Articles containing the keyword 'housing'

The data on housing conditions presented in this study derives from the general population census of Finland of 1950. The sub-sample of professional forest workers was taken from the sample collected for the larger investigation of rural labour force. The housing density of professional forest workers was considerably higher than the average for the population in general. The total population of the country, according to the 1950 Census, showed a ratio of 154 persons to 100 rooms, while the average weighted with the number of rooms for forest workers was 237:100, and the unweighted 340:100. If three per room is taken as the limit of crowded housing, nearly half of the professional forest workers lived in crowded conditions. Over two-thirds of them owned their dwellings, and only 2% of them lived in dwellings owned by the employer. Three quarters of all the men belonged to the holder-family of small farms. About three quarters of them lived in dwellings of one or two rooms. Also, the size of the family and household affected the housing density. The housing density exceeds the average in the youngest age classes. This is probably because the sons of families with poor economic standing must start work young in forestry, and those families have a high housing density. A quarter of the families had electricity in their dwellings. Few had running water or sewage in their houses.

The PDF includes a summary in English.

• Väänänen, E-mail: sv@mm.unknown

So far, consumer housing values have not been addressed as factors affecting the market diffusion potential of multi-storey wood building (MSWB). To fill the void, this study addresses different types of consumer housing values in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden (i.e., Nordic region), and whether they affect the likelihood of prejudices against building with wood in the housing markets. The data collected in 2018 from 2191 consumers in the Nordic region were analyzed with exploratory factor analysis and logistic binary regression analysis. According to the results, consumers’ perceptions on ecological sustainability, material usage and urban lifestyle were similar in all countries, while country-specific differences were detected for perceptions on aesthetics and natural milieus. In all countries, appreciating urban lifestyle and living in attractive neighborhoods with good reputation increased the likelihood of prejudices against wood building, while appreciation of aesthetics and natural milieus decreased the likelihood of prejudices. In strengthening the demand for MSWB and sustainable urbanization through actions in businesses (e.g., branding) and via public policy support (e.g., land zoning), few messages derive from the results. In all, abreast with the already existing knowledge on the supply side factors (e.g., wood building innovations), more customized information is needed on the consumer-driven issues affecting the demand potential of MSWB in the housing markets. This would enable, e.g., both enhancing the supply of wooden homes for consumers appreciating urban lifestyle and neighborhoods and fortifying positive image of wood among consumers especially appreciating good architecture and pleasant environmental milieus.

• Lähtinen, Vaasan yliopisto/Seinäjoen yliopistokeskus E-mail: katja.lahtinen@luke.fi
• Häyrinen, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Bioeconomy and Environment Unit, P.O. Box 2, FI-00790 Helsinki, Finland E-mail: liina.hayrinen@luke.fi
• Roos, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet (SLU), Department of Forest Economics, Box 7060, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden E-mail: anders.roos@slu.se
• Toppinen, University of Helsinki, Department of Forest Sciences/Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (HELSUS), P.O. Box 27, FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland E-mail: anne.toppinen@helsinki.fi
• Aguilar Cabezas, Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet (SLU), Department of Forest Economics, SE-901 83 Umeå, Sweden E-mail: francisco.aguilar@slu.se
• Thorsen, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics, Rolighedsvej 23, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, DenmarkBo Jellesmark Thorsen E-mail: bjt@ifro.ku.dk
• Hujala, University of Eastern Finland (UEF), Faculty of Science and Forestry, School of Forest Sciences, P.O. Box 111, 80101 FI-Joensuu, Finland E-mail: teppo.hujala@uef.fi
• Nyrud, Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management, P.O. Box 5003, NO-1432 Ås, Norway E-mail: anders.qvale.nyrud@nmbu.no
• Hoen, Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management, P.O. Box 5003, NO-1432 Ås, Norway E-mail: hans.hoen@nmbu.no