Explores negative perceptions limiting engineered wood use in construction, highlighting implications for stakeholders.
Engineered wood products have emerged as a sustainable alternative to conventional materials in multi-storey buildings. However, their adoption is limited by negative perceptions within the construction industry and related sectors. This study investigates these views and explores their underlying causes, by analysing the perspectives of stakeholders from seven countries in South America and Europe, including forest-sector firms, manufacturers, designers, developers, contractors and policymakers. The results reveal attitudes mainly associated with environmental concerns, building performance, and business risks, which cluster into three domains: technical performance, contextual perceptions and economic-regulatory conditions. Resistance to change is a central driver of these negative and often unfounded views across all contexts analysed, in which stakeholders lack experience and show reluctance to collaborate within a fragmented supply chain. The industry, therefore, prefers familiar solutions for predicting costs, facilitating insurance, and managing established supply chains. This preference results in fewer precedents and corresponding data, reinforcing perceptions that extend beyond the construction industry to policymakers, financiers, and insurance companies, which in turn impose new restrictions, limit funding, and offer premium insurance policies. This study demonstrates how such perceptions themselves function as constraints to establish wood as a viable option for multi-storey buildings and to drive decarbonization in construction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wiegand et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: