Abstract Developed in the early 1990s, Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) is an engineered wood product that consists of multiple layers of dimension lumber oriented perpendicular to one another and glued together to create structural panels. CLT has been used successfully in Europe for over 20 years and it is now entering the Canadian and Australian markets. It has also been gaining momentum in the U.S., particularly in the Pacific Northwest. This paper presents the results of a survey conducted to evaluate familiarity and perceptions of U.S. engineering firms about CLT, as well as their willingness to adopt it. Results indicate that the level of awareness of CLT is low to moderate. Highest ranked characteristics of CLT were its environmental and structural performance and its aesthetic properties, while lowest ranked characteristics were vibration and acoustic performance and lack of availability in the market. Influential barriers to the successful adoption of CLT involve building code compatibility, high material and construction costs, and a rather limited availability in the U.S. Most respondents indicated willingness to adopt CLT in the near future. Based on these results, this paper concludes that a successful market adoption of CLT in the U.S. will greatly depend on the familiarity of the CLT system and its advantages among construction professionals. This familiarity can be enhanced through promotional activities, educational initiatives, and successful demonstration projects. Keywords: adoption, cross-laminated timber, mass timber, perceptions, willingness, wood construction Awareness, Perceptions and Willingness to Adopt CLT by U.S. Engineering Firms 1 PhD, Department of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108. Email: lagua006@umn.edu. 2 Associate Professor, Department of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108. Email: espinoza@umn.edu. * Corresponding author. Acknowledgements: The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Tony Staeger and John Ellingson from HGA Architects and Engineers; Doug Steimle from Schaefer; David Barber, Hans-Eric Blomgren and Michelle Roelofs from ARUP; and Benton Johnson from Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. The research discussed in this paper forms the basis of a PhD Dissertation and was funded through the Department of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering Graduate Research Fellowship from the University of Minnesota. Maria Fernanda Laguarda-Mallo1* and Omar Espinoza2 BioProducts Business 3(1), 2018, pp. 1-14. http://biobus.swst.org. https://doi.org/10.22382/bpb-2018-001 1.0 Introduction Construction professionals today cannot afford to fol- low old models of design and construction (Bernheimer 2015a). Two major issues that will require firms to take a new approach involve climate change and a grow- ing world population. The construction of buildings across the world is currently dominated by concrete (Bernheimer 2015b), but production of cement, a primary ingredient in concrete, is a major source of pollution, producing a ton of CO2 for every ton of cement (Hanle 2013). One method of reducing the environmental im- pacts of construction involves increasing the use of materials with lower environmental footprints, such as wood. Approximately half of wood is carbon, effectively turning wood, either as growing stock or as end products, into “carbon sinks” (Lehmann 2011, Oneil & Lippke 2010). Wood’s natural heterogeneity, unpredictable defects, and variation of properties have been timber’s greatest disadvantages in the market of structural products. Engineered Wood Products were initially developed in order to account for this heterogeneity, more efficiently utilize the raw material and expand the uses of wood products in construction (Forest Products Laboratory 2010, MacKeever 1997). In EWPs manufacturing, wood boards, chips, or particles are assembled using adhesives and/or pressure to create a product with less variability, enhanced design characteristics, and more consistency and reliability than the original material (APA 2015, Forest Products Laboratory 2011). Thus, the produc- tion of EWPs can make use of small diameter trees, lower grade lumber, and a wider variety of tree species 2 BioProducts Business 3(1) 2018 (Paun & Jackson 2000). The development of EWPs, such as Glulam, I-joists, and strand and particle boards, has established new uses for wood in construction (CWC 2014, Paun & Jackson 2000). A recent innovation in EWPs was the development of CLT in Austria in the 1990s (Lehmann 2012). CLT is a building system (Chen 2012, Lehmann 2012, Oqvist, Ljunggren, & Agren 2012, Zumbrunnen & Fovargue 2012) composed of large-format solid timber panels that devel- oped as an extension of the technology that began with plywood (Crespell & Gagnon 2011, FPInnovations 2013, Lehmann 2012). CLT panels are composed of lumber boards that are glued together, alternating the direction of their fibers for each layer. The cross-lamination of lay- ers translates into panels that are monolithic, experience minimal shrinkage (both longitudinal and transversal), and can carry forces in all directions (Evans 2013). This stability can result in very small tolerances for prefab- ricated buildings. Developed in Europe over 20 years ago in the 1990s, CLT has been used as a structural system for various types of buildings, from residences and offices, to barns, power lines, schools, churches, bridges and mixed-use mid and high-rise buildings (CWC 2015). This versatility has added visibility and reputation to the system (Evans 2013, Sanders 2011). In Europe, the use of CLT has be- come very popular. More recently, it has been introduced in North American and Australian markets; more than fifty buildings have been built using this building system (Crespell 2015). Yet, the U.S. market for CLT is still in its embryonic stage (Laguarda-Mallo 2014). So far, only a handful of projects have been built using CLT, most of them with imported panels. 