Exporting communication: Finnish Forest Academy goes Mozambique

Ms. Sílvia Maússe Sitoe and her colleagues hope that understanding the importance of forests could be improved by applying the methods used in the Forest Academy. Photo: Saku Ruusila

The Forest Academy, a programme for increasing dialogue on forest in society and highlighting the role of forests in sustainable development, is in use on three continents. Next, the Forest Academy originating in Finland will be introduced in Mozambique.

The pine forest in eastern Finland was a complete surprise to Ms. Sílvia Maússe Sitoe from Mozambique. Compared to tropical rainforest, the northern boreal forest appeared open and safe.

“The forest was like a garden, where you could never lose your way, for example. In our forests you need a machete to move ahead,” Sitoe says.

For her colleagues, Ms. Romana Rombe Bandeira, PhD at Eduardo Mondlane University, and Mr. Alberto Manhiça, researcher at the agricultural research institute IIAM, the Finnish forest was already familiar but still interesting.

“In Finland, there are three main tree species, in Mozambique more than a hundred,” Manhiça says.

In eastern Finland, the Mozambican forestry experts participated in a Forest Academy session organized by the Finnish Forest Association. The four-day course brings together a mix of decision makers and opinion leaders from all walks of society to discuss forest issues and to explore the forest sector.

The challenge of sustainable forestry

Mozambique is one of the most widely forested countries in Africa. About half of its surface is covered by forest. The share of forest industries of the country’s GDP is four percent, and a large part of the population is dependent on firewood and charcoal as domestic energy.

“Our challenge is to bring in the sustainable use of forests as a topic in public debate,” Bandeira says. “Otherwise, our forests will no longer exist after a few decades.”

The private land ownership in Finland was a surprise to the Mozambican guests of the Forest Academy. From the left: Sílvia Maússe Sitoe, Alberto Manhiça and Romana Rombe Bandeira. Photo: Saku Ruusila

Bandeira and her colleagues hope that understanding the importance of forests could be improved by applying the methods used in the Forest Academy. They point out that the sustainable use of forests is guaranteed by law in Mozambique, but in practice there is a lot to improve.

Mozambique’s 43 million hectares of natural forest are owned by the state. Forestry is mainly carried on by international companies, which also operate tree plantations, cultivating tree species such as eucalyptus.

The private land ownership in Finland was a surprise to the Mozambican guests of the Forest Academy. Families own more than half of the 23 million hectares of forest in Finland, while the share owned by companies is somewhat over ten percent. “Private ownership certainly has its advantages, as it spreads the responsibility in forest management,” says Sitoe.

Two decades of Forest Academy

This year, the Forest Academy for decision makers celebrates its 20th anniversary. In Finland, as many as 1,300 decisions makers have taken part in the programme. According to Ms. Tiina Rytilä, director of the academy, the most important task of the discussion forum is to highlight the role of forests in the development of society.

“The Forest Academy supports the forestry sector in public debate by strengthening the networks between sectors, by providing topical and compact information and by bringing different perspectives into the forest debate,” says Rytilä.

Participants to the Forest Academy are invited from various sectors of society – from politics, business, non-governmental organizations, government, media – which ensures a diverse participant base with varied opinions. The discussions take place in conference rooms, in the forest and during visits to forest businesses all around Finland. The most recent course was held in Joensuu in eastern Finland.

According to Rytilä, the concept of the Forest Academy for decision makers is especially suitable for countries wishing to boost the use of renewable natural resources in a way that is accepted as sustainable by the whole society. In addition to Mozambique, the Finnish Forest Academy is already in use in Latvia, Costa Rica and Tanzania.

It was the Natural Resources Institute Finland, Luke for short, that brought Mozambique and the Forest Academy together. With the Eduardo Mondlane University and the IIAM Institute, Luke is developing Mozambique’s forest research in a project called Forecas.

“One element of the project is to strengthen the role of the forest sector by providing information to and developing communication with the decision makers. The Forest Academy combines all this,” says Rytilä. “I hope that the Forest Academy will help to create an open discussion culture and enable people to participate in the development of the forest sector.”

The Finnish Forest Association also publishes the forest.fi webzine.

For further information log on website :
http://www.smy.fi/en/artikkeli/its-all-organic-finns-could-certify-almost-all-picking-areas-of-wild-berries/?ed2f26df2d9c416fbddddd2330a778c6=vbvvzjvv-vgzkkczv

Minister’s round table to improve forest biodiversity

Photo: Erkki Oksanen

In a discussion forum with an unprecendented range of participants, a common will and concrete ways to protect forest biodiversity in Finland are being sought.

Storms may be brewing up in Finnish forests in the near future. At the same time as logging is increasing, funding for protection will be cut. All this is reflected in public debate as a conflict between bioeconomy and biodiversity.

Measures for the protection of biodiversity are now being looked for by more actors than ever before. Nearly thirty organisations and companies are involved in round table discussions, representing the forest owners, the forest and environmental organizations, the industry, the research community and the authorities.

A common will is being looked for in discussions convened last spring by Mr. Kimmo Tiilikainen, the Finnish Minister of Agriculture and the Environment. It is believed that an invitation from the minister himself was successful in bringing all forestry and environmental organizations around the same table this time.

Among the significant actors, only Greenpeace Finland is missing – in spite of having been invited. According to Mr. Matti Liimatainen, in charge of forest issues in Greenpeace, the organisation does not participate in discussions that have no goals or no mandate to decide on concrete protection measures. The organization is just starting its own “Protecting Finnish forests” campaign.

From words to action

“Forests are linked to a lot of emotion and a desire to act. Even if people have the same aims, the discussions often run along familiar grooves,” says Mr. Timo Lehesvirta, Director, Forest Global, at UPM. According to him, there was a clear need in Finland for the new discussion forum and the dialogue it enables. Because all forest actors are involved, discussions and encounters will also lead to action.

The Finnish Association for Nature Conservation is represented at the round table by its president, Mr. Risto Sulkava. He stresses the importance of a balance between conservation and the commercial use of forests.

“This is where you need to start. If bioeconomy is to increase the use of wood, it is necessary to increase nature conservation and boost the best practices of nature management in forestry, too. This trio will have to stand or fall together,” says Sulkava.

All for one

The round table participants are strikingly united in thinking that the government should not have cut the funding to the Metso biodiversity programme. Last spring, a petition on behalf of the valued programme followed an initiative taken by the round table members.

According to Ms. Liisa Rohweder, Secretary General of WWF Finland, the goal of the round-table discussion should be that the Finnish government would restore the funding to Metso to its previous level. “Everybody is for it. The funding allocated to Metso is relatively small compared to, for example, a number of harmful state subsidies.”

Next year, some forests will be protected by voluntary donations in honour of the centenary of Finnish independence. The idea is that private forest owners can donate their land for conservation, and the state will match this with forests of its own.

As for how much forest, or what kind and where situated, will be donated, is to be determined later in the autumn. It could be, for example, a hundred hectares in each of the Finnish regions.

The round-table participants interviewed by forest.fi agreed that the forest conservation campaign for Finland’s centenary year 2017 has a great symbolic value. On a more practical level, though, a new national park called Hossa in Eastern Finland will be opened to honour the centenary, as was pointed out Mr. Antti Otsamo, Sustainable Development Manager at Metsähallitus.

Searching for market-oriented solutions

In addition to the joint round-table discussion, the participants want to find concrete solutions for forest protection and sustainable forestry. The themes discussed include how to increase the volume of decaying wood, as well as the Multi-forest project, which attempts to eliminate bottlenecks from nature management in forestry.

“The round table provides a basis for developing projects jointly by a wide range of actors and to exchange information on best practices,” says Mr. Tomi Salo, Forest Director at the Finnish Forest Industries Federation (FFIF). According to Salo, the forum provides all actors a valuable opportunity to gauge their own programmes against the public debate on forests. The round table meetings have discussed the connections between the FFIF’s environmental programme and the Multi-forest project, among other things.

Mr. Juha Hakkarainen, forest director at the Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners (MTK), believes that forest debate needs more courage and proactiveness. “In addition to what we have succeeded with, we should find new, fresh ways to take forest biodiversity forward.”

“If the state cannot find the money, we should look for market-oriented solutions for conservation”, Hakkarainen says. As a possible solutions, he mentions the commercialization of ecosystem services, habitat banks and a foundation for the protection of forest biodiversity that everyone could invest in.

“The state has an important role in protecting biodiversity, but this does not exclude the role of the private sector and citizens.”

Those interviewed for the article also included Mr. Pekka Kallio-Mannila, Corporate Responsibility Manager at Stora Enso, and Mr. Sixten Sunabacka, CEO at Tornator.

Nearly thirty organisations are involved in round table

• Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities (AFLRA)
• Bioenergy Association of Finland
• Birdlife
• Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners (MTK)
• Finnish Energy
• Finnish Environment Institute SYKE
• Finnish Forest Association
• Finnish Forest Centre
• Finnish Forest Industries
• Finnish Nature League
• Finnish Sawmills Association
• Finnish Society for Nature and Environment
• Finnish Association for Nature Conservation
• Forestry Management Association of Southern savo
• FSC Finland
• Metsä Group
• Metsähallitus – State Forest Enterprise
• Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
• Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment
• Ministry of the Environment
• Natural Resources Institute of Finland
• PEFC Finland
• Stora Enso
• Svenska lantbruksproducenternas centralförbund SLC
• Tornator
• University of Helsinki
• University of Eastern Finland
• UPM
• WWF Finland

For further information log on website :
http://www.smy.fi/en/artikkeli/its-all-organic-finns-could-certify-almost-all-picking-areas-of-wild-berries/?ed2f26df2d9c416fbddddd2330a778c6=vbvvzjvv-vgzkkczv

Researchers: Harvesting can be increased sustainably – if nature management is not forgotten

According to the researchers, the decline in the area of controlled burning should ne turned. Photo: Jari Leskinen

According to researchers, the nature management needed includes increasing decayed wood by leaving retention trees and other methods, controlled burning and the activities defined in the Metso biodiversity action programme.

