Market Research Methodology. Vancouver, BC: Mustel, 2009. 42 Rametsteiner, Ewald. "The Attitude ofEuropean Consumers Towards Forests and Forestry." Unasylva, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 1999. Roos, A., Nyrud, A.Q. "Description of green versus environmentally indifferent consumers ofwood products in Scandinavia: flooring and decking"." Journal of Wood Science, 54, 2008: pp. 402-407. Straughan, R.D., Roberts, J.A. "Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look at green consumer behavior in the new millennium." Journal of Consumer Marketing, 1999: 558-575. Tabarsi, E., Kozak, R., Cohen, D., Gaston, C. "A market assessment of the potential for OSB products in the North American office furniture and door manufacturing industries." Forest Products Journal, 2003: 53(7/8), pp. 19-27. Teisl, M.F., Peavey, S., Newman, F., Buono, J., Hermann, M. "Consumer reactions to environmental labels for forest products: A preliminary look ." Forest Products Journal, 2002: 52(1 ), pp. 44-50. Thompson, D.W., Anderson, R.C., Hansen, E.N., Kahle, L.R. "Green Segmentation and Environmental Certification: Insights from Forest Products." Business Strategy and the Environment, 2009: Thompson, D.W., Anderson, R.C., Hansen, E.N., Kahle, L.R. 2009. "Green Segmentation and Environme 1-16. Williams, C. C. "Re-thinking the motives of do-it-yourself(DIY) consumers." The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 18(3), 2008: pp. 311323. 43 APPENDICES Appendix A: Technical Specifications of MPBWCP Typical values (average) Property What does it mean? 1 Density 1,300 kg/cubic meter It weighs half of ordinary concrete 2 Compressive strength 7 MPa (1,015 psi) after 7 days 9 MPa (1,305 psi) after 28 days A 4" x 4"column could bear a load of 20,000 pounds 3 Bending strength 5 MPa (725 psi) after 28 days Thickness swelling 4 (after 24 hours soaking) A 4" thick and 8" wide bench plank could bear a load of2,000 pounds at a span of30" < 1% >25% for most of wood-based panels (OSB, particleboard, or MDF) 5 Fire resistance 6 Alkalinity It passed a 2 minutes torch test ~ 11 7 Moldability 8 Workability 9 Mechanical joints and fixing 10 Health and safety 11 Provided a wood content of maximum 20% by mass, it is expected to pass even a non-combustibility test It repels wood-boring insects and fungi even at high moisture contents It can be poured and molded in forms like ordinary concrete It can be cut and machined (routed, planed, bored, spindled) with normal woodworking tools It can be nailed or screwed without pre-drilling. Drill pilot holes are recommended for screw fixings and edge screwing Gluing and stapling are also options No formaldehyde or other resins toxic emissions when uncoated Dust generation when machined must be controlled Correct handling is recommended for avoiding strain or crush injuries Other hazards 44 Appendix B: Questionnaire - Survey Survey Questions: Market Research Towards Commercialization of Mountain Pine Beetle Wood Concrete Products Short survey on Buying Intention for MPBWCP (a seven-point scale) 1. My exact age is 2. My gender is 1 2 3. My annual income is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 4. Male Female Less than $20,000 $20,000 to $30,000 $30,000 to $40,000 $40,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $60,000 $60,000 to $70,000 $70,000 to $80,000 $80,000 to $90,000 $90,000 to $100,000 Over $100,000 No response My highest completed level of education is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Elementary school graduate Junior high school graduate Senior high school graduate College graduate University graduate Postgraduate Other No response 45 5. My marital status is 1 2 3 4 6. My highest completed level of education is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7. Professional worker Clerical worker Manager Self-management Labourer Homemaker Student Other My residence is a 1 2 3 4 8. Married Unmarried Other No response House Apartment Townhouse Other I think MPBWCP is a marketable product. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Slightly disagree Neither agree nor disagree Slightly agree Somewhat agree Strongly agree 46 9. I think MPBWCP is an environmentally friendly product. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Slightly disagree Neither agree nor disagree Slightly agree Somewhat agree Strongly agree 10. I think MPBWCP is an economically sustainable product for communities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Slightly disagree Neither agree nor disagree Slightly agree Somewhat agree Strongly agree 11. I would switch from my usual brands and buy MPBWCP. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Slightly disagree Neither agree nor disagree Slightly agree Somewhat agree Strongly agree I would often compare package label information about the environmental friendliness ofMPBWCP. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Slightly disagree Neither agree nor disagree Slightly agree Somewhat agree Strongly agree 47 13 . I would often compare package label information about the economic community sustainability of the MPBWCP. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Slightly disagree Neither agree nor disagree Slightly agree Somewhat agree Strongly agree I would travel further in order to purchase MPBWCP. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Slightly disagree Neither agree nor disagree Slightly agree Somewhat agree Strongly agree 15. I would pay attention to advertisements about MPBWCP. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Slightly disagree Neither agree nor disagree Slightly agree Somewhat agree Strongly agree 16. How willing would you be to pay for MPBWCP? Check the premium or discount in percent over I below a comparable product that you agree with. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -15% -10% -5% 0 +5% +10% +15% 48 Appendix C: REB Approval UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA RESEARCH ETHICS BOARD MEMORANDUM To: CC: Sungchul Choi Alex Ng From: Henry Harder, Chair Research Ethics Board Date: March 4, 2009 Re: E2009.0304.034 Market Research Towards Commercialization of Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) Wood Concrete Products, Phase I Thank you for submitting the above-noted proposal to the Research Ethics Board. Your proposal has been approved. We are pleased to issue approval for the above named study for a period of 12 months from the date of this letter. Continuation beyond that date will require further review and renewal of REB approval. Any changes or amendments to the protocol or consent form must be approved by the Research Ethics Board. Good luck with your research. Sincerely, Henry Harder 49 Appendix D: Survey Graphs Survey Question 8 Q8 (By Geographic Area) I think MPBWCP is a marketable product n ~ 210 =40 +------------------------------------------------------------c 0 c. ~"' -----------------------------------------------------------~ Strongly Disagree (1) Somewhat Disagree (2) Slightly Disagree (3) Neither Agree nor Disagree (4) Slightly Agree (5) Somewhat Agree (6) Strongly Agree (7) l evel of Agreement/Disagreement Q8 (By Profession) I th ink MPBWCP is a marketable product n ~ 210 35 ,- 30 I- 25 DDIY ~ 20 c • Enviro ~ Olndustrial D Professional c. ~ 15 I- - 10 ~ ~ n Strongly Disagree ( 1) n Somewhat Disagree (2) n ni h I l l Slightly Disagree Neither Agree (3) nor Disagree (4) Slightly Agree (5) Somewhat Agree (6) r-N ,,. ~ Strongly Agree (7) Level of Ag reement/Disagreement Figure 4. Respondents' level of agreement with the statement "I think MPBWCP is a marketable product" (by location and occupation of respondents). 50 Survey Question 9 Q9 (By Geographic Area) I think MPBWCP is an environmentally friendly product n; 210 ----- 50 .---- ----------, 45 f 40 +------------------------------------------------35 +------------------------------------------------- .. 