1.1 Product Adoption Rogers (2003) defines adoption as “a decision to make full use of an innovation as the best course of action avail- able.” Therefore, the adoption of an innovation relates to consumers’ individual decision-making processes regarding the full use of new products. This complex process involves multiple stages, which will be described in the following sections. 1.1.1 New product adoption process The successful introduction of a new product in the mar- ket carries significant economic risk for a firm (Armstrong, Kotler, & He 2013). A number of authors have addressed the process of product adoption (Harvey 1979, Urban & Gilbert 1971) and several models have been proposed (Beal, Rogers, & Bohlen 1957, King 1966, Rogers 2003). Beal et al. (1957), for example, propose the five-stage product adoption process, as shown in Figure 1. Awareness is defined in the marketing literature as the moment a consumer learns about a new product, service or brand and starts forming the first perceptions about its benefits and disadvantages (Armstrong et al. 2013). During this stage the individual usually has very limited information about the product. According to several authors, the level of awareness largely influenced by how and how much information about the product is getting to the potential consumer (Beal et al. 1957, King 1966, Rogers 2003). The second step in the adoption process relates to how attracted the consumer is to said product. At this point in time, the individual usually conducts a more in-depth research about the features and the performance characteristics of the product (Armstrong et al. 2013). It is not until the application stage, that the individual evaluates the new product and considers its advantages and disadvantages (Armstrong et al. 2013). During this stage, the potential consumer arrives to the conclusion of whether or not the new product should be tried out. A positive application leads to a trial period. Finally, the adoption of the product (King 1966). During the adoption the consumer starts using the new product. According to Gayle (2008), during this final stage, the individual often becomes an advocate for the product in their community. The role of these early adopters is essential in transferring product knowledge to other potential adopters. 1.1.2 Innovation adoption in the construction industry The construction industry has often been described as laggards with regard to the adoption of new technolo- gies (Ganguly, Koebel, & Cantrel 2010, Tangkar & Arditi 2004, Tatum 1987). Innovation is seen by (Wagner & Hansen 2005) as a source of competitive advantage that can benefit the construction industry, providing the critical component of a firm’s long-term competi- tive strategy (Slaughter 2000). However, the adoption of innovations is a highly complex process, where scarce research has been conducted. The risk associated with the adoption of an innovative material or process has been recognized by Slaughter (2000) as one of the most significant factors affecting the rate of adoption of a new product. Specific to the Laguarda-Mallo and Espinoza — Awareness, Perceptions and Willingness to Adopt CLT by U.S. Engineering Firms 3 construction industry, liability risk is considered one of the largest barriers to the adoption of new materials and technologies (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 2005). Design professionals, such as architects, engineers, and contractors, are often respon- sible for the performance of their buildings, including the specification of the materials used, and can face severe penalties when building components fail to perform as expected (Sido 2006). This liability is frequently shared with product manufacturers (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 2005). According to McCoy, Thabet, & Badinelli (2009), a complexity of the adoption process in the construction industry is caused by the large number of actors (e.g. suppliers, manufacturers, design professionals, and final users) involved in the decision-making process regarding the adoption of an innovation. Although design profes- sionals comprise only one group of actors involved in the decision-making process, their decisive role in the supply chain, as the specifiers of building requirements and materials, makes them essential to the success of the adoption of an innovative material or technology (McCoy et al. 2009). 1.2 Objectives Extensive research has been carried out to evaluate CLT performance as a structural system, including studies on CLT’s mechanical properties, fire and thermal performance, and seismic behavior (Harris et al. 2013, Karacabeyli & Douglas 2013, Kuilen et al. 2011). However, market research related to CLT is scarce. To address this gap in the literature, this study seeks to assess the market potential for CLT in the U.S. by investigating the level of awareness, perceptions, and willingness to adopt CLT by U.S. structural engineering firms, considered one of the key actors in the structural material decision-making process. The research presented here is part of a larger effort by the authors to study the adoption of innovative wood products, specifically CLT, by construction professionals. 