Table 1. Examples of sustainability attributes in the existing literature.
Sustainability attributes Examples and sources
Environmental sustainability attributes Preserving natural ecosystems and biodiversity, and management of production processes to reduce amount of waste, usage of energy, and carbon dioxide emissions (Lähtinen et al. 2016a; Bangsa and Schlegelmilch 2020).
Social sustainability attributes Health, welfare, and social justice issues connected to impacts on workers and suppliers, consumers, and communities at different phases of value chains (i.e., raw material extraction, primary and secondary production, and use of final product) (Elkington 1997; Lähtinen et al. 2016b; Catlin et al. 2017).
Economic sustainability attributes Financial performance (e.g., cost reductions and value creation), and “economic interests of external stakeholders (e.g., improvements in economic well-being and standard of living)” (Sheth et al. 2011; Lähtinen et al. 2016b).
2

Fig. 1. Analytical framework of the study to assess consumer perceptions of wooden interior product quality as a combination of quality cues and attributes and their connections with consumers’ sociodemographic background (mod. from the Model of the Quality Perception Process of Steenkamp 1989). View larger in new window/tab.

Table 2. Peer-reviewed journal articles used to operationalize the quality indicators of wooden interior products in the questionnaire.
Quality indicators Wood product quality studies Other wood product studies indirectly connected with quality
Wood species used in the product, e.g., oak, birch -- Donovan et al. 2004; Nicholls et al. 2004; Brinberg et al. 2007; Bumgardner et al. 2007; Nicholls and Bumgardner 2007; Scholz and Decker 2007; Arowosoge and Tee 2010
Product is made of solid wood, e.g., furniture made of solid wood -- Jonsson et al. 2008; Lindberg et al. 2013
Visual properties, e.g., surface patterns Aesthetics (Sinclair et al. 1993); overall lumber appearance, lumber straightness (Hansen and Bush 1996, 1999); aesthetics (Costa et al. 2011); appearance/visuality (Toivonen 2012) Knots (Broman et al. 2001); character marks (Bumgardner et al. 2009); grain (Arowosoge and Tee 2010); aesthetic attributes (Scholz and Decker 2007); aesthetics (Hakala et al. 2015)
Tactile properties, e.g., surface -- Smoothness, hardness (Jonsson et al. 2008); smoothness, roughness, solidness (Lindberg et al. 2013); smoothness, roughness (Bhatta et al. 2017); smoothness (Ramanakoto et al. 2017)
Technical properties, e.g., solidity, hardness Acoustics, structural integrity (Sinclair et al. 1993); stiffness/strength of lumber (Hansen and Bush 1996, 1999); global quality, thermal insulation, acoustic insulation (Costa et al. 2011); technical quality (Toivonen 2012) Hardness (Jonsson et al. 2008); solidness (Lindberg et al. 2013)
Longevity, e.g., resistance against moisture and decay Absence of failure, service life, resistance to wear (Sinclair et al. 1993); durability of lumber, failure rate, long service life (Hansen and Bush 1996, 1999); product life (Costa et al. 2011) Water sensitivity, warping, resistance against insects (Balázs 2010)
Information related to, e.g., product origin, production process and environmental impacts Received information (Costa et al. 2011); availability of information about the producer, availability of product information (Toivonen 2012) Product information (Donovan et al. 2004); label information (Hansmann et al. 2006); information on source of timber (Aguilar and Cai 2010); product information (Osburg et al. 2016a)
Product certificates, e.g., Swan Ecolabel, PEFC, FSC -- Bisgby and Ozanne 2002; Teisl et al. 2002; Jensen et al. 2003; Ozanne and Vlosky 2003; Anderson and Hansen 2004; O’Brien and Teisl 2004; Veisten and Solberg 2004; Hansmann et al. 2006; Aguilar and Cai 2010; Hakala et al. 2015; Paulin et al. 2018
Price, e.g., the price of wood material vs. other materials Sinclair et al. (1993), Costa et al. (2011) Pakarinen and Asikainen 2001; Bigsby and Ozanne 2002; Teisl et al. 2002; Anderson and Hansen 2004; Bumgardner et al. 2007; Balázs 2010; Kuzman et al. 2012; Hakala et al. 2015; Knauf 2015
Coziness, e.g., wood enhances hominess -- Rice et al. 2006; Nyrud and Bringslimark 2010; Hu et al. 2016