30 +---------------------------------------------------& 25 +-------------------------------------------------- Prince George•j • vancouver g: "' 20 +---------------------------------------------------15 +-------------------------------------------------10 +------------------------------------------- Strongly Disagree (1) Somewhat Disagree (2) Slightly Disagree (3) Neither Agree nor Disagree (4) Slightly Agree (5) 0 Los Angeles - - - ;• - Somewhat Agree (6) Strongly Agree (7) Level of Agreement/Disagreement Q9 (By Profession) I think MPBWCP is an environmentally friendly product 35 --------------------------------------------------------------- ~ 25 +----------------------------------------------------- ."g +---- - - -------------------;: 20 ICDIY a. • Enviro Dlndustrial 0 Professional "'" 15 +---------------------------------------------------l - 10 +-------------------------------------------_, I'·' s +--- - - - - - - - - - - - - -1 n Strongly Disagree (1) D n Somewhat Disagree (2) n - Q. l Slightly Disagree Neither Agree (3) nor Disagree (4) :,': - ~ Slightly Agree (5) i' Somewhat Agree (6) - Strongly Agree (7) Level of Agreement/Disagreement Figure 5. Respondents' level of agreement with the statement "I think MPBWCP is an environmentally friendly product" (by location and occupation of respondents). 51 Survey Question 10 Q10 (By Geographic Area) I think MPBWCP is an economically sustainable product for communities 45 ,-- - -- - n ~ 210 --- r-------1 40 -------< 35 ~ 30 - = 25 c " 0. " 20 ~ 0 r--- • vancouver D Los Angeles r- '-- , ---1 r--- ' - H t- - 15 10 - 5 0 [] Prince George ,...... n Strongly Disagree (1) n Somewhat Disagree (2) ____, Slightly Disagree (3) c -r Neither Agree nor Disagree (4) r- '" ~ Slightly Agree (5) H Strongly Agree (7) Somewhat Agree (6) Level of Ag reement/Disagreement Q10 (By Profession) I think MPBWCP is an economically sustainable product for communities n =210 30 25 20 ~ - ":l:c CDIY - g 15 0. m "' r - - 10 - 5 0 r- 1- CD Strongly Disagree (1) D n Somewhat Disagree (2) D n ' - 1---- ~ ~ ll Slightly Disagree Neither Agree (3) nor Disagree (4) Slightly Agree (5) ,.. : Somewhat Agree (6) • Enviro D lndustrial ~ f-- 0 Professional - -- Strongly Agree (7) Level of Agreement/Disagreement Figure 6. Respondents' level of agreement with the statement "I think MPBWCP is an economically sustainable product for communities" (by location and occupation of respondents). 52 Survey Question 11 Q11 (By Geographic Area) I would switch from my usual brands and buy MPBWCP 40 ' n =210 -------- - I 35 I 30 25 ~ ~ ~ ~ &. 20 " rll ~ 1- - ~ 0: - 15 10 - I--.1---- 5 Strongly Disagree (1) Somewhat Disagree (2) Slightly Disagree (3) Neither Agree nor Disagree (4) ,-- - 1- I--I r- ]j - Slightly Agree (5) Somewhat Agree (6) :0 Prince George' • vancouver 0 Los Angeles I Strongly Agree (7) ' Level of AgreemenUDisagreement Q11 (By Profession) I would switch from my usual brands and buy MPBWCP n = 210 30 ·.. ---------------------------------------------------------------------~ 20 +---------------------------------------------------- ill "' 15 ~ 0 11 r- ~---------------------------------- ODIY • Enviro - Olndustrial - ~ 0: - ---------------------------------~ ~ 5 +-------------------------- - - - -1 Strongly Disagree (1) Somewhat Disagree (2) Slightly Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree (4) (3) Slightly Agree (5) Somewhat Agree (6) D Professional 1-- ,- r- ' - l Strongly Agree (7) Level of Agreement/Disagreement Figure 7. Respondents' level of agreement with the statement "I would switch from my usual brands and buy MPBWCP" (by location and occupation of respondents). 53 Survey Question 12 Q12 (By Geographic Area) I w ould often compare package label information about the environmental friendliness of MPBWCP n =210 40 .------------------------------------------------------.l 35 r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I 30 +---------------------------------------------------- ~ 25 +---------------------------------------------------~ c "' ~ - - ------------------------------------------ "' 1--- ~ ~~ ll.[l '--"---,--"--L Somewhat Disagree (2) Slightly Disagree (3) -------1 Prince George • vancouver I --H t--- --- 5 r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -lr, Strongly Disagree (1) ___ r- --- 10 +------------------------------------------ ----- ~-- 0 Los Angeles "'" 15 +------------------------------------------ o - '-- Neither Agree nor Disagree (4) Slightly Agree (5) Somewhat Agree (6) Strongly Agree (7) Level of Agreement/Disagreement Q12 (By Profession) I would often compare package label information about the environmental friendliness of MPBWCP n = 210 25 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 20 +----------------------------------------------------l :c 15 5:0. ~ - f- ' ' "'" 10 r- 1---- __ -- f- - CDIY • Enviro r· D lndustrial 0 Professional , 'J: 1- 5 0 ITl Strongly Disagree (1) nn .