The Natural Resources Institute Finland and the Finnish Environment Institute have prepared an evaluation of the sustainability of Finland’s forest use for the Round Table discussions led by Mr. Kimmo Tiilikainen, Minister of Agriculture and the Environment. The evaluation focuses on ecological sustainability, the safeguarding of which is also what the discussions aim at.

The evaluation consists of a description of the present state of forest use, the assessment of future development and proposals for action needed. The researchers behind the evaluation are Mr. Taneli Kolström, Director at the Natural Resources Institute Finland, and Mr. Petri Ahlroth, Director at the Finnish Environment Institute.

Timber stock in Finnish forests is increasing

Future development is evaluated on the basis of three scenarios. The first is based on the present harvesting level, the second on the higher harvesting level defined in the current forest policy and the third on the highest sustainable level of harvesting.

The researchers consider that the timber stock in Finnish forest will increase in all scenarios. In the “current forest policy” scenario, the timber stock will increase from the current figure of just under 2,100 million cubic metres to just above 2,500 million cubic metres by 2055.

On the other hand, the harvesting areas do not expand to a similar extent, thanks to the fact that the forests are becoming denser. The area of thinnings undertaken each year would only increase by 2,000 hectares from the current figure of 465,000, and the area of regeneration fellings would grow by 18,000 hectares from the current figure of 155,000.

The total area of Finnish commercial forests is around 20 million hectares.

The amount of stout timber would also increase in all scenarios, although only after a short decline.

In the “current forest policy” scenario the volume of stout coniferous trees – that is, with a stem diameter of more than 30 centimetres at a height of 1.3 metres – would almost double, and the volume of broadleaved trees would increase 2.5-fold in southern Finland and even threefold in northern Finland.

Also the age structure of Finnish forests is, according to the researchers, appropriate for increased harvesting.

Controlled burning of especially groups of retention trees creates decayed and burned wood in the forest, which is essential for many endangered forest species. Photo: Risto Höglund

Amount of decayed wood can be increased

In consequence, it is possible to increase the amount of decayed wood, which is a critical factor for several forest habitats and endangered species. This means that the favourable development already observed could continue.

This may be illustrated by the amount of deadwood that could be used as fuelwood, if for nothing else, which reached it lowest level in the 1970s. This was because in the 1960s people still used to remove all trees brought down by winds for use as fuelwood, but since then they have largely been left lying in the forest.

As a result, the amount of usable deadwood in the forests in southern Finland has increased fourfold since the 1960s and by a quarter in northern Finland.

The amount of decayed wood has also increased due to the practice of leaving retention trees in the forest in connection with regeneration fellings, as is required by forest certification. This practice was started in the late 1990s.

Since then, the amount of decayed wood has increased only slightly, by about 3 to 3.5 cubic metres per hectare in southern Finland. In protected forests the increase has been clearly larger.

The researchers strongly recommend that the amount of decayed wood in the forests should be increased. This should be achieved by leaving retention trees and by making sure that valuable habitats are spared in commercial forests.

Metso programme must be safeguarded

The area of habitats spared in connection with fellings has clearly increased during the past few years. The researchers also recommend that controlled burning is increased, as many endangered species thrive on scorched wood or in wildfire sites.

The area of controlled burning has significantly decreased during the last few years, probably because it is a very expensive method. At its highest, the area of controlled burning was close to 7,000 hectares in 1998–2002, as against to only 2,000 hectares in 2008–2012.

In addition to what is recommended, it is equally interesting to see what they researchers do not recommend. They say nothing about increasing strict forest protection, except by the means mentioned in the Metso biodiversity action programme. According to them, it is extremely important that the Metso programme is implemented according to plan.

The funding for the Metso programme has faced severe cutbacks due to poor state finances. The forest sector and the environmental organisations have jointly demanded the cuts to be revoked, but to no result.

For further information log on website :
http://www.smy.fi/en/artikkeli/its-all-organic-finns-could-certify-almost-all-picking-areas-of-wild-berries/?ed2f26df2d9c416fbddddd2330a778c6=vbvvzjvv-vgzkkczv

Finnish government again encourages forest protection – to celebrate Finland’s centennial year

One of the most famous, protected national sceneries in Finland, view from Koli mountain in the gloom of autumn. Photo: Annamari Heikkinen

A campaign arranged for Finland’s centennial in 2017 urges forest owners to protect their forests. The government promises to match this by protecting corresponding areas in its ownership.

In honour of Finland’s centennial year, the government will further increase the area of strictly protected forests on state lands, which is quite significant even at present. Forest owners are urged to join the celebration next year by voluntarily protecting some of their forests.

The government commits to protecting additional areas to match the new sites in private ownership. The protected area can consist of forest or mire.

The campaign is directed to private family forest owners and enterprises, and no compensation is envisaged for the areas conserved.

The non-recurring campaign will be implemented during 2017. The goal is to permanently protect at least one hundred hectares of forest or mire areas in every administrative region. The sites will remain in private ownership.

As the number of regions is 18, the targeted area totals 1,800 hectares. The sides of a square this size would measure just over 4,200 metres, or about 2.6 miles.

Campaign hatched at ministerial round table

The campaign is one result of the round table discussions between stakeholders of the Finnish forest sector, initiated in January 2016 by Mr. Kimmo Tiilikainen, Finnish Minister of Agriculture and the Environment. The goal of these discussions is to look for new visions, methods and actions to safeguard forest biodiversity, in view of the plans to increase harvesting in Finnish forests.

During the discussions, state authorities, private stakeholders and non-governmental organisations have agreed about implementing the campaign.

Detailed information on the campaign and on how forest owners can participate will be published later this year.

For further information log on website :
http://www.smy.fi/en/artikkeli/its-all-organic-finns-could-certify-almost-all-picking-areas-of-wild-berries/?ed2f26df2d9c416fbddddd2330a778c6=vbvvzjvv-vgzkkczv

Point of view: Forest certification ensures confusion instead of sustainability

AUTHOR

Pentti Linnamaa

B. Sc. (Agr & For) Pentti Linnamaa works in the Brussels office of Finnish forest owners and agricultural farmers.

Auditing of PEFC forest certification in a private, family-owned forest in Rovaniemi, Finnish Lapland. Photo: Krista Kimmo

Isn’t it high time to reveal the truth about the emperor’s clothes, in order that consumers could make their choices on the basis of genuine sustainability in the use of forests?

Forest certification was started in the early 1990s in tropical forests, following an initiative by the WWF. The initiative was due to the destruction of tropical rainforests that could not be halted by legislation and policy efforts.

Certification was considered to be a market-oriented and effective tool to tackle the problem. It spread to other parts of the world and is now an essential element of international forest policy and the efforts to develop sustainable forestry.

There currently exist two international forest certification systems: the FSC (Forest Stewardship Council), established by the WWF, and the PEFC (Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification schemes), the initiative for which was taken by organizations of European family forest owners. They decided to create the PEFC because the FSC, developed for tropical plantations, was not felt to address the challenges and characteristics of small-scale forest ownership.

Since then both certificates have been considerably developed and are in use on all continents. In Sweden, for example, they both cover approximately the same forest area. In Finland, on the other hand, the PEFC covers close to 90 percent of the area of commercial forests, while the FSC only covers six percent.

What is the reason behind a difference of this magnitude? Does this mean that Finnish forestry is unsustainable?

Or, not to mince words, are the stakeholders even interested in sustainability?

An essential element in modern sustainable forestry is the harvester and its driver. The driver must know all demands that forest certification sets for forestry activities. In the picture you can see auditing of PEFC forest certification in Rovaniemi, Finnish Lapland. Photo: Krista Kimmo

Neighbouring countries have different criteria

Both the FSC and the PEFC certificates are based on international criteria defined by the organizations responsible for each system. The criteria are adjusted on the national level in order to take account of local conditions.

However, this has led to significant differences between the standards applied in different countries. Despite being granted by the same organization, two separate certificates do not necessarily guarantee that forestry is sustainable in exactly the same way, even if applied in neighbouring countries or within the same forest vegetation zone.

This can easily be seen in the public PEFC and FSC standards. The Finnish FSC standard, for example, requires that ten percent of each certified forest holding must be protected, while the corresponding figure in Sweden is five and in the Russian Federation, zero. On the other hand, in Sweden and Norway the PEFC requires a biodiversity promotion area of five percent of each certified forest holding, but in Finland this figure is zero.

The general perception of the FSC being more environmentally friendly than the PEFC can also be called into question. For example, the Finnish PEFC standard says that all decayed wood with a minimum diameter of 20 centimetres must be spared, but in the Russian FSC standard the minimum is 30-40 centimetres. This means that under the Russian FSC standard, much less decayed wood will be spared than under the Finnish PEFC – unless the logging is carried out in a forest with extremely stout trees.

Reality does not correspond to theory

Forest certification means different things to different actors. To a consumer, it means the opportunity to support sustainable forestry, to the industry it is a way of proving compliance with sustainability on the market, and to the forest owner, it provides forest management guidelines that help gain acceptance on the market.

Reality does not necessarily correspond to this theoretical view. Consumers base their choices largely on political views and beliefs, while the industry is interested in creating more demand, and the forest owner tries to find a balance between the costs created by customer demands and the added value possibly to be gained on the market.

Ultimately, forest certification is about branding. To a consumer considering ecological sustainability, the FSC, established by the WWF and supported by environmental organizations, often appears stronger and more credible that the PEFC, established by forest owners.

Environmental organizations have also performed much better than the forest sector as regards communicating about forest certification. Yet here, as in many other cases, a recognizable brand does not necessarily equal high quality.

Forest certification should be a guarantee of sustainability. However, with differing standards even between neighbouring countries, there is actually more demand for the brand with a better reputation in terms of sustainability than for the brand which is more sustainable in reality.

In 2014, about half of the FSC-certified forests were in boreal forests. Of them, 37 percent were located in Russia. Of FSC-certified boreal forests outside Canada, the share of Russia is 75 percent.

In view of the criticism on Russian forestry by forest specialists and also some environmental organizations, there are grounds for doubting the FSC as a guarantee of quality in this respect. It is also worth asking how much branded wood of this kind is made available on the world market to satisfy well-intentioned consumers.