Multifunctionality, e.g., wood has many applications Multifunctionality of product (Sinclair et al. 1993); use properties (Toivonen 2012) --
Personal values, e.g., expressing one’s identity by using wood Ability to enhance status of the user (Sinclair et al. 1993) Ridoutt et al. 2002; Ridoutt et al. 2005
Origin, e.g., the domesticity of wood Domestic origin (Toivonen 2012) Paulin et al. 2018
Environmental aspects, e.g., environmental effects of wood Environment (Costa et al. 2011); environmental friendliness (of the product) (Toivonen 2012) Attributes of environmental impact (Pakarinen and Asikainen 2001); attributes of environmental impact (Donovan 2004); ecological aspects (Hakala et al. 2015)
Innovativeness, e.g., new ways to use wood in housing -- Osburg et al. 2016b
Retailer, e.g., the salesperson’s knowledge of wood Supplier/salesperson characteristics (Hansen and Bush 1996; 1999); information conveyed by store advisors (Costa et al. 2011); service (related to the product), serviceability of the sales personnel (Toivonen 2012) Place of purchasing (Arowosoge and Tee 2010); service, shopping experience (Ji et al. 2020)
Statements are measured on a five-point Likert scale (1 = not important at all –5 = very important)
Table 3. Sociodemographic background of the respondents on the survey to assess their opinions on the wooden interior product quality (n = 256) in comparison with the population in Finland aged 18–74 years in 2018 (in total 3 947 859) (StatiFin).
  % respondents % of people living in Finland
Gender
  Female 51.6 49.8
  Male 48.4 50.2
Age
  18–34 years 19.9 29.0
  35–59 years 38.3 44.2
  60 years or older 41.8 26.7
Education
  Basic education 6.1 N/A
  General upper secondary education 6.1 N/A
  Vocational upper secondary education 35.9 N/A
  Higher education at university of applied sciences 24.1 N/A
  Higher education at university, other academic education 25.3 N/A
  Other 2.5 N/A
Municipality of residence*
  Urban municipality 72.5 72.7
  Semi-urban municipality 15.3 14.9
  Rural municipality 12.2 12.4
Forest ownership (oneself or family member)
  Yes 33.7 N/A
  No 66.3 N/A
Forest sector involvement
  Yes 15.1 N/A
  No 84.9 N/A
* Classification based on Statistics Finland (https://www.stat.fi/meta/kas/til_kuntaryhmit_en.html).
Table 4. Variables on quality indicators of wooden interior products addressed in the questionnaire and the proportions of respondents with different views on their importance (n = 256). The least valued variables are underlined, and the most valued variables are bolded in the table.
Variable Not
important
% 		Not very important
% 		Neither important nor without importance % Quite
important
% 		Very
important
% 		Mean
Wood species used in the product, e.g., oak, birch 1.6 8.6 27.1 41.6 21.2 3.72
Product is made of solid wood, e.g., furniture made of solid wood 0.8 7.5 24.7 45.9 21.2 3.79
Visual properties, e.g., surface patterns -- 5.5 22.0 50.2 22.4 3.89
Tactile properties, e.g., surface 0.4 3.6 20.6 54.9 20.6 3.92
Technical properties, e.g., solidity, hardness -- 2.7 13.7 58.8 24.7 4.05
Longevity, e.g., resistance against moisture and decay 0.4 2.7 10.6 44.7 41.6 4.24
Information related to, e.g., product origin, production process and environmental impacts 0.8 11.4 29.5 41.3 16.9 3.62
Product certificates, e.g., Swan Ecolabel, PEFC, FSC 1.6 12.9 30.9 41.4 13.3 3.52
Price, e.g., the price of wood material vs. other materials 0.4 3.5 22.7 53.5 19.9 3.89
Coziness, e.g., wood enhances hominess -- 1.2 8.6 51.2 39.1 4.28
Multifunctionality, e.g., wood has many applications 0.8 4.7 15.0 53.0 26.5 4.00
Personal values, e.g., expressing one’s identity by using wood 3.5 15.7 28.0 33.5 19.3 3.49
Origin, e.g., the domesticity of wood 0.4 7.0 19.1 43.8 29.7 3.95
Environmental aspects, e.g., environmental effects of wood 1.6 5.9 17.8 49.4 25.3 3.91
Innovativeness, e.g., new ways to use wood in housing 1.2 10.2 26.8 45.7 16.1 3.65
Retailer, e.g., the salesperson’s knowledge of wood 2.7 7.8 26.2 37.9 25.4 3.75
Table 5. Results from the final rotated four-factor solution on the variables affecting the perceived quality of wooden interior products. Bolded values are the highest factor loadings in absolute values.