2.0 Methodology A nation-wide survey of U.S. structural engineering firms was carried out with the purpose of learning about the community’s awareness and perceptions regarding CLT. The survey was conducted online, which provided a cost- effective approach to reaching a large geographic area (Dillman 2011, Sue & Ritter 2012). Qualtrics software was used in the development of the design, implementation, and data analysis of this study (Qualtrics 2016). Given the importance of engineers in the material selection process, engineers comprised the population of interest in this study. Based on information from prior interviews (Laguarda-Mallo & Espinoza 2014) and pre- liminary economic analysis conducted by FPInnovations (FPInnovations 2011), which concluded that commercial buildings represent a likely market for CLT, a decision was made to focus on U.S. civil engineering firms that work primarily with commercial (which includes office build- ings, retail, hospitals, restaurants, and hotels), industrial, institutional, and educational buildings. As a first step in the survey process, a list of U.S. structural engineering firms was compiled using an online database managed by the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC 2016). According to per- sonal communications with the Chair of Membership of the ACEC, this association represents licensed engineers of all fields, including civil structural engineering firms. The ACEC’s member directory provides search tools to generate lists of firms using criteria such as geographic location, type of engineering firm, and zip code. There are currently more than 5,000 firms listed in the ACEC’s database, representing more than 500,000 employ- ees throughout the country (ACEC 2016). As there are approximately 94,500 engineering firms operating in the U.S. (U.S. Census Bureau 2016), the ACEC database represents approximately 5.3% of all engineering firms in the U.S. 2.1 Sample Size Determination Choosing the sample size is a critical decision in any survey research. The objective involves selecting the Figure 1. Stages of the adoption process, according to Beal et al. (1957). Awareness Informan�on Applica�on Trial Adop�on 4 BioProducts Business 3(1) 2018 smallest sample size that allows for an adequate confi- dence level and margin of error. An appropriate sample size will help decrease the occurrence of sampling er- ror and sampling bias (Dillman 2011). Sample size was calculated with a desired level of confidence of 95%, a confidence interval of 5%, and a standard deviation of 0.5 (Dillman 2011). Assuming an expected response rate of approximately 25%, an initial sample of 1,600 firms was determined to be sufficient. The number of firms from each state to be included in the sample was calculated as a proportion of each state’s population. 2.2 Survey Development The first draft of the survey was created taking into consideration a previous survey to U.S. architecture firms conducted in 2015 (Laguarda-Mallo & Espinoza 2015). This questionnaire contained a total 15 questions, includ- ing 6 multiple-choice questions, 8 Likert-type items, and one open-ended question. The questionnaire covered the following topics: • Firm demographic information, including the location and size of the firm. • Sources of information used to investigate new structural materials, firms’ perceived innovativeness, and types of buildings and structural materials firms typically work with. • Awareness of CLT in the Engineering Community, including familiarity with CLT and how respondents learned about the system. • Perceptions about CLT, including how participants perceive the environmental, structural and economic benefits of the system. • Willingness to adopt the CLT building system. The survey questionnaire was then sent to two univer- sity professors with extensive knowledge in conducting surveys and two professional engineers. These individu- als provided detailed feedback about the questionnaire. Based on this feedback, changes were made to the questionnaire. The survey instrument included an introductory email to inform participants about the study and ask for their participation, including a link to access the web- based survey. The questionnaire started with a welcome page, information about the study, and a confidentiality statement. Questions were grouped according to the topics mentioned above. A final “thank you” message was presented to those respondents who completed the questionnaire. Participants were also asked whether they were interested in receiving a summary of the sur- vey results; those who answered positively were asked to provide an email address to which the summary would be sent. 2.3 Survey Pretest A pretest was conducted by sending the survey to sev- en U.S. structural engineering firms. These firms were asked to provide feedback on the survey’s clarity and potential errors. After one week, a reminder was sent to participants who had not yet responded. All seven firms’ representatives responded to the pretest. A pre- liminary analysis of the pretest responses did not show any problems completing the survey. 2.4 Survey Implementation An initial email was sent to all firms on the distribution list in February 2016. Three reminder emails were sent to those participants that did not complete the question- naire, one, two and three weeks after the initial email. Thus, the online survey was closed four weeks after the initial email was sent. Due to the low response rate obtained during the first iteration of the study, personal phone calls to all non-respondents were conducted over the course of the three weeks following the first reminder to obtain more responses. 2.5 Data Analysis Responses obtained from the survey were analyzed using similar data analysis techniques as the ones used in a previous study by the authors (Laguarda Mallo & Espinoza 2015). Descriptive statistics were calculated using Excel spreadsheets (Microsoft 2017). Chi-square tests were evaluated using IBM SPSS software at a 0.05 alpha level. 2.6 Limitations Authors recognize that as with any survey, there are many limitations that could arise (Dillman 2011, Laguarda Mallo & Espinoza 2015, Sue & Ritter 2012). The most important are listed below: • Measurement error: survey questions and answers could lead to inaccurate analysis because question and answer options may be interpreted differently by different respondents. Measurement error was minimized by the authors by seeking the input and feedback from experts and by conducting a pretest. Laguarda-Mallo and Espinoza — Awareness, Perceptions and Willingness to Adopt CLT by U.S. Engineering Firms 5 • Non-response bias: this bias could occur when respondents and non-respondents are significantly different (Berg 2005). In order to evaluate existence of any issues, non-response bias was calculated with early and late respondents. Results are presented in the results section of this manuscript. • Coverage error: using the ACEC database to compile the mailing list for this survey could introduce a source of coverage error, as not all U.S. structural engineering firms are associated with the ACEC (only 5.3% of all engineering firms in the U.S. are part of the ACEC), and some differences may exist between firms that belong to this association and firms that do not. • Similarly to what was done by the authors in a previous study (Laguarda Mallo & Espinoza 2015), a “multi-region” category was created, grouping those engineering firms that indicated to work in more than one region. Even though this helped the authors simplify the data analysis and make inferences, it is possible that some region-specific information was lost from after this regrouping (Laguarda Mallo & Espinoza 2015). • As with any internet-based survey, connection problems could have affected the completion of the survey (Laguarda Mallo & Espinoza 2015). • It is important to mention that responses from the survey represent the insights of only one of many professionals of the participating firms (Laguarda Mallo & Espinoza 2015). • Due to our sampling criteria of selecting engineering firms that work mainly with commercial projects, generalizations to the entire engineering community cannot be made. • Due to our low response rate (see next section “Results and Discussion”), generalizations to the population of interest are also difficult to make. 3.0 Results and Discussion 3.1 Response Rate The questionnaire was sent to a total of 1,601 U.S. struc- tural engineering firms. A total of 113 usable responses were received. Accounting for 110 firms that declined to participate or were not part of our target popula- tion (e.g., bridge engineering firms, consultants, etc.), 202 undeliverable emails, 1 duplicate address, and 12 incomplete (unusable) responses, the adjusted response rate was 8.8%. 3.2 Non-Response Bias Assessment Non-response bias refers to error in estimating a popula- tion characteristic based on a sample in which, due to non-response, certain types of respondents are under or not represented (Berg 2005). To assess non-response bias, respondents included in this study were separated in two groups, or “waves”: The first group corresponds to the early respondents and the second group cor- responds to the late respondents (Laguarda Mallo & Espinoza 2015). Late respondents were used as a proxy for non-respondents. Early and late respondents were compared using three demographic questions from the survey: location and size of the size, and level of awareness about CLT. Early and late respondents were compared using Pearson’s chi-squared tests with a significance value of 0.05. The test performed using the location criteria resulted in a chi-squared value of Χ2=0.997 and a p-value of 0.348 (p>0.05), indicating that there is no relationship between the time of response and the location of the firm. The association between the time of response and the size of the firm also shows that there is no statistically significant relationship between these two variables (Χ2=0.937 and p-value =0.812). Similarly, no statistically significant relationship was found between the timing of the response and the familiarity with CLT (Χ2=0.669 and p-value of 0.556). Based on these analyses, we concluded that no significant bias existed between respondents and non-respondents. 3.3 Firm Demographics In order to gain further insights about respondents, authors asked participants in in which U.S. region their firm operated. Multiple responses were possible. Firms working in more than one region were grouped into a “Multi-region.” Table 1 displays the counts and percent- ages of respondents for each region as well as firm size. 3.4 Sources of Information Findings about the most commonly used sources of information (Table 2) indicate that most engineering firms gather information about new materials from the web (93.8%), industry events, such as meetings with suppliers (78.8%), and design and construction-themed magazines (64.6%). The least mentioned media included webinars, with only 19.5% of respondents indicating 6 BioProducts Business 3(1) 2018 Table 2. Sources of information used to learn about new building materials. N=113. Source of information Count of respondents Percentage* Internet 