[h I n Somewhat Disagree (2) Slightly Disagree Neither Agree (3) nor Disagree (4) __ 'l' - ? ··. -'- Slightly Agree (5) Somewhat Agree (6) Strongly Agree (7) Level of Agree ment/Disagreement Figure 8. Respondents' level of agreement with the statement "I would often compare package label information about the environmental friendliness of MPBWCP" (by location and occupation of respondents). 54 Survey Question 13 Q13 (By Geographic Area) I would often compare package label information about the economic community sustainability of MPBWCP n = 210 40 r - - --- --- 35 30 .." .g_ c " 25 20 f-- 15 j- 0: Prince George• • vancouver 0 Los Angeles 1-- I r----1-- - 10 5 0 - -H 0.. Strongly Disagree ( 1) Somewhat Disagree (2) ,.-- I Slightly Disagree (3) Neither Agree nor Disagree (4) Slightly Agree (5) Somewhat Agree (6) Strongly Agree (7) Level of Agreement/Disagreement Q13 (By Profession) I would often compare package label information about the economic community sustainability of MPBWCP n = 210 20 r18 I I 16 I r14 .." . c 0 c. 1 - ,. 1: 12 ~~ " 8 r--- 6 -- 4 - 0: 0 CDIY • Enviro Dlndustrial D Professional -~~ 10 2 1- - Jh nil Strongly Disagree ( 1) Somewhat Disagree (2) - \',) -~ -~ I T IJ - l ~. Slightly Disagree Neither Agree (3) nor Disagree (4) 1- Slightly Agree (5) ~ If· Somewhat Agree (6) '--- Strongly Agree (7) Level of Agreement/Disagreement Figure 9. Respondents' level of agreement with the statement "I would often compare package label information about the economic community sustainability of MPBWCP" (by location and occupation of respondents). 55 Survey Question 14 Q14 (By Geographic Area) I would travel further in order to purchase MPBWCP 30 n - - -- -- - =210 l 25 I 20 ."" c ."&. I I---- 15 "' ,..- - f-- 10 0 Jl Strongly Disagree (1) r l ~- Slightly Disagree (3) Somewhat Disagree (2) f.- ~~ - f-- r , 1- ~ I· - 1----- [ ~ Neither Agree nor Disagree (4) H H - r- Somewhat Agree (6) Slightly Agree (5) - -I Strongly Agree (7) Level of AgreemenUOi sa greement Q14 (By Profession) I would travel further in order to purchase MPBWCP n = 210 20 18 I - 16 - - 14 - 1- 12 ~ c £ 10 - g. "' 8 - f--- 1--r':· --m- r rll- n-Il Strongly Disagree (1) Somewhat Disagree (2) I- .- _ ,·-~ -~) 1-- t{ - 1-- : • Enviro Olndustrial f--- 1- :;i - Slightly Disagree Neither Agree (3) nor Disagree (4) I I CDIY : - - I I ~ Slightly Agree (5) 1-1-f-- ~ D Professional 1-r- \: ·: -'-- Somewhat Agree (6) Strongly Agree (7) Level of AgreemenUDisagreement Figure 10. Respondents' level of agreement with the statement "I would travel further in order to purchase MPBWCP" (by location and occupation of respondents). 56 Survey Question 15 Q15 (By Geographic Area) I would pay attention to advertisements about MPBWCP n = 210 50 ,-----45 +--------------------------------------------------------------40 +--------------------------------------------------------------35 +--------------------------------------------------------------- .ill .& 25 +----------------------------------------------------- H Wt----------------------------------------------------D Prince George • vancouver 0 Los Angeles "' 20 +----------------------------------------------------- ---1 15 +------------------------------------------10 +------------------------------------------- : +-----____, _j__ ___ Strongly Disagree (1) -- --~- Somewhat Disagree (2) ~-- Slightly Disagree (3) Neither Agree nor Disagree (4) Slightly Agree (5) Somewhat Agree (6) Strongly Agree (7) Level of Agreement/Disagreement Q15 (By Profession) I would pay attention to advertisements about MPBWCP n = 210 30 - r--------- 25 20 f- r- . 15 . r- i ~ c -,- ~ a. "' CDIY • enviro 1-- Olndustrial 0 Professional ·• 10 - r- 5 1-- - 1---- ,'. ~.. - : H - - '-, Strongly Disagree (1) Somewhat Disagree (2) Slightly Disagree Neither Agree (3) nor Disagree (4) Slightly Agree (5) Somewhat Agree (6) Strongly Agree (7) Level of Agreement/Disagreement Figure 11. Respondents' level of agreement with the statement "I would pay attention to advertisements about MPBWCP" (by location and occupation of respondents). 