Consumer and purchasing agentresponse to terms used to describe

forest products from southeast Alaska

Allen M. BrackleyValerie Barber

AbstractUsing information from 204 individuals with an active interest in home building and/or furnishing, this study surveys con-

sumers and purchasing agents and reports their reaction to terms used to describe forest products from southeast Alaska. Re-garding terms used to describe the trees or forest products, while 67 percent of the respondents would purchase products from oldgrowth trees, purchasing agents were more likely to refuse to purchase products from old growth forests (negative response from12 percent of consumers vs. 29 percent for purchasing agents). Eighty-eight percent of respondents reacted positively to pur-chasing products from trees grown under sustainable yield management. Twenty-eight percent of respondents reacted negativelyto the term national forest, while the term Tongass received the highest level of uncertainty. When asked if they would purchaseproducts made from trees cut from a forest of concern to either environmental or preservationist groups, respondents showedpolarity with approximately equal yes (38 to 46%) and no (43 to 46%) responses. It was concluded that respondents had anoverall positive view of Alaska forest products.

The southeast Alaska forest products industry and themarkets for those products have experienced many changesover the years. Prior to 1997, southeast Alaska had an inte-grated forest industry that consisted of sawmills and pulpmills producing mostly for international markets. Today theindustry is composed of small- and medium-size sawmillsproducing specialty products, dimension, and factory gradesof lumber that are shipped primarily to the lower 48 states.During the past 2 years, increasing amounts of production arebeing dried and planed (Nicholls et al. 2006). Much of thismaterial comes from the smallest mills and is sold locally inAlaska.

A recent study of Alaska forest products producers (Thom-as et al. 2005) indicates that making sales and locating newmarkets are major concerns. These concerns suggest the needfor an industry-level marketing and promotion program tostimulate demand and increase sales of products. In addition,research at the Ketchikan Wood Technology Center (KWTC)indicates the lumber products produced from the region havesuperior strength characteristics and relatively high yields ofstrong material (high E grades), making it suitable for use inengineered products such as glulam and truss applications.This research effort has resulted in new grading rules forAlaska softwood and grade-marks that brand the lumber as aproduct of Alaska (Western Wood Products Assoc. 2005).

Many of the properties reported by the KWTC efforts resultfrom tested lumber being produced from old growth material.This material, produced from large, slow grown logs with ahigh number of growth rings per inch, is typically found in thecoastal rain forests of the Pacific Northwest. The major source

The authors are, respectively. Team Leader/Research Forester,USDA Forest Serv., Pacific Northwest Research Sta., Alaska WoodUtilization and Research Development Center, Sitka, Alaska(abrackley@fs. fed. us); and Assistant Research Faculty, Univ. ofAlaska Fairbanks, Sitka Forest Products, Sitka. Alaska(ffvab@uaf.edu ). This report is based on work supported by theUniv. of Alaska Fairbanks, Cooperative State Research, Education,and Extension Serv., USDA, under Agreement No. 2001-34158-1151, No. 2002-34158-12809. and No. 2003-34158-14063. Anyopinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed inthis publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily re-flect the view of the USDA. The study plan and survey forms for thisproject were reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB): En-suring the Rights and Welfare of Human Research Participants of theOffice of Research Integrity of the Univ. of Alaska Fairbanks. Giventhe methods of collection. IRB ruled collected information could notbe directly related to any individual and on this basis was exemptfrom IRB approval. This paper was received for publication in May2007. Article No. 10360.*Forest Products Society Member.t/Forest Products Society 2008.

Forest Prod. J. 58(1/2):47-52.

FOREST PRODUCTS JOURNALVOL. 58, NO. 1/2 47

of raw material in the southeast area of Alaska is the TongassNational Forest. Old growth products are often subject to criti-cism by environmentalists, posing further challenges to mar-keting forest products from Alaska. Articles in Sierra, themonthly publication of the Sierra Club, are noted as examplesof the concern (Hattarn 2001, Gulick 2001, Snell 2002,Brewer 2003).