Surroundings of small waterways are good sites for retention trees even if the stream itself would not be protected. PEFC-auditing in Rovaniemi, Finnish Lapland. Photo: Krista Kimmo

Sidelined in their own show

Why has the FSC gained so much more ground in Sweden than in Finland? The reason can hardly be that forestry in Sweden is that much more sustainable.

Perhaps the explanation can be found in the history of forest certification. In Sweden, the environmental organizations were willing to give the forest industry and forest owners a greater role from the very first negotiations than was the case in Finland.

The work to update the Finnish FSC standard is about to start. This is the optimal moment to look for a consensus between all stakeholders.

This is the moment for public debate on the matter. The current situation is not good from the viewpoint of the consumers, nor does it treat forest owners in an equal manner. Both these groups have been sidelined by ENGOs and NGOs, busy pulling all stops just to promote their own systems and definitely not focusing on what is essential.

Above all else, forest certification should give consumers more clout and increase the sustainability of forestry – but we’re a long way away from that.

What is especially problematic is that a certificate does not even reveal the country of origin of the wood to the consumer. Instead, they must rely on the general protection promised by forest certification.

It is time to reveal the truth about the emperor’s clothes, in order to give consumers the power to make their choices on the basis of genuine sustainability.

The article was previoisly published on the 20th of September, 2016, on the website of the Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners (MTK) of Finland.

For further information log on website :
http://www.smy.fi/en/artikkeli/its-all-organic-finns-could-certify-almost-all-picking-areas-of-wild-berries/?ed2f26df2d9c416fbddddd2330a778c6=vbvvzjvv-vgzkkczv

It’s all organic: Finns could certify almost all picking areas of wild berries

In Finland, the berries most widely gathered for sale are lingonberries and bilberries. In 2015, the amount of lingonberries sold was 9.6 million kilogrammes and that of bilberries 7.2 million kgs. The greatest part, by far, of the berries remains in the forests. Photo: 

Up to 99 per cent of Finland’s forests could be certified as organic. Even now, Lapland is the world’s largest contiguous area for picking organic berries.

The Finns love their healthy and wholesome forest berries. Especially bilberries and lingonberries are picked all over Finland in July and August. The famous everyman’s rights allow people to pick commonly found berries in every forest and even in national parks.

In Finland it is common knowledge that you do not even have to rinse the wild berries before use. This confidence in the purity of Finnish nature could also be called organic.

But a natural product is not organic until proved so. In order to be labelled as organic, bilberries or chanterelles must be picked in certified forests and the entire supply chain must be monitored.

Currently, more than 12 million forest hectares of the 23 million total in Finland have been certified as organic. About 9 million hectares are located in Lapland, whose entire forest area has been certified, making it the world’s largest contiguous area for gathering organic produce.

As much as 97–99 percent of Finland’s forests could be certified without modifying the current forest management practices. The certification covers the gathering of wild produce – it does not certify logwood, for example. The aim of the organic certification is to prove that wild berries, mushrooms, herbs and even resin and sap are derived from a forest in which no methods, fertilizers or pesticides forbidden in organic production have been used.

The other substantial gathering areas are located in Zambia (6 million hectares), India (5 million ha) and Namibia (2.5 million ha).

Especially lingonberries are picked all over Finland. According to a study on the recreational use of natural areas (2010), nearly 60 percent of Finns go in for berry picking. Photo: Finnish Forest Association

Advantages for exports and travel

Although the Finns know how to appreciate the purity of their wild berries and mushrooms, the organic label is needed for international marketing. Interest in wholesome and safe organic products is growing worldwide, especially in Asia.

“There is a growing demand for organic food but also, for example, for raw materials of organic cosmetics,” says Ms. Birgitta Partanen, project manager of a project called “Organic wild collection in forests”.

The project is carried out in the South Savo area by the Ruralia Institute of the University of Helsinki in cooperation with the Finnish Forest Centre. The aim of the project is to spread information about the organic certification of gathering wild produce and to establish its relevance for non-wood production and processing and for tourism.

“Organic tourism is also growing. For example, Asian tourists are interested in gathering and preparing organic food themselves. ”

No impact on forest management

In terms of forest management, organic certification does not change anything. It prohibits some of the chemical fertilizers and herbicides used on grasslands, but those are rarely used in Finland in any case.

Urea, used in the fight against root rot, would also be forbidden, but it is possible to replace with another common method. If it becomes necessary to use prohibited substances, the forest will lose its organic certification for three years.

The authorities responsible for the organic certification of a forest area are the Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment. The certificate is subject to an annual review fee, the size of which depends on the size of the forest and starts out at EUR 100. The authority supervising organic food production and the picking of wild berries is the Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira.

For further information log on website :
http://www.smy.fi/en/artikkeli/its-all-organic-finns-could-certify-almost-all-picking-areas-of-wild-berries/?ed2f26df2d9c416fbddddd2330a778c6=vbvvzjvv-vgzkkczv

Adoption of unconventional approaches in construction: The case of cross-laminated timber

Published Date

doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.08.088

Open Access, Creative Commons license, Funding information

Author 

Kell Jones ^a,,

Professor Julia Stegemann ^a

Judith Sykes ^b

Dr. Peter Winslow ^c

• aUniversity College London, Centre for Resource Efficiency & the Environment, Gower St, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom
• bUseful Simple Projects, The Clove Building, 4 Maguire Street, London, SE1 2NQ, United Kingdom
• cExpedition Engineering, The Clove Building, 4 Maguire Street, London, SE1 2NQ, United Kingdom

Received 18 February 2016. Revised 9 August 2016. Accepted 23 August 2016. Available online 29 August 2016.

Highlights

• Presents a case study exploring the adoption of novel construction materials.
• •
  Applies a behavioural model to assess barriers to adoption.
• •
  Locked-in actors lack the commercial opportunity to adopt new techniques.
• •
  Lock-in limits the opportunity for those motivated to specify.
• •
  Specific project contexts can align participants’ interests allowing specification.

Abstract 

Achieving sustainable development requires the decoupling of economic growth from the use of non-renewable resources. This depends on industry adopting unconventional approaches to production. This research explores the root causes of barriers to the adoption of such approaches in the construction industry, and applies a behavioural model to assess whether companies are hindered by capability, opportunity or motivation.

The long history of lowest-cost tendering in construction has led to a path-dependent lock-in to conventional market-driven objectives of cost and risk reduction; it is suggested that locked-in companies lack the commercial opportunity and hence motivation, rather than the capability, to adopt approaches perceived to increase cost or risk. Such companies will therefore tend to resist unconventional approaches, restricting the physical opportunity for other project participants. This theory is explored in a case study of first adoptions of cross-laminated timber (CLT) in UK projects, using a survey and series of semi-structured interviews.

The case study found that project contexts created market niches. This provided designers, who were motivated to use CLT, the opportunity to promote its use in the project. CLT was seen as key to successful resolution of project constraints, thereby providing motivation to other project participants to adopt the material.

Keywords

• Construction materials
• Behaviour models
• Cross-laminated timber
• Structural engineering
• Technology transitions
• Barriers to adoption

---

1 Introduction

The global population is projected to grow to around 9.6 billion people by 2050, from approximately 7.2 billion today [1]. With this increase in population, and with each person having a legitimate aspiration for a comfortable lifestyle, the demand for homes, goods, energy and food is expected to increase. Unless economic growth can be decoupled from the use of non-renewable resources, this will, in turn, lead to increasing risks to the future supply of non-renewable resources [2] and [3].

The construction industry is the most resource intensive industry sector in the global economy. It is therefore exposed to the risks posed by resource scarcity, as well as changes in the availability and prices of globally traded commodities. Reducing the intensity of resource use in construction is, therefore, important for increasing industrial and economic resilience [4].

A shift to more resource efficient construction will require the adoption of novel techniques and behaviours by a traditionally conservative industry. Prior work by other researchers shows that attempts to introduce such approaches are often met with resistance (e.g. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] and [12]). In particular, Giesekam et al. [13] undertook a meta-study of 1154 academic publications exploring barriers to the adoption of novel technologies. They analysed reported barriers under four headings – knowledge & perception; technical and performance related; economic; and institutional and habitual. Each of these types of barrier points to areas of focus and solutions that might help to reduce barriers to adoption. There is little corresponding recent work exploring the conditions under which such barriers are overcome.

However, prior work in the field of evidence-based practice has shown that interventions to change actor behaviour are more likely to be effective if they target causal determinants of behaviour [14] rather than such manifestations. Accordingly, this research aims to: increase the understanding of the systemic causes of the reported barriers in the construction industry; analyse how these systemic causes influence the adoption of unconventional approaches to construction; explore the contexts under which unconventional materials have been adopted as construction solutions; and propose further areas for study through which these barriers might be overcome.

This research project adopts a critical realist epistemology. Critical realism accepts the realist position that there is an underlying truth that can be described, but holds that attempts to describe that reality are fallible [64]. Critical realist methodologies assume that individuals display bias in responses, and triangulation of responses is encouraged.

The context dependent nature of construction projects means that quantitative approaches alone might be inadequate to identify and reflect the nuances of decision-making around materials. Accordingly, a mixed method approach was adopted to help build a deeper understanding of the problem context. Data was gathered in three phases: a literature review preceded an industry survey into cross-laminated timber (CLT) use. This was followed by a series of in-depth semi-structured interviews, which were analysed using thematic analysis.

As this work is explorative, more positivist, experimental approaches were considered inappropriate. The opportunity for more detailed case study of adoption was limited by the limited time available for the research.

The following section explores the commercial causal determinants of barriers to adoption of unconventional approaches, before Section 3 introduces a model for behaviour change, which provides a framework to analyse these causes. Sections 4, 5 and 6 describe a case study of material adoption in the construction industry, which explores behavioural aspects of successful adoptions of CLT.

2 Commercial factors as the source of barriers to adoption of unconventional approaches in construction

2.1 Building purpose and value drivers

Buildings are developed for a purpose: to satisfy a need or to move towards some objective. Improvements in pursuit of these objectives add value to the client and are termed value drivers. This value may be financial, but need not necessarily be directly so [15]. For example, a new building may be procured to improve an organization’s productivity. One way to achieve this increase in productivity is by improving the working environment [16]. As this increase in productivity is considered important to the client, more emphasis might then be placed on how design and construction decisions positively affect the working environment. This objective may well come into conflict with others, such as that of developing a building with low construction or operating costs.