57 Survey Question 16 Q16 (By Geographic Area) How willing would you be to pay for MPBWCP n = 210 35 ,---------------------------------------------------------------- ~------------------------------------------------ ~--------------------------------------- ~ ~------------------------------ 1-- ~ c ~ m ~ 1--- r-- ~------------------------------ 1-1------ :D Prince George! • vancouver I 1------------.j ID Los Angeles ~--------------------------~ -15%(1) -10%(2) -5%(3) Willingness to Pay (versus comparable materials) Q16 (By Profession) How willing would you be to pay for MPBWCP n = 210 -----------------------------------------------------------------~ ----------------~ ~------------------------------~ DDIY ~ "~~ . a. -------------------------------~ • Enviro I-.-- Dlndustrial 1-- ~ 1-- 10 t-----------------------------, -r-l 1-- rll n -15%( 1) -10%(2) -5% (3) 0 Professional 0% (4) 1-- +5% (5) +10%(6) +15% (7) Willingness to Pay (versus comparable materials) Figure 12. Respondents' willingness to pay for MPBWCP relative to comparable materials (by location and occupation of respondents). 58 Appendix E: ANOVA Tables Survey Question 8: "I think l\1PBWCP is a marketable product." CITY Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups LA PG VAN Count 66 41 103 Sum 398 270 658 ss df ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups 8.90051 202.3566 2 207 Total 211 .2571 209 Variance 1.845221 0.49878 0.612412 MS F 4.552373 4.450255 0.977568 P-va/ue 0.011619 F crit 3.039508 P-va/ue 0.092527 F crit 2.648432 OCCUPATION Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups DIY ENV INO PROF Average 6.030303 6.585366 6.38835 Count 49 51 62 48 Sum 315 333 377 301 ss df ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups 6.47532 204.7818 3 206 Total 211 .2571 209 Average 6.428571 6.529412 6.080645 6.270833 Variance 0.625 0.414118 1.419619 1.435727 MS F 2.17128 2.15844 0.994087 59 Survey Question 9: "I think MPBWCP is an environmentally friendly product. " CITY Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups LA PG VAN Count 66 41 103 Sum 385 253 633 ss df ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups 4.636731 253.7871 2 207 Total 258.4238 209 Variance 2.079487 0.895122 0.811917 MS F 1.890962 2.318365 1.226025 P-value 0.153524 F crit 3.039508 P-value 0.040253 F crit 2.648432 OCCUPATION Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups DIY ENV IND PROF Average 5.833333 6.170732 6.145631 Count 49 51 62 48 Sum 292 318 358 303 Average 5.959184 6.235294 5.774194 6.3125 Variance 1.539966 0.463529 1.423585 1.368351 ss df MS F 2.815243 ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups 10.17776 248.246 3 206 Total 258.4238 209 3.392587 1.205078 60 Survey Question 10: "I think MPBWCP is an economically sustainable product for communities." CITY Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups LA PG VAN Count 66 41 103 Sum 378 258 619 Average 5.727273 6.292683 6.009709 Variance 2.355245 0.812195 0.990101 ss df MS F 3.002022 ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups 8.311947 286.569 2 207 Total 294.881 209 F crit 3.039508 P-va/ue 0.123452 F crit 2.648432 OCCUPATION Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups DIY ENV IND PROF 4.155974 1.384391 P-va/ue 0.051855 Count 49 51 62 48 Sum 291 319 355 290 ss df AN OVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups 8.122975 286.758 3 206 Total 294.881 209 Average 5.938776 6.254902 5.725806 6.041667 Variance 1.60034 0.673725 1.415389 1.913121 MS F 1.945116 2.707658 1.392029 61 Survey Question 11: "I would switch from my usual brands and buy MPBWCP ." CITY Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups LA PG VAN Count 66 41 103 Sum 336 228 557 Average 5.090909 5.560976 5.407767 Variance 1.560839 1.052439 1.400723 ss df MS 3.284673 1.3837 F 2.373833 ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups 6.569345 286.4259 2 207 Total 292.9952 209 F crit 3.039508 P-value 0.002909 F crit 2.648432 OCCUPATION Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups DIY ENV IND PROF P-va/ue 0.095654 Count 49 51 62 48 Sum 265 296 310 250 Average 5.408163 5.803922 5 5.208333 Variance 1.204932 0.920784 1.934426 