Some environmental groups support "forest certification"to guarantee that forest management and harvesting systemsare conducted in an environmentally acceptable manner. Re-cent research focuses on consumer willingness to pay morefor certified forest products (Vertinsky and Zhou 2000,Laroche et al. 2001, Juslin and Hansen 2002) and several ma-jor building supply and home improvement retailers havestarted to offer certified products. Land managers and produc-ers in Alaska have given some consideration as to how prod-ucts from National Forest lands might become certified.While researchers have tested the hypothesis that consumerswill pay more for certified products, little research, however,identifies the level of knowledge that consumers have relativeto certified products and their willingness to purchase suchproducts.

Given the national level campaigns by wilderness advocat-ing organizations and preservationists to convert remainingold growth areas on the national forests, especially the Ton-gass National Forest in Alaska to wilderness areas, it is logicalto ask, "Do consumers of forest products have a negative viewof products produced from the old growth trees in nationalforests, specifically from the Tongass National Forest?"

Because of these issues, marketing forest products fromsoutheast Alaska is challenging. Alaskan producers need toknow how potential consumers and purchasing agents will re-act to the total range of words used to describe material char-acteristics and the harvest location for the products producedfrom the timber resources of the region. This project aims todetermine how purchasing agents, consumers and other infor-mally classified groups of people react to terms that might beused to describe forest products from southeast Alaska and, inparticular, from the Tongass National Forest.

MethodsSurvey design

Over a period of several months, the project was discussedwith forest products producers and members of the Universityof Alaska Forest Products Advisory Group. It was the consen-sus that the terms old growth, National Forest, and Tongass beincluded in the survey. It was generally agreed that synonymsfor old growth included slow grown, strong, and dense. Giventhe current research and discussion relative to forest certifica-tion, several participants asked the question, "What is thelevel of awareness of consumers and purchasing agents withrespect to the implications of forest certification efforts onproduct marketing?" It was also noted that certification wasan effort to prove ecosystem sustainability and that both termsshould be included in the survey. Some individuals were alsointerested in the self view of the respondents with respect tobeing environmentalists and preservationists and their partici-pation in organizations advocating additional wildernessareas.

Once basic demographic information was collected, thesurvey questions included a series of very direct questions thatincluded a key word or term prefaced by the phrase, "Would

you purchase forest products produced from trees harvestedfrom . . . or grown under a management system defined as. .

For the purposes of this study, the following were describedas key descriptive terms: Alaska, National Forest, TongassNational Forest, sustainable yield, old growth, certified forestproduct, green forest product, environmentalists, and preser-vationists. The data collection process also included questionsto establish respondents' views about the state of Alaska andwood as a building material. We asked questions to establishif the respondent was involved with making purchases for his/her employer (herein referred to as a purchasing agent) or sim-ply an interested user or consumer of lumber products (hereinreferred to as a consumer). We also established if the respon-dent was a member of an environmental organization and thelevel of knowledge they possessed relative to the process offorest products certification.

Questions were divided into three groups. Group 1 ques-tions focused on describing the trees and/or forest products(lumber, veneer, etc.) that resulted from the milling process.Group 2 questions were concerned with method of manage-ment (sustained yield) and description of the forest area oforigin (place). Group 3 questions tested response to the termsenvironmental or preservationist.