106 93.8% Industry Events 89 78.8% Magazines 73 64.6% Academic Journals 70 61.9% Research Academics 61 54.0% Seminars 60 53.1% Books 58 51.3% Expos 42 37.2% Workshops 41 36.3% Conferences 39 34.5% Manufacturer’s Websites 37 32.7% Webinars 22 19.5% Unanswered 3 2.7% * Multiple responses were possible. have been discussed, of which “innovation characteris- tics” and “adopter’s characteristics” stand out. In regard to “adopter’s characteristics,” the most common criteria include age, education, and income (Arts 2008, Gronross 1997). Hirschman (1980) stated that “psychographic characteristics” are part of “adopter’s characteristics,” and include innovativeness, defined by the author as “a driver of adoption intention and adoption behavior as it captures the propensity of consumers to adopt new products.” To better understand how structural engineering firms perceive their own innovativeness and investigate the willingness of firms to adopt innovative wood-based materials, survey respondents were asked to rate their agreement with several statements related to employee training, the incorporation of innovation in the firm’s competitive strategy, and the openness to collabora- tion between the firm and other organizations. Results for these questions are shown in Figure 2. Research conducted on organizational innovativeness indicates that encouraging employee freedom to explore and in- novate positively influences innovative behavior at the individual, team, and organizational levels (Anderson 2014, Shalley & Gilson 2004). Results from our survey indicate that the majority of respondent firms invest in the training of their employees, with 93.8% of firms agreeing or strongly agreeing with the related statement. This is not surprising, given that professional engineers must fulfil continuing education requirements. Similarly, 92.0% of respondents indicated that their firms encour- age employees to research new materials. The inclusion of innovation in the corporate strategy seems to also apply to the majority of firms, as 84.1% of respondents agreed or strongly agree with the related statement. Statements with which respondents indicated the most disagreement were those related to collaboration with other firms or institutions; 66.3% of respondents stated they “strongly disagreed” or “disagreed” with the related statement. We hypothesize that the lack of collaboration relates to the market-driven nature of the engineering industry, where opportunities related to the research and development of new technologies or materials are scarce and the primary objective of firms is to deliver the final product, based on the clients’ specifications, within the stipulated amount of time and cost, all while minimizing the risk for the firm. A Pearson’s chi-squared test (α=0.05) was performed to determine whether there was a significant relationship between innovativeness and other demographic factors. Table 1. Location and firm size, as reported by survey respondents. N=113. Firm Characteristic Count of Respondents Percentage — Firm Location (U.S. Region) — Multi-region 38 33.6% Midwest 24 21.2% West 21 18.6% South 20 17.7% Northeast 10 8.8% Alaska/Hawaii 0 0.0% Total 113 100.0% — Firm Size (Number of Employees) — 1 to 4 employees 18 15.9% 5 to 9 employees 14 12.4% 10 to 19 employees 25 22.1% 20 to 99 employees 28 24.8% 100 employees or more 28 24.8% Total 113 100.0% that they use this source to learn about new materials. These results show an opportunity to promote innova- tive materials through articles and reports published on the internet and in magazines, as well as by introducing them at industry related events. 3.5 Innovativeness Over the past three decades, many studies have been conducted to evaluate factors that influence the adop- tion of new materials by consumers (Gatignon H. 2002, Gronross 1997, Rogers 2003). A wide range of factors Laguarda-Mallo and Espinoza — Awareness, Perceptions and Willingness to Adopt CLT by U.S. Engineering Firms 7 No statistical difference was found between location and innovativeness. However, a significant relationship was found between innovativeness and the size of the firm. Table 3 lists criteria for which a statistical difference was found. In the engineering community, innovation is seen as a competitive advantage. However, as in any sector, the successful introduction of an innovation usually requires an upfront investment and carries significant economic risk (Armstrong et al. 2013). Our results indicate that larger firms tend to invest more in innovation than smaller firms. It may be that larger firms have greater financial resources, thus allowing them to be more open to collaboration and innovation. In contrast, collabora- tion and innovation could be perceived as being more risky to smaller firms trying to stay competitive. 3.6 Type of Buildings Similarly to a previous study to U.S. architecture firms conducted by the authors (Laguarda Mallo & Espinoza 2015), participants of this study were also requested to state all the type of buildings their firm is most commonly involved with. Responses to this question are indicated in Table 4. As expected, per our sampling method, two- thirds (66.4%) of respondents indicated that they work with commercial construction. Other frequent responses included Industrial (46%), Educational (45.1%), and Multi- family (44.2%). Only 23.9% of sampled firms work with single-family residential buildings. 