1.10461 ss df MS 6.400874 1.32909 F 4.815981 ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups 19.20262 273.7926 3 206 Total 292.9952 209 62 Survey Question 12: "I would often compare package label information about the environmental friendliness of MPBWCP ." CITY Anova : Single Factor SUMMARY Groups LA PG VAN Count 66 41 103 Sum 364 226 603 Average 5.515152 5.512195 5.854369 Variance 1.484382 2.006098 1.41976 ss df MS 3.039762 1.553354 F 1.956902 ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups 6.079525 321.5443 2 207 Total 327.6238 209 F crit 3.039508 P-value 0.023164 F crit 2.648432 OCCUPATION Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups DIY ENV IND PROF P-va/ue 0.143901 Count 49 51 62 48 Sum 286 304 328 275 Average 5.836735 5.960784 5.290323 5.729167 Variance 1.181122 0.958431 2.143839 1.648493 ss df MS 4.918334 1.518781 3.238344 AN OVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups 14.755 312.8688 3 206 Total 327.6238 209 63 F Survey Question 13 : "I would often compare package label information about the economic community sustainability of the MPBWCP." CITY Anova : Single Factor SUMMARY Groups LA PG VAN Count 66 41 103 Sum 358 217 585 Average 5.424242 5.292683 5.679612 Variance 1.601865 2.462195 1.768894 ss df MS 2.672375 1.850416 F 1.444202 ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups 5.344751 383.0362 2 207 Total 388.381 209 F crit 3.039508 P-value 0.059586 F crit 2.648432 OCCUPATION Anova : Single Factor SUMMARY Groups DIY ENV IND PROF P-va/ue 0.238301 Count 49 51 62 48 Sum 279 290 318 273 Average 5.693878 5.686275 5.129032 5.6875 Variance 1.341837 1.339608 2.737176 1.62367 ss df MS 4.570718 1.818781 2.513068 ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups 13.71216 374.6688 3 206 Total 388.381 209 64 F Survey Question 14: "I would travel further in order to purchase MPBWCP." CITY Anova : Single Factor SUMMARY Groups LA PG VAN Count 66 41 103 Sum 306 201 524 Average 4.636364 4.902439 5.087379 Variance 2.481119 1.640244 1.904055 ss df MS 4.092438 2.034281 F 2.011737 ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups 8.184877 421 .0961 2 207 Total 429.281 209 F crit 3.039508 P-value 0.000789 F crit 2.648432 OCCUPATION Anova : Single Factor SUMMARY Groups DIY ENV IND PROF P-va/ue 0.136363 Count 49 51 62 48 Sum 252 279 284 216 Average 5.142857 5.470588 4.580645 4.5 Variance 1.333333 0.974118 2.444209 2.851064 ss df MS 11.15943 1.921372 F 5.808053 ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups 33.4783 395.8027 3 206 Total 429.281 209 65 Survey Question 15 : "I would pay attention to advertisements about MPBWCP ." CITY Anova : Single Factor SUMMARY Groups LA PG VAN Count 66 41 103 Sum 383 261 627 Average 5.80303 6.365854 6.087379 Variance 1.668298 0.537805 1.237388 ss df MS F 3.336785 ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups 8.258628 256.1652 2 207 Total 264.4238 209 F crit 3.039508 P-value 0.000144 F crit 2.648432 OCCUPATION Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups DIY ENV INO PROF 4.129314 1.237513 P-va/ue 0.037473 Count 49 51 62 48 Sum 312 326 346 287 ss df AN OVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups 24.80325 239.6206 3 206 Total 264.4238 209 Average 6.367347 6.392157 5.580645 5.979167 Variance 0.528912 0.523137 1.788472 1.680408 MS F 8.26775 1.163207 7.107723 66 Survey Question 16: "How willing would you be to pay for MPBWCP? Check the premium or discount in percent over I below a comparable product that you agree with. " CITY Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups LA PG VAN Count 66 41 103 Sum 315 190 533 Average 4.772727 4.634146 5.174757 Variance 1.162937 1.487805 1.478964 ss df MS 5.678406 1.381437 F 4.110507 ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups 11.35681 285.9575 2 207 Total 297.3143 209 F crit 3.039508 P-value 0.003598 F crit 2.648432 OCCUPATION Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups DIY ENV IND PROF P-value 0.017757 Count 49 51 62 48 Sum 248 275 287 228 Average 5.061224 5.392157 4.629032 4.75 Variance 1.10034 0.843137 1.187996 2.361702 ss df MS 6.291118 1.351655 F 4.654382 ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups 18.87335 278.4409 3 206 Total 297.3143 209 67