It was anticipated in the initial planning that the surveywould be administered by asking respondents to complete awritten survey. Two problems were rapidly identified duringtesting of the paper form. First, allowed responses were,"Yes" (I would purchase) or "No" (I would not purchase).Test respondents indicated that they did not recognize the keyword and as a result, could not answer the question. A reviewof the Marketing Scales Handbook (Bruner and Hensel 1992)identified a three-point scale for testing consumer satisfac-tion. The problem was solved by converting to the three-pointscale and adding a possible response to each question (uncer-tain or don't know). This change improved the respondentacceptance of the form. Second, it was observed that respon-dents would reach a question where they were uncertain of thedesired response they would immediately scan the remainingquestions to obtain some idea as to how they should answerthe question. Upon scanning the form they would start askingquestions to determine the desired response. Additional testswere conducted where the questions were asked orally. In theoral administration process the respondent was told that thiswas a survey to determine if the consumer recognized certainkey words and the impact of the key words on their decision topurchase. It was stated that the administrator would explainthe study in more detail after completion of the questions. Itwas also noted that an answer of uncertainty due to failure torecognize the key word was a strong indication of lack ofknowledge. Given these changes the survey instrument wasreduced to a one-page form to be administered orally withinapproximately 3 minutes. People were informed that any dis-cussion during administration would prolong the process.

With questions provided in a Microsoft Access" databaseformat and displayed on a computer screen, answers were pre-loaded into drop-down list boxes. Given the ability to applylogic to answers, interviewers could automatically activatewindows to collect related data items. This procedure createda structured database that required minimal data cleanup andediting.

In addition to summarizing response information, the Ac-cess database query system allowed creation of datasets that

48 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2008

Table 1. Respondent characteristics, demographics, homeownership, and furnishing preference.

ResponseNumberPercent

Gender Female 52 25

Male 152 75

Total 204100

Average age byFemale 44gender Male 45

EmploymentForestry or forest33 16products related

Other 171 84

Total 204100

Purchasing agentYes 56 27

No 148 73

Total 204100

NeighborhoodUrban 5828

Suburban 61 30

Rural 8542

Total 204100

U.S. CensusMidwest 5326Bureau regionNortheast 14 7

South 4723

West 8341

Other (Canada 7 3and Mexico)

Total 204100

Highest level ofHigh school 31 15educationTechnical school22 Ilattended

Univ. 11858undergraduate

Univ. graduate 33 16

Total 204100

Home ownershipYes 19093

No 14 7

Total 204100

Primary Brick 13 7constructionOther Imaterial onhome Steel 2

Wood 17492

Total 190100*

FumishingFabric 4 2preferenceOther 1 0

Wood 16078

Wood and fabric37 18

Wood and metal 1 0

Wood and plastic1 0

Total 204100*

*Due to rounding, areas may not total 100 percent.

included demographic information and related responses forall questions. Statistical testing was conducted by importingthe Access database into the Statistical Package for the SocialSciences (SPSS version 12.0.1). The specific feature of SPSSused in the analyses was the chi-square test in the crosstabsprogram, which tested for independence of respondentsgrouped by various demographic characteristics.Data collection

Survey information was collected at three trade shows at-tended by people with an active interest in purchasing forest

products (primary or value-added). The selected trade showswere held by the Association of Woodworking & FurnitureSuppliers (AWFS) and the International Builders Show (IBS),sponsored by the National Association of Home Builders(NAHB). Shows attended include AWFS 2003 in Anaheim,California; IBS 2004 in Las Vegas, Nevada; and AWFS 2004in Las Vegas, Nevada. Additional data collection was plannedfor 2005 or early 2006. A preliminary analysis of the dataindicated, however, there were no significant differences be-tween the two trade shows visited in 2004. Given the consis-tency of the two samples, data from these trade shows weresummarized and reported in early 2006.

All interviews were conducted from a booth with decora-tions and displays promoting Alaska forest products. In addi-tion, Alaska suppliers were invited to attend the show and sup-ply samples of their products. Individuals visiting the boothwere asked if they were willing to participate in a 3 minute,orally administrated survey to determine there reaction to se-lected terms and concepts related to forest products producedin Alaska. Given that the survey was administered orally andrequirements of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, Institu-tional Review Board (IRB) that only willing participants beinterviewed, it was not possible to conduct a secondary surveyof refusing individuals to test for respondent bias.

Defining purchasers as agents procuring lumber and value-added forest products for use in a business (wholesale pur-chaser) or consumers (retail purchasers) with an active inter-est in home building and/or furnishing, information was col-lected from 204 individuals.

