MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE WOOD-CONCRETE PRODUCT MARKET RESEARCH University

MOUNTAIN PINE BEETLE WOOD-CONCRETE PRODUCT MARKET RESEARCH University of Northern British Columbia Wood Concrete Marketing

PRELIMINARY SHORT SURVEY: When: Spring 2009 Where: the National Green Builders Products Expo in Las Vegas Who: 46 Industrial (e. g. , home builders and designers) and Professional (e. g. , home contractors and renovators) consumers How: conduct a short survey about MPBWCP at the trade booth. Why: to solicit maximum green industry feedback on Wood Concrete products

PRELIMINARY SHORT SURVEY (CONT’D) Findings (a 7 point scale: 1= strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree): I think MPBWCP (Mountain Pine beetle Wood Concrete Product) is a marketable product: mean = 5. 06 I think MPBWCP is an environmentally friendly product: mean = 5. 17 I think MPBWCP is an economically sustainable product for communities: mean = 4. 90 I would switch from my usual brands and buy MPBWCP: mean = 3. 79 I would often compare package label information about the environmental friendliness of the MPBWCP: mean = 4. 88 I would often compare package label information about the economic community sustainability of the MPBWCP: mean = 4. 69

PRELIMINARY SHORT SURVEY (CONT’D) Findings (a 7 point scale: 1= strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree): I would travel further in order to purchase MPBWCP: mean = 3. 51 I would pay attention to advertisements about MPBWCP: mean = 5. 22 How willing would you be to pay for MPBWCP? (Check mark the premium or discount in percent: 1= -15%, 7= +15%): mean = 0 -5% Average age: 39. 9 Average income: $249, 642

PHASE I: FOCUS GROUPS When: Fall 2009 Where: Vancouver, Prince George, and Los Angeles Who: Randomly recruited 76 participants of Industrial consumers (e. g. , home builders and designers), Professional consumers (e. g. , home contractors and renovators), do-ityourself home renovators, and environmental organizations How: 12 focus groups by a marketing research firm Why: To explore reactions to Wood Concrete, a product derived from the combination of concrete with wood that has been destroyed by the pine beetle

PHASE I: FOCUS GROUPS (RESULTS) General perception: Most participants were very positively responded to this product. However, industrial/professional consumers wanted to know more about its technical specs. Greenness: It has green properties such as employing an otherwise unusable component. However, there is skepticism because of the energy used to produce concrete. Potential applications: flooring or patio tiles, garden blocks, countertops, and furniture Pricing: People might consider this product if it were 10% higher or lower than what it is replacing

PHASE I: SHORT SURVEY When: Fall 2009 Where: Vancouver, Prince George, and Los Angeles Who: Randomly recruited 219 participants of Industrial consumers (e. g. , home builders and designers), Professional consumers (e. g. , home contractors and renovators), do-ityourself home renovators, and environmental organizations How: conduct an online survey (after watching a video clip about MPBWCP) Why: To explore detailed reactions to Wood Concrete

PHASE I: SHORT SURVEY (RESULTS) a 7 point scale: 1= strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree): I think MPBWCP (Mountain Pine beetle Wood Concrete Product) is a marketable product: mean = 6. 05 (mean = 5. 06) I think MPBWCP is an environmentally friendly product: mean = 5. 80 (mean = 5. 17) I think MPBWCP is an economically sustainable product for communities: mean = 5. 73 (mean = 4. 90) I would switch from my usual brands and buy MPBWCP: mean = 5. 12 (mean = 3. 79) I would often compare package label information about the environmental friendliness of the MPBWCP: mean = 5. 45 (mean = 4. 88)

PHASE I: SHORT SURVEY (CONT’D) I would often compare package label information about the economic community sustainability of the MPBWCP: mean = 5. 30 (mean = 4. 69) I would travel further in order to purchase MPBWCP: mean = 4. 71 (mean = 3. 51) I would pay attention to advertisements about MPBWCP: mean = 5. 80 (mean = 5. 22) How willing would you be to pay for MPBWCP? (Check mark the premium or discount in percent: 1= -15%, 7= +15%): mean = 0 -5% (mean = 0 -5%) Average age: 47. 34 (39. 9) Median income: $70, 000 -$80, 000 ($249, 642) City: PG (42), Vancouver (108), LA (69) Segment: Industrial consumers (67), Professional consumers (50), DIY consumers (51), Environmental Groups (51)

PHASE II: CONJOINT ANALYSIS When: Spring 2010 Where: Vancouver, Prince George, and Los Angeles Who: Randomly recruited 151 participants of do-it-yourself home consumers Why: To explore consumers’ attitudes toward product attributes (e. g. , price level, color, wood chip size, green certification, and location of production) of three major applications (countertops, floor tiles, and garden blocks) suggested by focus groups How: Provided participants with 20 product bundles (with different levels of product attributes) for each of the three applications and asked them to rate each bundle according to their preference on a 1100 scale.

PHASE II: CONJOINT ANALYSIS (CONT’D) Each label depicts a different bundle of five attributes (each attribute has two or three levels): Relative price (low/moderate/high) Colour (bright/natural/dark) Wood chip size (small/mixed/large) Green certification (yes/no) Location of production (locally/N. A. /abroad)

PHASE II: CONJOINT ANALYSIS (CONT’D)

PHASE II: CONJOINT ANALYSIS (RESULTS) General preference toward attributes: Location of production is rated as the most important attribute. Green certification is rated as the least important attribute. 30 25. 1 25 21. 6 22. 3 24. 2 21. 4 21. 5 20. 0 20 26. 4 19. 3 17. 4 15 12. 0 12. 8 12. 3 10 5 0 Relative Price Colour Wood Chip Size Countertops Floor Tiles Green Garden Certification Location of Production

PHASE II: CONJOINT ANALYSIS (RESULTS) Five segments based on preference (Countertops)

PHASE II: CONJOINT ANALYSIS (RESULTS) Five segments based on preference (Floor tiles)

PHASE II: CONJOINT ANALYSIS (RESULTS) Five segments based on preference (Garden blocks)

PHASE II: CONJOINT ANALYSIS (RESULTS) Relative Importance of Attributes (Countertops)

PHASE II: CONJOINT ANALYSIS (RESULTS) Relative Importance of Attributes (Floor tiles)

PHASE II: CONJOINT ANALYSIS (RESULTS) Relative Importance of Attributes (Garden Blocks)

PHASE II: CONJOINT ANALYSIS (RESULTS) Rank of Attributes (Countertops)

PHASE II: CONJOINT ANALYSIS (RESULTS) Rank of Attributes (Floor Tiles)

PHASE II: CONJOINT ANALYSIS (RESULTS) Rank of Attributes (Garden Blocks)