3.7 Materials Used by Type of Construction According to an exploratory study conducted by Laguarda-Mallo and Espinoza (2016), decisions regard- ing the structural material to be used in a commercial, industrial, institutional, or educational construction 24.5% 25.2% 22.1% 6.3% 41.8% 40.5% 32.7% 29.5% 8.9% 15.0% 6.2% 3.5% 30.0% 25.2% 35.4% 44.6% 57.1% 47.8% 68.1% 51.3% 9.0% 9.7% 22.3% 27.7% 36.3% 23.9% 42.5% Firm collaborates with research centers Firm collaborates with universities Firm collaborates with other firms Firm reviews and reflect on past projects Firm open to collaborate with manufacturers Innovation is in Firm's corporate strategy Employees are encouraged to research new materials Firm invests in training employees Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Note: percentages under 4% are not shown. Figure 2. Level of agreement with statements about firm innovativeness. N=113. Table 3. Statistically significant association between the size of the firm and innovativeness, as per Pearson’s chi-squared test. Innovativeness dimension p-value chi-squared “Firm collaborates with other firms” 0.003 16.017 “Firm collaborates with research centers” 0.008 13.745 “Firm open to collaborate with manufacturers” 0.001 17.576 “Firm collaborates with universities” 0.002 17.361 Table 4. Type of buildings that participant firms specialize on. N=113. Type of building Count of respondents Percent* Commercial 75 66.4% Industrial 52 46.0% Educational 51 45.1% Multi-family residential 50 44.2% Recreational 43 38.1% Government 35 31.0% Transportation 30 26.5% Religious 29 25.7% Single-family residential 27 23.9% Non responses 19 16.8% * Multiple responses were possible project are frequently made early in the design process. These decisions are influenced by many factors, includ- ing cost, code, and structural requirements. When asked about the materials used with each type of construction, respondents indicated light wood-frame as the primary type of material used for single-family residential con- struction and multi-family residential construction above foundation (53.1% and 32.5% respectively; see Figure 3). For single and multi-family buildings, light wood-frame 8 BioProducts Business 3(1) 2018 construction is generally more cost-competitive than concrete or steel alternatives (Laguarda-Mallo & Espinoza 2016). For taller (more than 5 stories) and larger build- ings with complex geometries and greater dead loads (i.e. stationary loads, such as self-weight of structural members), live loads (i.e. loads assumed by the intended use or occupancy of the building), rain, wind, snow, or even, in some cases, earthquake loads (ICC 2015) other materials become more cost-effective. This tends to be the case with commercial, institutional, transportation, and government buildings. Results shown in Figure 3 indicate that for these types of construction, steel, con- crete or a mix of both is typically selected. Due to the low response rate for each category tested, chi-squared tests could not be performed to evaluate the relationship between the materials used by each type of construction and other items in the questionnaire. 3.8 Importance of Materials Characteristics Decisions made during the material selection process are affected by personal materials preferences of construc- tion professionals and priorities set during the design process (e.g. cost, aesthetics, durability etc.) (Laguarda- Mallo & Espinoza 2016) For this reason, firms participat- ing in this study were asked to rate the importance of several materials attributes when selecting construction materials. A 6-point Likert scale was used, ranging from “very important” to “not at all important. Figure 4 sum- marizes responses to these questions. Findings presented in Table 4 show that the highest rated attributes that engineers look for in a construc- tion material include “compatibility with building code” (76.1% of respondents rated this attribute as “extremely important” or “very important”), “mechanical properties” (72.6%), “economic performance” (76.1%), “fire perfor- mance” (64.6%), “post-construction maintenance” (62.9%) and “availability in the market” (62.8%). LEED credits and acoustic performance did not appear to be a priority of engineers when selecting a material, as only 28.3% of respondents rated these characteristics as “extremely important” or “very important.” Similarly to the what was found in the study to U.S. architecture firms conducted by the authors (Laguarda Mallo & Espinoza 2015), at- tributes that are directly associated to the performance of structural elements are usually related the highest. Authors hypothesize that this is due to the fact that structural performance is intrinsically related to the safety of buildings and its occupants for which construction professionals are legally responsible for (Laguarda Mallo & Espinoza 2015, Pealer 2007, Sido 2006). Other features, including “economic performance,” “availability in the market,” and “post-construction maintenance”, which are commonly associated with the short and long-term cost of buildings (Laguarda Mallo & Espinoza 2015) were also rated high in importance among the engineering firms that participated in this study. These results were compared to a previous study conducted by Laguarda-Mallo and Espinoza (2015) to Figure 3. Structural materials (or combination of materials) typically used by respondents for building types listed on the left. N=113. 