ResultsDemographics

Information relative to respondents' characteristics, demo-graphics, and home ownership is presented in Table 1. Sev-enty-five percent of the respondents were male. Average ageof all respondents was between 44 and 45 years. Sixteen per-cent of the respondents were employed by forestry or forestproducts firms. Twenty-seven percent of the survey popula-tion was concerned with purchasing material for their organi-zation. Forty-one percent of the respondents were from thewestern region as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau in Fig-ure 1 (U.S. Dept of Commerce 2006). Fifty-eight percent ofthe population had attended college or attained a college de-gree. Ninety-three percent of the respondents owned theirown home. Ninety-two percent of respondents lived in homesprimarily constructed from wood. Fifty-eight percent of therespondents lived in urban or suburban areas. The respondents

Midwest27%

West42% E3 idWest

9 NortheastUSouth

Northeast

South24%

Figure 1.Respondents by U.S. Census Bureau regions.

FOREST PRODUCTS JOURNALVOL. 58, NO. 1/2 49

Table 2. -Responses to: Would you purchase forest products (lumber, furnishings) thatwere...

Question

Group I

from trees harvested from an old growth forest?

described as from slow grown trees?

described as strong and dense?

certified or green?

Group 2

from trees grown under sustained yield management?

produced from trees from a National Forest9

pi'oduced froni tree', from the Tongass forest?

Group 3

made from trees cut from a forest of concernenvironmentalist groups?

made from trees cut from a forest of concern topreservationist groups?

Response number

rN1'U°TRdNR'

136

34

34

20467%

17°o1700I 01)00

136

34

32

20267%

17%

16°

100°o

185

4

13

2029202°o600lOO°o

147

30

27

20472°olS°ol3°o100'

180420204

88°c2°o100010000

1285719204

63°o28°o9°o10000

II))306420454"o15°o310o10000

94882220446°o43°o11 100°o77913420238°c45°o17olOO°o

or forest products produced from oldgrowth trees. The levels of uncer-tainty associated with Group 1 ques-tions ranged from 6 to 17 percent.The highest level of uncertainty wasassociated with the question regard-ing old growth trees.

The majority response to Group 2questions (management and origin)was positive (yes, would purchase)with values ranging from 54 to 88percent. Negative responses (wouldnot purchase) ranged from 2 to 28percent. The highest negative re-sponse (28%) was to the term na-tional forest. Uncertainty responsesranged from 9 to 31 percent, with theterm Tongass receiving the highestlevel of uncertainty.

Group 3 questions (environmen-talist and preservationist) showedthe highest degree of polarizationwith approximately equal yes (38 to46°o) and no (43 to 45°o) responses.The uncertainty level for the environ-mentalist question was 11 percent.The uncertainty level for the preser-vationist question was 17 percent.

P

0

2

2

0

0

0

0

0

2

°Y )es: 'N = no: °U - uncertain. 'TR = total responses: 'NR = no response

Table 3. - Test for independence between consumer vs. purchto forest products preference questions, self view, and group m

Would you purchase forest products ('hi-squl

(lumber, furnishings) that were . . .ValuedfAsymptotic

• . .grown in Alaska? 2.4192front old growth forest'? 8.1332 0.1

• . . from slow grown trees? 0.7662 0.(strong and dense? 1.0962 0.from sustained yield management'?2.3122 0.3from a National Forest? 3.3642 0.1from Tongass Forests'? 1.5942 0.4certified or green'? 0.4262 0.8from an environmentalist group'?0.2452 0.ffrom a preservationist group? 0.4542 0.7

Self view and group membership (Consumer vs. purchasing agents)

Do you consider yourself an environmentalist?6.9412 0.0Are you a member of an environmental group'?0.8992 0.6Are you a member of a preservationist group?0.6981 0.4**950 0 probability that response is independent (different).

also indicated a preference for furnishings of wood or wood incombination with fabric, metal or plastic.