The delivery of a construction project involves many actors, each with their own notions as to what drives value. When attempting to encourage construction project participants to approach the project differently, it is important to understand what their organizational value drivers are, and how they arose, as this can affect decision-making. The next section explores the conventional objectives of contracting businesses in the construction industry.

2.2 Avoidance of risk to commercial outcomes

The efficiency of the UK stock market means that listed companies that underperform compared to market expectations are at risk of their shares being sold [17] and [18]. This can lead to a fall in share prices, which, in turn, can make raising finance more difficult and increases the risk of takeover of those companies [19]. Conversely, exceeding market expectations leads to a raised share price, reduced risk of takeover and easier access to finance.

Market expectations of performance are described by a rate of return (profitability) on an asset, such as shares. This expectation is set by the trade-off between risk and return for a given asset, described by the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) [20]. Broadly, the higher the risk inherent in a share, the higher the required or expected returns. The CAPM model, despite some limitations, is widely used in the finance industry because of its simplicity, and is taught in introductory texts on investment appraisal [21].

For a given asset base, there are, therefore, two broad ways of improving market perception of a company and hence to increase share prices: to deliver lower than expected risk, or higher than expected returns. Historically, in the absence of concerns over resource depletion or global warming, delivering improvements in these areas were the primary conventional objectives of companies listed on the stock exchange. This has important implications for company processes and policies:

• •
  profits need to be maintained (or grown) to fund a constant (or increasing) dividend per share [22];
• •
  certainty of outcome is valued in the delivery of those dividends; and
• •
  risk exposure should be reduced where possible for a given return.

Further, input prices – wages, materials, rents – are likely to be rising through inflation. Therefore, the maintenance of constant or increasing profits requires that either income increases at a rate higher than the rate of increase in costs, or that costs fall for a given level of income.

However, the standard approach to letting out construction contracts, lowest cost tendering, limits the opportunities for companies to increase income for a given contract. This lowest tender approach encourages a reliance on the adoption of enhancements to existing, tested products and processes (incremental improvements) over unconventional approaches to reduce costs or risk. Incremental improvements are preferred as they are based on a technology that is better understood and carries a more certain cost and risk profile [23]. As Mahapatra & Gustavsson explain, ‘most market actors prefer to further develop or use existing technology’ [9]. Through the need to match the bids of listed companies, unlisted contractors are then indirectly exposed to the same cost pressures.

2.3 Path-dependency and lock-in

Organizations develop know-how when working with construction materials. This confers market advantages by reducing future costs and uncertainty. Companies are, therefore, likely to seek to further enhance that advantage over time by using the same material again [24].

Foxon [25] explores the impact of Arthur’s [26] findings on this path-dependent development and improvement process, describing how the advantages gained deliver increasing returns to producers through lower costs, which allows them to secure more work. In turn, further path-dependent development occurs, leading to the domination of one (or more) product(s), in mature markets, and making it very difficult for new market entrants.

The dominant products may not necessarily be optimal from the perspective of the long-term interests of the market, consumers or society, but their dominance reflects the contingent nature of the development process [27]. In structural engineering, path-dependent development appears to be one of the key reasons behind the dominance of techniques that use reinforced concrete and structural steel in all but the simplest buildings [28].

Over time, companies’ production, processes, knowledge base and structures become increasingly aligned to delivering their products or services efficiently to meet the market expectations of risk and return using these dominant technologies. Changes to these structures and processes can be expensive [28], threatening returns, so organizations become locked-in to a particular way of working. Lock-in can extend beyond the organization, to the industry, to society, policy and to the education of the next generation of specialists [29] and [30] as the demands of the market are internalized. However, the degree of lock-in varies by organization in an industry and is, in part, a function of its need to match the market demands of lowest cost.

3 The COM-B System as a framework for understanding barriers to the uptake of unconventional approaches in the construction industry

3.1 The COM-B system

In the face of industry lock-in, adopting unconventional approaches for resource efficiency in construction requires that construction project participants change their decision-making behaviour. This section introduces a model of behavioural preconditions, the COM-B system [31], which is then used to explore how the conventional objectives of cost and risk reduction might give rise to the barriers to adoption described by Giesekam et al. [13].

The COM-B system (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation – Behaviour) is a model of behavioural preconditions that can help diagnose why actors demonstrate resistance to changing their behaviour. The system was developed in the context of healthcare interventions, emerging from a broad analysis of behavioural models from fields including technology, environmental conservation and finance [32]. It forms part of a wider behaviour change system, the Behaviour Change Wheel [31], and has already been applied to areas outside of healthcare including facilities management. To our knowledge, the system has not yet been applied to explore decision-making on the adoption of construction innovation.

Using the COM-B system, researchers investigate the behavioural decision-making context through interview and observation to determine whether a decision-maker, representing the interests of their employing organization, has the capability, opportunity and motivation to display the desired behaviour. Capability and opportunity can both affect motivation, and all three directly affect behaviour. If any of these pre-conditions are not met, then the target behaviour is unlikely to be displayed. Each of these requirements has sub-components:

• •
  Capability – does the decision-maker have the physical and intellectual resources to undertake the behaviour (awareness, understanding, ability)?
• •
  Opportunity – does the social, commercial and physical environment enable the target behaviour?
• •
  Motivation – does the decision-maker have both the reflective and automatic (sub-conscious) motivation to display the behaviour? The motivation driving the desired behaviour must be stronger than for competing behaviours [33].

The COM-B diagnostic investigation highlights which of the behavioural preconditions are limiting the desired behaviour. This data can then be used to inform appropriate interventions and policies to increase the capability, opportunity or motivation of the decision-maker through the relevant sections of the Behaviour Change Wheel [31]. In the context of the decision relating to the adoption of a particular material, a decision-maker may have deficiencies in more than one area, for example both a lack of commercial opportunity and a lack of motivation. This paper aims to explore the decision-making context. The analysis of appropriate interventions is reserved for later study.

The following sections explores how commonly reported barriers to adoption can be explained in the framework of the COM-B system and in light of the conventional objectives of companies. The intervention and policy implications of this exploration are beyond the scope of this study.

3.2 Capability impacts on motivation

‘Knowledge and perceptions’ was one of the four groupings of barriers in Giesekam et al. [13]. This grouping included as a barrier a ‘lack of awareness and practical knowledge’. Further, Giesekam’s ‘Technical and performance related’ heading included barriers relating to a ‘lack of [..] data’ and a ‘lack of [..] demonstration projects’; Zhang and Canning [6] describe how a lack of awareness and uncertainty over properties are the main barriers to adoption; and a lack of technical knowledge was also the second most important barrier reported by Watson et al.’s survey on non-conventional materials [5]. Together these reports indicate a lack of capability on the part of the industry participants.

A common solution proposed to address this information deficit is to provide decision-makers with more information (e.g. [34]). Indeed, information deficit models support this approach, suggesting that providing people with the requisite information means that behaviour will change deterministically (see [35] for an early discussion regarding schizophrenia patients). The COM-B model indicates, however, that although such information, and hence capability, is necessary for the performance of the desired behaviour, it may not always be sufficient to amend behaviour [36] and [37].

Organizations with a locked-in knowledge base will be required to acquire the requisite skills and knowledge to work with novel technologies. Even with the fundamental ability of actors in the construction industry to grasp these skills and knowledge, training in specific new approaches will still take time and cost money, reducing the commercial desirability of a new approach. As a result, construction organizations facing cost pressures lack the motivation to invest the time or resource to develop capability. Accordingly, attempts to improve capability through information provision alone, in the absence of increasing motivation to act, will tend to fail.

3.3 Opportunity impacts on motivation

3.3.1 Physical opportunity

Each construction project offers the project team as a whole the physical opportunity to adopt unconventional approaches to construction. However, as a result of fragmentation [40] each project is delivered through a temporary coalition of organizations. This means that the adoption of unconventional approaches requires negotiation and trade-offs between the competing value drivers of these organizations [39] and [40].

At the outset of a project, decisions are led by the client, guided by their advisors. Their early, often high level, value drivers are captured in the contract documents. To the extent that the brief constrains the project at the time of contract, there is an increased likelihood of unconventional requirements being reflected in the final building, as project participants will retain the physical opportunity. The contractor will be in a position to reflect any uncertainty over unconventional approaches in their tender price, creating the commercial opportunity.

When the contract is let for tender, the project design is often incomplete and many design criteria unsettled. At this time negotiating power switches from the client to the contractor [42]. Decisions on the adoption of unconventional approaches, post-tender, are therefore heavily influenced by the contractor’s conception of value rather than the client’s. Faced with near perfect competition [43], and in the absence of guidance to the contrary, locked-in contractors are likely to be concerned with cost and risk management over non-financial value drives.

3.3.2 Commercial opportunity

The ‘economic barriers’ described in Giesekam et al. [13] are related to the relative cost or risk of unconventional approaches. In addition to training costs (3.2), unconventional approaches are often more expensive because they have not benefitted from scale economies which have accrued to dominant solutions over the long history of their use. Further, when contractors are uncertain about innovations, they may add a risk premium in their pricing or considerations to reflect their uncertainty over use, performance and outcomes [38] (which again relates to Giesekam et al.’s ‘perceptions’ [13]). This tends to make an unconventional approach more expensive to the end client, even if the actual purchase price is comparable. A company that is seeking to minimise cost and risk would therefore lack the motivation to adopt such an approach due to the absence of the appropriate commercial opportunity.

Therefore, while locked-in project participants retain the physical opportunity to specify unconventional approaches on projects, they may lack the commercial opportunity, and hence, the motivation to take on the additional costs or risks inherent in unfamiliar products. Such resistance from client or contractor, in turn, restricts the physical opportunity of other project participants to recommend successfully unconventional approaches for adoption.