53.1% 32.5% 12.6% 7.2% 11.4% 16.1% 16.7% 6.3% 15.0% 9.0% 5.9% 5.7% 4.8% 6.9% 14.1% 20.0% 14.1% 12.4% 5.7% 7.6% 17.2% 9.4% 8.3% 26.1% 24.8% 32.5% 24.1% 23.8% 20.7% 30.7% 27.8% 4.7% 6.7% 13.1% 16.3% 18.2% 20.7% 18.1% 12.6% 18.9% 22.2% 4.7% 8.3% 13.1% 17.6% 28.6% 25.3% 20.0% 6.9% 24.4% 16.7% 7.8% 9.2% 12.1% 15.7% 13.0% 14.9% 14.3% 19.5% 16.5% 16.7% Single-family… Multi-family… Commercial Educational Transportation Governmental Recreational Religious Industrial Other Percent of respondents Wood-frame Concrete+Wood Wood+Steel Steel Concrete+Steel Concrete Masonry Note: percentages below 4% are not shown. Laguarda-Mallo and Espinoza — Awareness, Perceptions and Willingness to Adopt CLT by U.S. Engineering Firms 9 identify similarities and differences between architects and engineers. Both professions place considerable importance on the cost and structural capabilities of construction materials, but demonstrate very different opinions toward the aesthetic performance of construc- tion materials. Aesthetics was rated as “Very Important” or “Important” by 94.0% of architects that participated in the previous study (Laguarda Mallo & Espinoza 2015) and by only 6.2% of engineers that participated in the study discussed in this paper. The results from two previous studies conducted by the authors (Laguarda-Mallo & Espinoza 2014, Laguarda Mallo & Espinoza 2015) indicated that location and size of firm may be associated with the way professionals rate material’s attributes. For this reason, chi-square tests at a 0.05 alpha were conducted to determine the validity of this statement. Results from the tests performed in- dicate that there are statistically significant differences between engineering firms in different locations and how “earthquake performance” was rated (p-value = 0.000, chi-squared = 21.027). This isn’t surprising, giv- en that some regions experience seismic events with more frequency and intensity than others (Dieterich & Okubo 1996, Koyanagi, Endo, & Ward 1976). In regard Figure 4. Importance of the characteristics listed on the left for specifying a structural material. N=113. 8.0% 12.4% 6.2% 5.3% 14.2% 13.3% 13.3% 23.9% 27.4% 19.5% 32.7% 41.6% 46.9% 46.0% 8.8% 18.6% 19.5% 19.5% 26.5% 27.4% 26.5% 27.4% 27.4% 17.7% 35.4% 43.4% 31.9% 31.0% 29.2% 34.5% 23.0% 25.7% 31.0% 27.4% 24.8% 28.3% 37.2% 28.3% 26.5% 11.5% 19.5% 26.5% 15.0% 15.9% 10.6% 8.0% 15.0% 12.4% 19.5% 17.7% 17.7% 14.2% 8.8% 6.2% 14.2% 9.7% 8.8% 23.9% 21.2% 9.7% 10.6% 11.5% 14.2% 10.6% 4.4% 10.6% 16.8% 11.5% 4.4% 17.7% 8.8% 8.0% 8.8% 8.8% 9.7% 8.8% 8.0% 9.7% 13.3% 8.8% 9.7% 8.0% 8.8% 8.0% 8.0% 10.6% LEED Credits Acoustic performance Vibration performance Environmental… Aesthetics Maintenance Moisture performance Complexity of… Availability of design… Earthquake performance Availability in the market Post-construction… Fire performance Economic performance Mechanical performance Compatibility with… Percent of respondents Extremely important Very important Important Moderately important Somewhat important Not at all important Non response Note: Percentages below 4% are not shown. Characteristics on the left are sorted using the two highest importance ratings (“Extremely important” and“Very important”), with the largest percentage at the top. to firm size, responses were significantly different for “earthquake performance” (p-value = 0.006, chi-square = 14.601) and “vibration performance” (p-value = 0.027, chi-squared = 10.961). These results may suggest that smaller firms, which are more likely to be associated with commissioned projects, such as single and multi- family residential buildings, could be placing a higher importance on vibration - a greater concern for these types of buildings than others. 3.9 Level of Awareness As seen in the introductory section of this manuscript, the first step to the adoption of a new product relates to how familiar of potential consumers are with said product. One of the purposes of this research was to establish the level of familiarity or awareness about CLT among U.S. structural engineering firms. Findings (Table 5) indicate that the familiarity with CLT among engineering firms in the U.S. is low to moderate. A combined 59.3% of respondents indicated that they were “not very familiar” or that they “have not heard about it.” This indicates that there is a need for education and training on CLT among the engineering community if this product is going to be more widely adopted in the U.S. 10 BioProducts Business 3(1) 2018 Due to the low response rate for each category tested, chi-squared tests could not be performed to evaluate relationships between the level of awareness, location, and firm size. Because the rest of the survey questions required some knowledge of CLT, a “skip logic” was set up in the questionnaire to direct those respondents that “have not heard about CLT” to a short description about CLT, its characteristics, and claimed advantages, followed by two questions. The first question addressed the sur- vey respondent’s interest in learning more about CLT; the second question addressed the likelihood that the respondent would adopt the system for future projects. Of the 22 respondents that had not heard about CLT, 12 indicated that they were at least “somewhat interested” in learning more about it. With regard to the likelihood that the respondent would adopt CLT for a future project, 5 respondents indicated that it would be adequate while 7 indicated uncertainty. This uncertainty is consistent with the low familiarity of these respondents with CLT. The following section will explore the responses of those participants of the study that reported having some familiarity with CLT. These participants were ask to indicate how through which source they first learned about CLT. The results in Table 6 show that most firms learned about CLT from the internet, design and con- struction-themed magazines and conferences (37.9%, 36.8% and 36.8% respectively). The least mentioned media included radio, television, newspaper and word- of-mouth, each of which were selected by less than 7% of the respondents. Respondents were also given the option to indicate whether they heard about CLT from another source. Two respondents indicated that they learned about CLT from a “design partner,” one indicated “PE (The Principles and Practice of Engineering) Exam,” another indicated “salesman,” and one respondent wrote that they heard about CLT through this survey. Beyond the 22 respondents that did not know about CLT, 87 respondents that were familiar with CLT were left for analysis. 