Purchasing preferencesResponses to all purchasing preference questions are pre-

sented in Table 2. When considering Group 1 questions (treedescriptions), the majority of respondents stated that theywould purchase lumber and/or forest products from the dc-scribed tree types. The negative response to Group I questions(respondent would not purchase) ranged from 2 to 17 percent.Sixty-seven percent stated they would purchase lumber and

sing agent responses Difference inmbership. responses: consumers

- vs. purchasing agentstest

- Chi-square analysis was used tosignificanceDifference evaluate and check for independence98 Noneof response to specialized questions)I7 **within Groups 1, 2, and 3 between,82 Noneconsumers and purchasing agents78 None(Table 3). With exception of the ques-15 Nonetion relative to purchase of forest86 Noneproducts produced from old growth

51forests, there were no significant dif-

Noneferences between the responses at the08 None95 percent level of confidence. Pur-:85 Nonechasing agents were more likely to97 Nonerefuse to purchase forest products

from old growth forests (29% of pur-31 **chasing agents vs. 12% of consum-38 Noneers). Regardless of this increased level03 None of sensitivity, the majority of both

consumers (70%) and purchasingagents (61%) would purchase mate-rial produced from old growth.

Data collectors were instructed to avoid presenting anyinformation that defined an organization as being environ-mental or preservationist. Membership in either type of orga-nization was very low for either group. Ten percent of con-sumers and 13 percent of the purchasing agents reportedmembership in an environmentalists group. Nine percent ofconsumers and 5 percent of purchasing agents reported thatthey were members of a preservationist group. At the 95 per-cent level of confidence there was no significant difference ingroup membership when considering consumers vs. purchas-ing agents.

50 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2008

Table 4. - Test for independence between respondents from various census regions toforest products preference questions, self view, and group membership.

Would you purchase forest products Response

produced from . . . NoUncertainYe

(percent)--

Would you purchase forest products(lumber, furnishings) that were .Valuedf

• . . grown in Alaska? 5.1096

from an old growth forest? 6.2656

from slow grown trees? 4.027o

• . strong and dense? 5.2266

• . from sustained yield management?3.7226

from a National Forest? 6.0806

from the Tongass Forest? 1.3256

certified or green? 12.0346

from an ens ironmentalist group?4.1566

from a preservationist group? 4.0906

Self view and group membership (consumer vs. purchasing agents)

Do you consider yourself an environmentalist'.)6.1976

Are you a member of an environmental group?8.6806

Are you a member of a presers ationist group?4.10))3

None: * *95 (N probability that response is independent (different).

• an old growth forest? 17 17

a National Forest? 28 9

the Tongass Forest? 15 31

Valuedf

Chi-square test 40.2974

*** 99 percent probability that response is independent (different).

Difference in responses: census regionsChi-square analysis was used to determine if the respon-

dents differed based upon their region of residence. The re-suits of this analysis (Table 4) indicate there were no signifi-cant differences in responses of people from the representedcensus regions (West, Midwest, Northeast, and South).

The terms: national forest,old growth forest, Tongass Forest

It is a general observation that people living and working insoutheast Alaska consider the terms national forest, oldgrowth forest, and Tongass forest as synonyms because theyare used to describe one common place or geographic area.Given that the survey does not include people from southeastAlaska, this observation cannot be statistically verified. If,however, the words are truly synonymous, a logical hypoth-esis would be that responses to the purchasing preferencequestions would be similar if tested for independence usingchi-square analysis. Results of this test are presented in Table5. In all cases the majority of respondents to these questionsanswered in the affirmative, indicating that they would buylumber and forest products from the named area. It is interest-ing to note, however, that the highest positive response (66%)was for material from old growth forest areas. The secondhighest positive response was for National Forest areas

FOREST PRODUCTS JOURNALVOL. 58. NO. 112

(63%), but this area also had thehighest level of negative (28%) re-spondents. The highest level of un-

Difference the question that contained Tongasscertainty (31%) was in response to

NoneForest as the key term. There was ahighly significant (99 percent levelNone

of confidence) difference betweenNonethe responses to these questions.NoneThis result indicates that respon-Nonedents, while expressing a positiveNonewillingness to purchase, did notNoneview the terms as true synonyms.