Variable Communalities (Extraction) Factor 1
Environmental friendliness 		Factor 2
Fit with lifestyle and home design 		Factor 3
Visual and tactile attractiveness 		Factor 4
Technical solidity
Information related to, e.g., product origin, production process, and environmental effects 0.767 0.847 0.171 0.058 0.131
Product certificates, e.g., Swan Ecolabel, PEFC, FSC 0.725 0.816 0.063 0.086 0.220
Origin, e.g., the domesticity of wood 0.576 0.648 0.346 0.117 0.149
Environmental aspects, e.g., environmental effects of wood 0.555 0.670 0.256 0.119 0.163
Coziness, e.g., wood enhances hominess 0.456 0.070 0.603 0.243 0.167
Multifunctionality, e.g., wood has many applications 0.657 0.175 0.740 0.031 0.277
Personal values, e.g., expressing one’s identity by using wood 0.494 0.303 0.602 0.196 0.032
Innovativeness, e.g., new ways to use wood in housing 0.558 0.414 0.564 0.181 0.188
Visual properties, e.g., surface patterns 0.999 0.036 0.174 0.976 0.126
Tactile properties, e.g., surface 0.419 0.188 0.202 0.572 0.127
Technical properties, e.g., solidity, hardness 0.404 0.151 0.196 0.203 0.549
Longevity, e.g., resistance against moisture and decay 0.770 0.144 0.113 0.024 0.858
Retailer, e.g., the salesperson’s knowledge of wood 0.301 0.276 0.194 0.115 0.417
Cronbach’s a 0.870 0.780 0.763 0.665
Eigenvalues 5.138 1.594 1.261 1.102
Explained variance, % 15.774 29.442 7.309 6.543
2

Fig. 2. Connections between four-factor solution for consumer views on wooden interior product quality and different phases of forestry-wood value chains. View larger in new window/tab.

Table 6. Mann-Whitney U test results, which showed statistically significant differences in respondent views on wooden interior product quality indicators (i.e., factors derived from exploratory factor analysis) by sociodemographic groups.
Factor Groups compared p-value
Fit with lifestyle and home design Female vs. male 0.028**
Visual and tactile attractiveness Female vs. male 0.082*
Fit with lifestyle and home design Forest sector involvement vs. no forest sector involvement 0.004***
Technical solidity Forest sector involvement vs. no forest sector involvement 0.023**
Fit with lifestyle and home design Forest ownership vs. no forest ownership 0.068*
* = Suggestive evidence on statistical significance = 0.05 ≤ p-value < 0.1;
** = Moderate evidence on statistical significance = 0.01 ≤ p-value < 0.05;
*** = Very strong evidence on statistical significance = ˂ 0.01 p-value.
Table 7. Kruskal-Wallis test results, which showed statistically significant differences in respondent views on wooden interior product quality indicators (i.e., factors derived from exploratory factor analysis) by sociodemographic groups.
Factor Groups compared p-value for all groups p-value for groupwise comparisons
Environmental friendliness All age groups 0.037**
18–34 years vs. 35–59 years 0.238
18–34 years vs. 60 years or older 0.013**
35–59 years vs. 60 years or older 0.335
Fit with lifestyle and home design All education groups 0.031**
General upper secondary education vs. 0.050**
higher education at university, other academic education
General upper secondary education vs. 0.009***
vocational upper secondary education
Basic education vs. 0.037**
vocational upper secondary education
Vocational upper secondary education vs. 0.092*
higher education at university of applied sciences
Technical solidity All education groups 0.001***
Basic education vs. 0.012**
vocational upper secondary education
Basic education vs. 0.013**
general upper secondary education
Higher education at university, other academic education vs. 0.001***
vocational upper secondary education
Higher education at university, other academic education vs. 0.006***
general upper secondary education
Vocational upper secondary education vs. 0.022**
higher education at university of applied sciences
Higher education at university of applied sciences vs. 0.039**
general upper secondary education
* = Suggestive evidence on statistical significance = 0.05 ≤ p-value < 0.1;
** = Moderate evidence on statistical significance = 0.01 ≤ p-value < 0.05;
*** = Very strong evidence on statistical significance = ˂ 0.01 p-value.