3.4 Motivation

Finally, Giesekam et al. [13] describe a grouping of ‘institutional and habitual’ barriers. Many of these barriers describe symptoms of efficiencies driven by the path-dependent development described above – e.g. ‘established culture promotes preferred material palette’; ‘habitual specification’; ‘time constraints’. Together these reflect an internalised view of the value drivers of the wider industry. This view means that decision-makers will lack the automatic motivation to consider alternative materials and approaches.

4 The case of cross-laminated timber

4.1 Introduction

The preceding sections have described barriers to the adoption of resource efficient approaches to construction using the COM-B system. The barriers are seen to arise primarily from a lack of commercial opportunity to increase costs or risk in a cost competitive environment. This in turn reduces the motivations of some actors, and the physical opportunity of others.

Prior work by other authors has attempted to understand, classify and address the reasons why a particular material or approach has not been adopted. Little corresponding work explores why a target construction material or approach has been adopted in the face of such conservatism.

The recent increase in the use of cross-laminated timber (CLT) in UK construction projects suggests that there are contexts under which new products can be introduced to improve the resource efficiency of the construction industry in the absence of regulatory requirements. CLT consists of timber planks, stacked and glued in perpendicular layers into panels, which are manufactured in sizes up to 16.5 m by 2.95 m (see Fig. 1). These are cut to the designer’s specification using computer controlled cutting equipment before being delivered and assembled on site [44].

Fig. 1. CLT panel under construction. Source: Stora Enso.

CLT was introduced to the UK in 2001 and its use is growing at a rate of 25% per annum worldwide [45] as ‘developers are waking up to the fact they can get their building up and get their money back faster’ [46]. The reported relative advantages and disadvantages [47] of using CLT are shown in Fig. 2 below.

Fig. 2. Advantages and disadvantages of using CLT [48] © IHS, reproduced with permission from BRE IP 17/11.

One potential disadvantage, which is omitted from this list, is the up-front (capital) cost of CLT. At the time of the research, the price of CLT was higher per square metre of completed building than steel or concrete (£240/m² compared to £190/m² [49]). However, this material cost is generally offset by the reduced programme time for buildings up to 8 storeys [50]. Financially, therefore, the adoption of CLT is considered cost-neutral when both capital costs and programme time savings are considered together.

This exploratory case study of first CLT adoptions in UK projects seeks to gain an understanding of the contexts under which such unconventional approaches are adopted. The outcomes of these proposals are explored using the COM-B system to examine the decision context for adoption and rejection outcomes.

5 Empirical study

5.1 Approach

An industry survey and semi-structured interviews were conducted to provide cross-sectional information on the conditions for the adoption or non-adoption of CLT. Confirmatory information on the barriers to and drivers of adoption of novel materials was also sought.

The target audience for the survey was ‘system integrators’ – designers and contractors [41] – who are primarily responsible for decisions on materials selection on construction projects. The survey was distributed electronically to known specifiers of CLT as well as the top 100 architectural practices in the UK, engineers and contractors [51], [52] and [53]. The survey was also made available through social media. Of the survey respondents (n = 49), 55% (27) had used CLT on a project. Of the 45% (22) who had not used CLT, approximately a third (7) had considered using it, but had been unable to get the material adopted, most frequently on the grounds of cost (n = 5).

The majority of respondents in this study were architects (n = 34). This reflects the skewing of the sample towards architectural practices as the primary specifiers of CLT. The survey findings on barriers were triangulated with the findings of the literature review and results of similar surveys on barriers to adoption – in particular Watson et al. [5] who received responses primarily from structural engineers.

Eight interviews were arranged from the respondents to the survey who had used CLT before. Such ‘typical case sampling’ is considered to be useful in highlighting behaviour drivers when seeking to understand a new area [54]. A semi-structured approach to questioning was adopted to allow exploration of project specific issues raised by the interviewee in response to the pre-planned questions. The interviews were coded according to the pre-conditions to behaviour described above, and sub-categorised to reflect the cause of that impact.

5.2 Limitations and potential problems

The sampling targeted larger organizations and others that are known to have used CLT. A fully random approach would have taken the sample across all sizes of organization, irrespective of their prior experience with CLT. As such, the sampling approach is not random and generalizations of the wider population cannot be definitely inferred. Further, the small sample size for the survey (n = 49) relative to total employment in the industry of approximately 2.1 m [65] limits the significance of the findings. However, in the context of the critical realist approach adopted, the data are considered valid as a source of insights [55].

Architecture practices make up a large part of the survey sample set. As such, the views of architects may be over-represented in comparison to structural engineers and contractors. While architects were also over-represented in the interviews, the messages arising from contractors (n = 2) and architects (n = 6) were consistent. Further, the focus of the survey distribution on system integrators may lead to the views of other industry participants being omitted.

Interviews with and surveys of individuals, by their nature, involve the revealing of opinion. This means that the results are necessarily subjective, as recognised within the literature on critical realism [64]. There is also the possibility for inaccurate reporting of events. This risk was mitigated by asking primarily factual questions rather than seeking opinion during the interviews.

6 Results & discussion

The following sections describe the relevant findings of the survey and interviews. Full details of the study are presented in Jones [unpublished 56].

6.1 Capability limiting behaviour

The most significant barrier to adoption of more sustainable approaches, ‘uncertainty over the technical performance’ (Fig. 3 and 53% of respondents) demonstrates that a lack of awareness of materials and their properties – a capability deficit – might be limiting the adoption of unconventional approaches.

Fig. 3. Most significant barriers to adoption of novel, more sustainable, approaches, products and materials.

However, the fact that a ‘lack of training courses’ is the least significant barrier (Fig. 4) and 75% of respondents) suggests that organizations in construction believe they have or can access the capability to use these unfamiliar materials as the need arises. This supports findings in Watson et al.’s study (2013) with an emphasis on attitudes of structural engineers rather than architects [5].

Fig. 4. Least significant barriers to adoption of novel, more sustainable, approaches, products and materials.

The majority of survey respondents (85%) also agreed strongly or somewhat strongly that their organizations were technically excellent. This suggests that this lack of current capability does not hinder adoption of unconventional approaches, perhaps due to a confidence in the respondents’ abilities to develop capabilities as required.

Supporting this view, interviewees presented very few comments indicating a lack of capability in the use of CLT, notwithstanding the lack of calculation rules in Eurocode 5. This suggests that designers and contractors rely on the information provided by suppliers to undertake initial design and on specialist engineers for more detailed construction calculations. Some calculation guidance is provided by TRADA [76]which can be helpful to suppliers and designers undertaking construction calculations. Such reliance is common in the construction industry, with detailed design being undertaken by specialist sub-contractors in the construction supply chain. This approach can sometimes lead to construction materials being wrongly used or applied. This in turn may lead to future barriers to adoption being erected to that or other novel materials, manifesting through a lack of social or commercial opportunity, or an absence of sub-conscious motivation to adopt new materials.

While some respondents indicated that learning needed to happen for the adoption of unconventional approaches, a lack of capability was not presented in interview as a barrier to the adoption of CLT by system integrators [41]. The use of specialist sub-contractors and material producers with the requisite detailed technical and design capability was also described in interview as a way of overcoming an organization’s own capability deficits and risk concerns.

6.2 Opportunity

6.2.1 Lack of commercial opportunity affecting motivation to adopt

Earlier sections have described how locked-in organizations are likely to resist construction approaches that they perceive to increase risk and costs, without a corresponding increase in income [see also 9]. This restricts the commercial opportunity and thereby reduces motivation to act.

The survey results indicated that high costs were the second most common cause of barriers to the adoption of unconventional approaches (Fig. 3). This supports the findings in the literature review (Section 3.3.2) [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] and [12]and reflects the commercial imperative in construction [75]. The survey responses indicate that perceived risk to costs is a key barrier to the adoption of CLT (Fig. 6), with most resistance coming from the quantity surveyor (QS) (Fig. 5). Given the limited nature of the role of the QS, this result is unsurprising.

Fig. 5. Strength of barriers presented in projects for which CLT was proposed by source.

Fig. 6. Resistance to project use of CLT by reason for resistance.

The impacts of perceived cost on the chances of adoption are reinforced by the responses from companies that have neither used nor considered using CLT (n = 23). Of these, a significant proportion decided against using it because of perceived costs (86%) and in the expectation of cost cutting (77%). Murtagh et al. describe this effect in smaller architectural practices [66]. Interviewees also highlighted the perceptions of increased cost as being a significant barrier to adoption of CLT, describing an overemphasis on ‘the bottom line’ (cost constraints) of the project as preventing adoption.

However, the adoption of CLT is described by many interviewees and the literature as being cost neutral overall [68]. This is because the nature of the CLT innovation allows for project savings to be made, having a positive impact on the construction system, with process changes being delivered by subcontractors who are already skilled in the use of the new technology [70]. Interviewees suggested that the elemental approach to costing adopted by the QS, under which they simply substitute the capital cost of CLT for that of steel or concrete, may be the reason for their presentation of barriers. This suggests that one of the relative advantages of the use of CLT highlighted in Fig. 2 – speed of construction – may be being omitted in the QS’s reckoning. This in turn may influence those members of the project team strongly concerned with cost to lack the motivation to specify CLT through a lack of commercial opportunity.

6.2.2 Physical opportunities for the successful adoption of CLT

This empirical study sought to explore the circumstances under which CLT was successfully adopted. Accordingly, this section explores the contexts that provided the opportunity for the use of CLT.

The survey found that CLT use in projects was mostly due to client concerns for the environment (Fig. 7). However, a significant number of respondents indicated that there was no particular client driver for adoption [7]. Subsequent interviews suggested, however, that the question leading to these responses might have limited respondents as interviewees often cited multiple reasons given for adopting a particular material.

Fig. 7. Client requirements driving adoption of CLT.

Prior work by others in the field of technology transitions describes how early adoptions are likely to take place in niches, or protected spaces [58] and [59]. Niches can be conceived of as formative markets in which participants perceive value in areas that may be different from those of an organization locked-in to cost and risk reduction [60] and [61]. Such niches might arise naturally through a number of constraining project characteristics. The potential niches providing a contextual opportunity for the adoption of CLT are explored below.