NoneNoneComments and conclusionNoneData collection took place at a

booth with displays of forest prod-Noneucts from Alaska. The booth wasNonedecorated with posters and was de-None signed to attract people and create a

positive image of Alaska. It is pos-sible that the creation of a positiveimage may introduce a bias into theresponse information for questionscontaining the term Alaska.

- Other personnel at the booth an-swered questions relative to the

Totalavailability of specific forest prod-ucts (lumber by species, grade,

100quantities, etc.). Many people inter-100ested in obtaining leads to purchase00products were logged into a "lead

system" database linked to a moreSignificancedetailed database using the barcode

on their badges. The product inqui-ries were made available to Alaskaproducers. A brief check of this leaddatabase indicated that many of the

people visiting the booth were small independent producers ofvalue-added forest products. It is not possible to link the leaddatabase to the consumer response database. The researchershold the opinion, however, that the results of this study are theresponses of individual consumers and purchasing agentsfrom small value-added forest products producers. The resultsdo not reflect purchasing agents of large wholesale firms orretail sales outlets.

The respondents to this survey represent a limited numberof people that were interested in and participants in homebuilding and value-added production of forest products. Re-gardless of other advertising and education efforts to createadditional wilderness areas, the respondents had a positiveview of and willingness to purchase Alaska forest products.This positive view extended to material that was harvestedfrom the Tongass National Forest and National Forest, in gen-eral. Results indicate that given a dependable supply of rawmaterial there is a potential for expansion of the value-addedwood processing industry in southeast Alaska.

Literature citedBrewer, B. 2003. Underneath Alaska. Sierra 88(2):33-39 and 66-67.

www.sierraclub.org/sierra./200303 /caves . asp. (20 December 2007).Bruner. G. and P. Hensel. 1992. Marketing Scales Handbook: A Compi-

lation of Multi-Item Measures. American Marketing Assoc.. Chicago,Illinois. 1315 pp.

51

Chi-sq uare test

0.401

((.1920.251

Table 5. - Comparison of response to key terms used to describe old growth, Tongass,and National Forest.

66

6354

Asymptoticsignificance

0.000

Gulick, A. 2001. Remains of the Rainforests. Sierra 86(6):26-29.Hattam, J. 2001. Wildlands Rept. Card. Sierra 86(2):67-69.Juslin. H. and E. Hansen. 2002. Strategic Marketing in the Global Forest

Industries. Authors Academic Press, Corvallis, Oregon. 607 pp.Laroche, M., J. Bergeron. and G. Barbaro-Forleo. 2001. Targeting con-

sumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly prod-ucts. J. of Consumer Marketing 18(6):503-520.

Nicholls, D., A. Brackley. and T. Rojas. 2006. Alaska's lumber-dryingindustry—Impacts from a federal grant program. Gen. Tech. Rept.PNW-GTR-683. USDA, Forest Serv., Pacific Northwest Res. Sta.,Portland, Oregon. 23 pp.

Snell, M. 2002. No New Wilderness? Sierra 87(6):16. www.sierraclub.org/sierra/20021 I /1o1 .asp. (20 December 2007).

Thomas, J., E. Hansen, and A. Brackley. 2005. An assessment of theeducational needs in the Alaska forest products industry. Forest Prod. J.55(9): 19-23.

U.S. Dept. of Commerce. 2006. Census Regions and Divisions of theUnited States. U.S. Census Bureau, Economic and Statistics Adminis-tration, www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf.

Vertinsky. 1. and D. Zhou. 2000. Product and process certification—Systems, regulations and international marketing. Inter. Marketing Re-view 18(3):231-252.

Western Products Assoc. 2005. Design values and spans for Alas-kan species lumber. Tech. Note 05-01. Western Wood Products As-soc., Portland, Oregon. 6 pp.

52 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2008