1. M OUNTAIN P INE B EETLE W OOD - C ONCRETE P RODUCT M ARKET R ESEARCH University of Northern British Columbia Wood Concrete Marketing

2. P RELIMINARY 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

3. P RELIMINARY 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

4. P RELIMINARY 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

5. P HASE I: F OCUS G ROUPS 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-it- yourself 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

6. P HASE I: F OCUS G ROUPS ( 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

7. P HASE I: S HORT S URVEY 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-it- yourself 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

8. P HASE I: S HORT S URVEY (R ESULTS ) 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)

9. P HASE I: S HORT S URVEY ( 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)

10. P HASE II: C ONJOINT A NALYSIS 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 1- 100 scale.

11. P HASE II: C ONJOINT A NALYSIS (C ONT ’ 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)

12. P HASE II: C ONJOINT A NALYSIS (C ONT ’ D )

13. P HASE II: C ONJOINT A NALYSIS (R ESULTS ) General preference toward attributes : Location of production is rated as the most important attribute. Green certification is rated as the least important attribute.

14. P HASE II: C ONJOINT A NALYSIS (R ESULTS ) Five segments based on preference (Countertops)

15. P HASE II: C ONJOINT A NALYSIS (R ESULTS ) Five segments based on preference (Floor tiles)

16. P HASE II: C ONJOINT A NALYSIS (R ESULTS ) Five segments based on preference (Garden blocks)

17. P HASE II: C ONJOINT A NALYSIS (R ESULTS ) Relative Importance of Attributes (Countertops)

18. P HASE II: C ONJOINT A NALYSIS (R ESULTS ) Relative Importance of Attributes (Floor tiles)

19. P HASE II: C ONJOINT A NALYSIS (R ESULTS ) Relative Importance of Attributes (Garden Blocks)

20. P HASE II: C ONJOINT A NALYSIS (R ESULTS ) Rank of Attributes (Countertops)

21. P HASE II: C ONJOINT A NALYSIS (R ESULTS ) Rank of Attributes (Floor Tiles)

22. P HASE II: C ONJOINT A NALYSIS (R ESULTS ) Rank of Attributes (Garden Blocks)