• •
  Client type. Clients have a key role in the promotion of the adoption of innovations in construction, with experienced clients more likely to be demanding [67] and [69]. However, two thirds (n = 20) of the clients with whom CLT buildings were first developed fell into the categories of private client, public body and charity. This should be compared with the responses for commercial enterprises for which only three projects (9%) were undertaken in this study. Whilst there are no directly comparable figures, construction industry statistics indicate that, on average from 1997 to 2013, private residential and public non-residential schemes account for 36% of the market, with private industrial and commercial ventures making up 50% of the total industry new-build output [62]. This suggests that commercially (i.e. profit) focused client organizations may be considered less likely to be relatively early adopters of unconventional approaches.

One interviewee explored why this might be the case:

‘Organizations which don’t build regularly have different risk attitudes to those that build frequently. Because they are already doing something that they perceive as risky, it is easier to sell them something different because everything is new to them.’

This position can be contrasted with the attitude to novelty exhibited by more experienced builders who discussed how adopting unconventional approaches required organizations to develop new ways of thinking and to solve different problems. In this context, risk perception increases and concerns arise over the certainty of profit outcomes.

• •
  Future occupants: The majority of projects for which CLT was first considered were for known occupants (n = 20, 59%) and 78% of completed projects in the survey were for client occupation or known end-users. This suggests that owners of buildings with known occupants might be open to innovation in those buildings, or have different value drivers from speculative developers. Further, known occupiers are also more likely to be interested in the lifetime cost (and impacts) of their buildings, and so may be more receptive to a trade-off between capital (up-front) and operating costs (perceived or real). They are also more likely to be interested in the selection of materials as a manifestation of the values they wish to project to the world.
  The nature of the construction client and the client’s future relationship with the building is, therefore, considered to influence perceptions of how buildings add value and hence the likelihood of adoption.
• •
  Building type: The largest number of first adoptions reported is on schools (27%). The nature of these projects is that work is required to be completed to very short programmes and to fixed term-based deadlines to accommodate new students. This means that solutions to construction projects that reduce the risk of over-run will be considered to have a relative advantage and be valued.
• •
  Project value: 65% of projects were valued below £5m, with project values concentrated in the region of £1m-5m (35%). Given that the average cost of a school project at the time was in the region of £25m [63], the values of the projects on which CLT was first adopted by respondents can be considered to be relatively small. While this doesn’t mean that the projects are low-risk for the project participants, it suggests that the project might be used for limited experimentation, a factor in the diffusion of innovations [47].
• •
  Project or planning requirements: Planning requirements, design contexts and site constraints were amongst other project context factors acting as constraints on material selection. It was notable that approximately half of the respondents listed impact on project duration, client requirements and off-site manufacture as very important factors in the decisions. Several of the adoptions discussed by the interviewees were driven by time constraints. The ability to deliver a completed building more quickly than in in-situ concrete or steel elements is one of CLT’s primary relative advantages over the UK’s typical construction solutions [47].

Whilst it is recognised that materials are adopted for more than one factor, the opportunity for first adoptions of CLT was described in interview as being presented fundamentally by: site constraints (n = 1); project time delivery requirements (n = 3); client business activities (n = 1); and the desire to display sustainability (n = 3). Other CLT projects discussed during the interviews used CLT for time, cost and planning reasons.

Together, these constraints meant that the ‘typical’ construction approaches of steel, in-situ concrete or masonry were not appropriate for a particular project. As a result, a different material solution was required. This presented those designers who were motivated to use CLT with the physical opportunity to do so, and to validate the commercial opportunity. Further, the same constraints also provided motivation to others to explore beyond their normal palate of materials so that they could satisfy the project constraints.

6.3 Motivating factors for the use of CLT

Survey respondents were asked to highlight the importance of various factors in their decision to adopt materials (Fig. 8). Technical performance is seen to be key to material choice for the respondent group (96% important or very important). If a material is found not to meet technical constraints, it is highly unlikely to be adopted.

Fig. 8. Reasons for material selection.

However, almost all other surveyed criteria, apart from end of life options and novelty, were also rated over 50% important or very important. This highlights the fact that a number of reasons can interact for construction material selection, with different actors placing importance on different aspects of those materials.

Designers are the primary group of actors to have proposed the use of CLT (61.7%). This could be a reflection of the make-up of the respondents to the survey or reflect the fact that designers are usually responsible for making the initial decision on project material.

Given the predominance of architects responding to the survey, it is perhaps unsurprising that the highest number of respondents strongly agreed to being design-led (Fig. 10, n = 13). The next three categories ranking highest in terms of ‘strong agreement’ were socially engaged; sustainable; and innovative. This suggests that the bulk of respondents felt that drivers other than their own profits were important in decision-making. This indicates that these respondents may not be fully locked-in to the short-term optimization of cost and risk.

Sustainability credentials were considered very important or quite important (100%, Fig. 9) in deciding to use CLT for a project. This was also the third most discussed topic in the interviews after cost and risk and was mentioned by many interviewees as being an important driver for their organization’s adoption of CLT. However, the interviews uncovered that sustainability was a lucky adjunct, rather than the primary driver for adoption. This secondary nature of the sustainability credentials to those of cost were frequently expressed in interview. This relative prioritisation of sustainability by stakeholders reflects findings elsewhere [7] and [8].

Fig. 9. Importance of factors driving first adoption of CLT.

Fig. 10. Company characteristics.

This paper proposes, therefore, that sustainability considerations alone do not provide sufficient motivation to adopt unconventional approaches, when balanced against the demotivation brought about by a lack of commercial opportunity (see also [57]). While the next section explores the positive motivators of adoption highlighted by the study, it is noted that the motivations of actors in construction will vary from project to project and so identifying sufficient conditions is beyond the scope of this paper.

6.4 Value drivers providing opportunity or motivation

Buildings can be designed to minimise cost and risk of construction through the selection of known materials and processes. These materials are known to meet the typical planning and regulatory requirements and to ensure the minimal functional requirements of the end user are met, no more [7].

Interviews described how, in order to take advantage of learning by doing, locked-in contractors would prefer to replicate what has already been done and for the same price or less. This standardization can lead to the economies of learning, scale and expectations [25], increasing understanding, certainty and reducing costs for the contractor.

There are, however, organizations that place value on aspects other than financial and risk management. Designers, for example, may be concerned with the aesthetics of a project; the future occupant might be concerned with the daylighting levels; and a conservationist may be concerned to ensure that the construction did not disturb local species.

CLT was proposed primarily by architects, and at all times before the tender was let. Architects were seen to be likely to agree or strongly agree that they were socially engaged (94%) and sustainable (89%). This indicates that the responding architects might value social and environmental concerns over financial returns – only 17% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their organizations are profit focused. This may be a reflection of the nature of architecture practices, which tend to be small and subject to the influence of owners as opposed to disparate shareholders. The fact that the innovation is included early in considerations is also important for two reasons: the first is that it allows the project team to have time to consider the innovation more fully [70]; second it allows the project to be developed around the use of CLT as the ‘highest context factor’, forming the basis for subsequent decisions (interview 2).

In light of the sustainability benefits of CLT, the architects appear to value the relative advantages offered by CLT and thereby are motivated to specify it. The data gathered by survey did not indicate a consistent picture for contractors (n = 6).

The interviews highlighted the differing value drivers of the design practices, with each designer having a particular approach underpinning their decision-making process. Some practices selected CLT based on the material itself – choosing to work primarily in timber. Others are led by the building and context, choosing CLT as an ‘appropriate’ material for a given site, or to create a particular spatial effect. Still others chose CLT because of its sustainable credentials, or decisions about resource efficiency.

The complete list of parameters that stakeholders might value is potentially infinite and may, or may not, be articulated during a construction project. Actors can display different value drivers over time as well as conflicting value drivers at a given time. Motivating value drivers will be project, project participant and time specific. As a result, defining universal criteria sufficient to motivate adoption consistently is considered impractical.

Returning to the standardised building described above as being preferred by a locked-in contractor; such a building may well meet the ‘locked-in’ value drivers of optimized cost and risk, but might ignore the variant value drivers of ‘beauty’, ‘daylighting levels’, or ‘impact on land use’, which may provide value to other project stakeholders.

Stakeholders whose value drivers are not addressed in the development of a project will lack the motivation to approve decisions surrounding the building, presenting barriers against aspects of it that are not in accordance with their value drivers. The effectiveness of these barriers, though, is dependent on the relative negotiating power of the actor at the time of material proposal.

These findings contributed to the small but growing number of studies that conclude that motivation is a key barrier to adoption of unconventional materials [71], [72], [73]and [74].

6.5 Synthesis

The conventional objectives of listed UK contractors are the reduction of risk, cost reduction and revenue maximization. All other things being equal, listed organizations will seek to optimize these parameters, setting their objectives as risk and cost reduction or revenue increase. Path-dependent lock-in occurs through a long-term focus on cost and risk reduction.

For a particular behaviour to be displayed in a construction project, actors must have the capability, opportunity and motivation to display that behaviour. This study suggests that, while contractors have the physical opportunity to improve resource efficiency through the specification of unconventional approaches, uncertainty over the commercial opportunity means that they lack the motivation to specify them. Designers, who may be motivated to adopt an unconventional material in line with their own drivers of value, are often constrained by other, more influential, project participants and therefore lack physical opportunity to adopt the unconventional approach. Some designers, with an eye to reducing their own costs, internalize the contractors’ requirements and thereby tread along the pathway towards becoming locked-in themselves.

While resource efficient solutions are perceived as more costly or risky than standard construction materials, there will remain a tension between the value drivers of those seeking to adopt unconventional approaches to enhance resource efficiency and those more focused on the delivery of cost and risk certainty. In the absence of mitigating client, site or regulatory constraints, a proposal to adopt an unconventional solution may be perceived as adding unnecessary cost or risk. This is likely to be met with resistance by those sensitive to cost and risk, as their conceptions of value drivers are being threatened.

However, project contexts can create niche-like conditions, which rule out the dominant technological solution to a particular construction problem. This might arise from these same client, site, technical, or regulatory constraints. These constraints provide project participants with the commercial opportunity and hence motivation to explore and adopt unconventional approaches to address these constraints. Those designers, who already have the requisite motivation, by the same means, are presented with the opportunity to use the novel material.

7 Conclusion & further work

7.1 Conclusion

This paper has investigated the systemic factors limiting the adoption of unconventional approaches in construction. These were found to be the conventional objectives of risk and cost minimization arising from the long-term use of lowest cost tendering for construction contracts, and the need to meet market expectations of risk and return.

Barriers to adoption presented in research have been described as arising from path-dependent development processes, which result in a lock-in to the use of dominant technologies to deliver these expected returns. In the absence of enabling project contexts or regulation, unconventional approaches that are perceived to increase costs and/or risk are unlikely to be adopted by locked-in organizations, as they are perceived to threaten value.

The research has also explored the role that the COM-B system can play in understanding how barriers to adoption arise, studying the adoption of CLT as an example of an unconventional material that has been adopted successfully. This is a new application for the system, and points towards ways in which the barriers might be overcome.

The COM-B assessment found that designers with values promoting CLT use (eg sustainability, aesthetics) were motivated to use the material, and then developed sufficient capability and sought the opportunity to specify the product. Contractors and quantity surveyors, however, were seen to have the physical opportunity to propose novel solutions on projects, but lack the commercial opportunity and hence motivation to do so. They were confident in their capability to adopt should the need arise, in part using specialist sub-contractors.

A key contribution of this paper arises from the COM-B diagnosis of the CLT adoption study: future attempts to encourage adoption of unconventional materials should explore the commercial opportunities of adoption or non-adoption, rather than the capability deficits. Such a view directs study towards the demonstration of commercial opportunity through value generation.

To increase the likelihood of adoption, participants should identify the unique project constraints and value drivers that might allow the motivations of the participants to be aligned. Any unconventional approach proposed to address the identified constraints and deliver value must demonstrate a relative advantage over the typical construction solutions without jeopardizing cost and risk outcomes.

It is clear that regulation on resource efficiency would effectively align the motivations of all project participants and lead to increased adoption of resource efficient techniques. However, in the absence of such regulation or aligned motivations, those project team members who are motivated to adopt unconventional approaches in pursuit of resource efficient construction are likely to continue to be frustrated by the lack of physical opportunity to adopt unconventional approaches.

7.2 Further work

Further work is proposed to increase the likelihood of the consistent adoption of unconventional approaches on a project-by-project basis to deliver resource efficiency. Future areas for research highlighted by this project are set out below.

• •
  Validation of the COM-B diagnosis. This project has developed an understanding of the drivers of adoption of CLT in the context of the COM-B system. The results presented, whilst informative, cannot be considered as fully representative due to the limited sample size. Further work would validate the inferences developed. Such work could also begin to identify circumstances under which CLT might have a higher chance of adoption and to test the intervention recommendations of the Behaviour Change Wheel.
• •
  Organization non-financial value drivers and the impact on material choice. Organizations may be motivated by value from outcomes other than simple cost and risk reduction. These unconventional value drivers represent objectives that can have a bearing on the decision to adopt an unconventional solution. Further work should explore any link between these objectives and material choice.
• •
  Improving capability – Material selection processes. This research project has highlighted the importance of an unconventional material’s relative advantages and visibility in the market place (observability) in enhancing the chances of adoption. As such, techniques for developing awareness of these factors would aid in overcoming barriers to adoption and would represent a useful avenue of research.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank survey and interview participants who gave of their time to support this study and to the individuals and organizations who helped to distribute the survey, and the anonymous reviewers for their useful comments.

This paper is based on research undertaken as part of the EPSRC project ‘Using Unconventional Materials in the Built Environment’ (Grant Reference: EP/G037698/1). Further funding and project supervision was provided by Expedition Engineering, Useful Simple Projects, and UCL. An extended abstract of this paper was presented at WASCON 2015.

References

1. • [1]
   • UNDESAP, World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision, Press Release (13 June 2013): “World Population to Reach 9.6 Billion by 2050 With Most Growth In Developing Regions, Especially Africa”, (June), 2013, pp.1–4. Available at: http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Documentation/pdf/WPP2012_Press_Release.pdf(accessed July 15, 2014).
2. • [2]
   • W. Crane, F. Krausmann, N. Eisenmenger, S. Giljum, P. Hennicke, R. Kemp, P.R. Lankao, B.S. Manalang, S. Sewerin, UNEP (2011) Decoupling Natural Resource Use and Environmental Impacts from Economic Growth. A Report of the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel. International Resource Panel ed. United Nations Environment Programme, 2011.
3. • [3]
   • COM (2011) 21 Resource-Efficient Europe—Flagship Initiative Under The Europe 2020 Strategy. COM (2011), 21. [Online] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/resource-efficient-europe/pdf/resource_efficient_europe_en.pdf (accessed July 15, 2014).
4. • [4]
   • COM (2014) 398 Final Towards A Circular Economy: A Zero Waste Programme For Europe COM(2014) 398 Final. [Online] Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2014/EN/1-2014-398-EN-F1-1.Pdf(accessed July 17, 2014).
5. • [5]
   • N. Watson, P. Walker, A. Wylie, C. Way, Evaluating the barriers to entry for non-conventional building materials, in: Proceedings of IABSE Conference Cairo 2012 Cairo, vol. 98, 2012, pp. 9–16.
6. • [6]
   • C. Zhang, L. Canning, Application of non-conventional materials in construction, in: Proceedings of the ICE – Construction Materials, 164(CM4), 2011, pp. 165–172.
7. • [7]
   • K. Williams, C. Dair
   • What is stopping sustainable building in England? Barriers experienced by stakeholders in delivering sustainable developments
   • Sustainable Dev., Volume 147, 2006, pp. 135–147
   • View Record in Scopus
8. • [8]
   • J. Pinkse, M. Dommisse
   • Overcoming barriers to sustainability: an explanation of residential builders’ reluctance to adopt clean technologies
   • Bus. Strategy Environ., Volume 18, Issue 8, 2009, pp. 515–527
   • View Record in Scopus
      | 
     CrossRef
     Citing articles (22)
9. • [9]
   • K. Mahapatra, L. Gustavsson, General Conditions for Construction of Multi-Storey Wooden Buildings in Western Europe, [Online] Östersund: School of Technology and Design Växjö University, 2009. Available from: http://lnu.se/polopoly_fs/1.42305!General%20conditions%20for%20construction%20Report%204.pdf (accessed June 4, 2014).
10. • [10]
    • WBCSD, Energy Efficiency in Buildings Summary Report. Business Realities and Opportunities, Geneva, Switzerland, 2008. Available at: http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/EEBSummaryReportFINAL.pdf (accessed 17 November 2015).
11. • [11]
    • HMG, Construction 2025 – Industrial Strategy: Government and Industry in Partnership, London, 2013.
12. • [12]
    • BIS, First Findings from the UK Innovation Survey 2011, (May), 2012. [Online] Available from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/200078/12-P106A-UKIS_2011First_findings_Apr13.pdf (accessed September 30, 2013).
13. • [13]
    • J. Giesekam, et al.
    • The greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation options for materials used in UK construction
    • Energy Build., Volume 78, 2014, pp. 202–214
    • Article
       | 
       PDF (1146 K)
       | 
      View Record in Scopus
      Citing articles (12)
14. • [14]
    • S.T. Moodie, et al.
    • Knowledge translation in audiology: promoting the clinical application of best evidence
    • Trends Amplif., Volume 15, Issue 1, 2011, pp. 5–22
    • View Record in Scopus
       | 
      CrossRef
      Citing articles (12)
15. • [15]
    • N.C. Spencer, G. Winch
    • How Buildings Add Value for Clients
    • 2002, Thomas Telford, London
16. • [16]
    • M. De Greef, K. Van den Broek
    • Quality of the Working Environment and Productivity; Research Findings and Case Studies
    • 2004, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg
17. • [17]
    • A.O. Hirschman
    • Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States
    • 1970, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
18. • [18]
    • M. Miozzo, P. Dewick
    • Innovation in Construction: A European Analysis
    • 2004, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
19. • [19]
    • I. Demirag
    • Assessing short-term perceptions of group finance directors of UK companies
    • Br. Accounting Rev., 1994, pp. 247–281
20. • [20]
    • A.F. Perold
    • The capital asset pricing model
    • J. Econ. Perspect., Volume 18, Issue 3, 2004, pp. 3–24
    • View Record in Scopus
       | 
      CrossRef
      Citing articles (47)
21. • [21]
    • E.J. Elton
    • Modern Portfolio Theory and Investment Analysis
    • 2011, Wiley, Hoboken, N.J.
22. • [22]
    • H. Servaes et al., The Theory and Practice of Corporate Dividend and Share Repurchase Policy, London, Deutsche Bank, 2006 [Online] Available from http://faculty.london.edu/hservaes/Corporate%20Dividend%20Policy%20-%20Full%20Paper.pdf (accessed February 18, 2014).
23. • [23]
    • E. van Bueren, B. Broekhans
    • Individual projects as portals for mainstreaming niche innovations
    • Constructing Green: The Social Structures of Sustainability, R.L. Henn, A.J. Hoffman, 2013, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.; London, pp. 145–167
24. • [24]
    • K.J. Arrow
    • The economic implications of learning by doing
    • Rev. Econ. Stud., Volume 29, Issue 3, 1962, pp. 155–173
    • View Record in Scopus
       | 
      CrossRef
      Citing articles (1)
25. • [25]
    • T. Foxon
    • Technological lock-in and the role of innovation
    • Handbook of Sustainable Development, G. Atkinson, S. Dietz, E. Neumayer, 2007, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 140–152
    • View Record in Scopus
      Citing articles (1)
26. • [26]
    • W. Arthur
    • Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events
    • Econ. J., Volume 99, Issue 394, 1989, pp. 116–131
    • View Record in Scopus
       | 
      CrossRef
      Citing articles (67)
27. • [27]
    • P.A. David
    • Clio and the economics of QWERTY
    • Am. Econ. Rev., Volume 75, Issue 2, 2007, pp. 332–337
    • View Record in Scopus
28. • [28]
    • C. Christensen
    • Patterns in the evolution of product competition
    • Eur. Manage. J., Volume 15, Issue 2, 1997, pp. 117–127
    • Article
       | 
       PDF (1259 K)
       | 
      View Record in Scopus
      Citing articles (31)
29. • [29]
    • G. Unruh
    • Understanding carbon lock-in
    • Energy Policy, Volume 28, Issue March, 2000
30. • [30]
    • H.A. Simon
    • Administrative Behavior
    • 4th ed., 1997, The Free Press, New York
31. • [31]
    • S. Michie, M.M. van Stralen, R. West
    • The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions
    • Implementation Sci.: IS, Volume 6, Issue 1, 2011, p. 42
    • CrossRef
32. • [32]
    • R. Davis, et al.
    • Theories of behaviour and behaviour change across the social and behavioural sciences: a scoping review
    • Health Psychol. Rev., 2015, pp. 1–36
33. • [33]
    • R. West, J. Brown
    • Theory of Addiction
    • 2nd Revision 2013, Wiley Blackwell: Addiction Press, Chichester
34. • [34]
    • A. Smith
    • Precast Concrete: A Resource Efficiency Action Plan
    • 2013, Green Construction Board, Banbury [Online] Available from http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Precast%20REAP%20October%202013_0.pdf(accessed June 19, 2014)
35. • [35]
    • N. Tarrier, C. Barrowclough
    • Providing information to relatives about schizophrenia: some comments
    • Br. J. Psychiatry, Volume 149, Issue 4, 1986, pp. 458–463
    • View Record in Scopus
       | 
      CrossRef
      Citing articles (41)
36. • [36]
    • G.T. Gardner, P.C. Stern
    • Environmental Problems and Human Behavior
    • 1996, Allyn and Bacon, Boston; London
37. • [37]
    • P. Sturgis, N. Allum
    • Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes
    • Public Understanding Sci., Volume 13, Issue 1, 2004, pp. 55–74
    • View Record in Scopus
       | 
      CrossRef
      Citing articles (299)
38. • [38]
    • J. Broome
    • Procurement Routes for Partnering: A Practical Guide
    • 2002, Thomas Telford, London
39. • [39]
    • D. Gann
    • Building Innovation: Complex Constructs in a Changing World
    • 2000, Thomas Telford, London
40. • [40]
    • M. Latham
    • Constructing the Team
    • HMSO 1994, Department of the Environment, London
41. • [41]
    • G. Winch
    • Zephyrs of creative destruction: understanding the management of innovation in construction
    • Build. Res. Inf., Volume 26, Issue 5, 1998, pp. 268–279
    • View Record in Scopus
       | 
      CrossRef
      Citing articles (212)
42. • [42]
    • C. Chang, G. Ive
    • Reversal of bargaining power in construction projects: meaning, existence and implications
    • Constr. Manage. Econ., Volume 25, Issue 8, 2007, pp. 845–855
    • View Record in Scopus
       | 
      CrossRef
      Citing articles (35)
43. • [43]
    • G. Ofori
    • The Construction Industry: Aspects of its Economics and Management
    • 1991, Singapore University Press, Singapore
44. • [44]
    • H. Thompson, A Process Revealed, A. Waugh, K.H. Weiss, M. Wells (Eds.), Thames & Hudson, 2009.
45. • [45]
    • S. Taylor, P. Wilson, The Use of Cross-Laminated Timber in High-Density Affordable Housing and the Potential to Manufacture this Engineered Timber Product in the Dumfries & Galloway Region, Glasgow, 2013. Available at: http://www.cicstart.org/userfiles/file/FS-52-REPORT-PUBLIC.PDF (accessed August 25, 2014).
46. • [46]
    • T. Lane, The Rise of Cross Laminated Timber. Building.co.uk, 2014. Available at: http://www.building.co.uk/the-rise-of-cross-laminated-timber/5069291.article(accessed August 11, 2104).
47. • [47]
    • E.M. Rogers
    • Diffusion of Innovations
    • 2003, Free Press, New York; London
48. • [48]
    • A. Sutton, D. Black, P. Walker
    • Information Paper: Cross-Laminated Timber
    • 2011, BRE, Watford
49. • [49]
    • S. Smith, CLT, Cross Laminated Timber or Consumes Lots of Timber, 2013. Available at: http://www.smithandwallwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SaW_Solid_Wood_Solutions_Feb_2013.pdf (accessed August 25. 2014).
50. • [50]
    • Greengage Environmental LLP, What are the Sustainability Benefits of using Cross Laminated Timber in Construction? Greengage-env.com, 2014. Available at: http://www.greengage-env.com/industry/sustainability-benefits-cross-laminated-timber (accessed August 18, 2014).
51. • [51]
    • The Construction Index, Top 100 Construction Companies 2013. The Construction Index, 2013. [Online] Available from: http://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/market-data/top-100-construction-companies/2013 (accessed February 13, 2014).
52. • [52]
    • Building Magazine, Top Consultants 2013. Building, 2014 [Online]. Available from: http://www.building.co.uk/top-consultants-2013/top-consultants-overview(accessed February 13, 2014).
53. • [53]
    • Anon, The 2013 AJ100. Architects J., 2013. [Online] Available from: http://www.aj100awards.com/the100 (accessed February 14, 2014).
54. • [54]
    • M. Patton
    • Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods
    • 2nd ed., 1990, Sage, Beverley Hills, CA.
55. • [55]
    • M.B. Miles, M. Huberman, J. Saldaña
    • Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook
    • 2014, SAGE, Los Angeles; London
56. • [56]
    • K. Jones
    • Analysis of Barriers to Adoption of Unconventional Materials in the UK Construction Industry: The Case of Cross-Laminated Timber
    • Unpublished MRes Dissertation 2014, University College, London
57. • [57]
    • M. Anttonen, M. Halme, E. Houtbeckers, J. Nurkka
    • The other side of sustainable innovation: is there a demand for innovative services?
    • J. Cleaner Prod., Volume 45, 2013, pp. 89–103
    • Article
       | 
       PDF (726 K)
       | 
      View Record in Scopus
      Citing articles (17)
58. • [58]
    • A. Rip, R. Kemp
    • Technological change
    • Human Choice and Climate Change, S. Rayner, E.L. Malone, Volume vol.2, 1998, Battelle, Columbus, Ohio, pp. 327–399
    • View Record in Scopus
      Citing articles (1)
59. • [59]
    • F.W. Geels
    • Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study
    • Res. Policy, Volume 31, Issue 8/9, 2002, pp. 1257–1274
    • Article
       | 
       PDF (447 K)
       | 
      View Record in Scopus
      Citing articles (1061)
60. • [60]
    • A. Smith, R. Raven
    • What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability
    • Res. Policy, Volume 41, Issue 6, 2012, pp. 1025–1036
    • Article
       | 
       PDF (577 K)
       | 
      View Record in Scopus
      Citing articles (167)
61. • [61]
    • C. Christensen
    • The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail
    • 1997, Harvard Business School Press
    • View article
62. • [62]
    • Office for National Statistics, Output in the Construction Industry, December and Q4 2013, 2014. Available at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm:77-318367 (accessed August 20, 2014).
    • View article
63. • [63]
    • M. Gove, Letter from Rt Hon Michael Gove MP to Graham Stuart MP, 2014. Available at: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/Education/MichaelGoveletter.pdf (accessed July 20, 2014).
    • View article
64. • [64]
    • S.E. Krauss
    • Research paradigms and meaning making: a primer
    • Qual. Rep., Volume 10, Issue 4, 2005, pp. 758–770
    • View article
65. • [65]
    • C. Rhodes, Construction Industry: Statistics and Policy, Briefing Paper, House of Commons Library, London, 2015.
    • View article
66. • [66]
    • N. Murtagh, A. Roberts, R. Hind
    • The role of environmental sustainability in marketing of small architectural design practices
    • Constr. Manage. Econ., Volume 6193, Issue April, 2016, pp. 1–14
    • View article
67. • [67]
    • A. Blayse, K. Manley
    • Key influences on construction innovation
    • Constr. Innov., Volume 4, Issue 3, 2004, pp. 143–154
    • View article
68. • [68]
    • M. Yates, M. Linegar, B. Dujic
    • Design of an 8 storey residential tower from KLH cross laminated solid timber panels
    • 10th World Conference on Timber Engineering 2008, 2008, Curran Associates, Inc. NY, Miyazaki, Japan, pp. 2189–2196
    • View article
69. • [69]
    • Clients Driving Innovation, P. Brandon, S.L. Lu, 2009, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester
    • View article
70. • [70]
    • E. Slaughter
    • Models of construction innovation
    • J. Constr. Eng. Manage., Volume 124, 1998, pp. 226–231
    • View article
71. • [71]
    • A.J. Hoffman, R. Henn
    • Overcoming the social and psychological barriers to green building
    • Organiz. Environ., Volume 21, Issue 4, 2008, pp. 390–419
    • View article
72. • [72]
    • J. Whyte, M. Sexton
    • Motivations for innovation in the built environment: new directions for research
    • Build. Res. Inf., Volume 39, Issue 5, 2011, pp. 473–482
    • View article
73. • [73]
    • E. Jervis, C. Moxham, J. Meehan, The power of the institution: overcoming barriers to the diffusion of low carbon innovation in the construction industry. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International EurOMA Sustainable Operations and Supply Chains Forum, Lancaster, 2016.
    • View article
74. • [74]
    • L. Sunding, A. Ekholm
    • Applying social sciences to inspire behavioural change in the construction sector: an experimental study
    • Constr. Manage. Econ., Volume 6193, Issue November, 2015, pp. 1–16
    • View article
75. • [75]
    • J. Alexander
    • Environmental sustainability versus profit maximization: overcoming systemic constraints on implementing normatively preferable alternatives
    • J. Bus. Ethics, Volume 76, Issue 2, 2007, pp. 155–162
    • View article
76. • [76]
    • TRADA Technology
    • Guidance Document 10 (GD10) Cross-Laminated Timber (Eurocode 5) Design Guide for Project Feasibility
    • 2009, TRADA Technology, High Wycombe
    • View article

• ⁎ 
  Corresponding author.

© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

For further details log on website :
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950061814013312