3.10 Perceptions About CLT The way potential consumers perceive new products is central in the adoption process. According to Cooney (2014) and Armstrong et al. (2013), perceptions could be as or more important than the actual characteristics of the product. To address this question, participants of this study were requested to rate CLT attributes in comparison to traditional building materials (e.g., steel and concrete). Findings are presented in Figure 5. The highest-rated features of CLT included “aesthet- ics,” “environmental performance,” and “mechanical per- formance;” which were perceived as “good” or “average” by 51.7%, 51.7%, and 36.8% of respondents, respectively. This is consistent with the results from a previous study of U.S. architecture firms (Laguarda-Mallo and Espinoza 2014), in which aesthetics, environmental and structural performance were also the highest ranked CLT attributes. The lowest ranked characteristics were “availability in the market,” “acoustic performance,” and “vibration perfor- mance,” perceived as “good” or “average” by only 3.4%, 8.0% and 9.9% of respondents, respectively. Recent re- search indicates that due to its massive nature, CLT-based systems achieve good acoustic performance and provide adequate noise control for both airborne and impact sound transmissions, especially if sealant and other types of acoustic membranes are used to provide air tightness and improve sound insulation at the interfaces between floor and wall plates (Sylvain Gagnon 2011, S. Gagnon & Karacabeyli 2013). With regard to availability in the U.S. market, as of October 2016, CLT panels are not yet widely available. Only three U.S. manufacturers exist and only one of which is certified to produce CLT panels for construction under the ANSI/APA Standard for Performance rated CLT (PRG 320 (ANSI 2012)). Due Table 6. Sources of information from which respondents learned about CLT for the first time. N=87. Source of information Count of respondents Percent Internet 33 37.9% Magazine 32 36.8% Conference 32 36.8% Academic Journal 8 9.2% Relative/ Friend 6 6.9% Newspaper 5 5.7% Television 1 1.1% Radio 0 0.0% Non-responses 3 3.4% Table 5. Familiarity with CLT reported by respondents? N=113. Familiarity with CLT Count of respondents Percent Very familiar 13 11.5% Somewhat familiar 29 25.7% Not very familiar 45 39.8% Have not heard about it 22 19.5% Unanswered 4 3.5% Laguarda-Mallo and Espinoza — Awareness, Perceptions and Willingness to Adopt CLT by U.S. Engineering Firms 11 Figure 5. Respondents’ perceptions about the performance of CLT compared to other materials (e.g. steel, concrete). N=87. 5.7% 6.9% 9.2% 10.3% 11.5% 20.7% 26.4% 6.9% 8.0% 5.7% 8.0% 16.1% 12.6% 12.6% 18.4% 14.9% 23.0% 13.8% 16.1% 25.3% 31.0% 25.3% 11.5% 13.8% 14.9% 18.4% 17.2% 5.7% 12.6% 19.5% 17.2% 16.1% 16.1% 20.7% 18.4% 16.1% 5.7% 9.2% 20.7% 10.3% 16.1% 9.2% 5.7% 5.7% 17.2% 11.5% 5.7% 8.0% 8.0% 11.5% 12.6% 5.7% 20.7% 8.0% 4.6% 4.6% 8.0% 4.6% Availability in the market Vibration performance Acoustic performance Moisture performance Maintenance LEED Credits Compatibility with Building… Post-construction maintenance Earthquake performance Availability of design tools Fire performance Economic performance Complexity of construction Mechanical performance Environmental performance Aesthetics Good Average Below average Poor Don't Know Percent of respondents Note: Percentages below 4% are not shown. to the low data count for each category tested, chi- squared tests could not be performed to evaluate the relationship between how CLT attributes are perceived and other criteria within the survey. 3.11 Willingness to Adopt CLT The third objective of this study was to determine wheth- er the population of interest would be willing to adopt CLT if it were available in the market. This information is essential to evaluate the potential market success of CLT in the U.S. Table 7 presents participants’ responses to this question. More than half of respondents (57.8%) indicated that they would be “very likely” or “likely” to adopt CLT in one of their future building projects if it were available in the U.S.; 35.6% were “uncertain” and 12.6% indicated “unlikely” or “very unlikely” to adopt the system in the future. These findings are consistent with the level of awareness reported previously, as more than a third of professionals would be hesitant to adopt a material with which they are not very familiar. 3.12 Barriers to the Adoption of CLT To comprehend which product or market factors could hinder the widespread adoption of CLT in the U.S. (Laguarda Mallo & Espinoza 2015), participants of this study were asked to rate the importance of a series of barriers. Findings presented in Figure 6 show that “avail- ability in the market” is considered the largest barrier among respondents (85.0% of respondents considered it a large or potential barrier). Second, 78.1% of respon- dents perceived cost as a large or potential barrier. Third, compatibility with building codes was also considered a barrier, with 75.9% of respondents indicating that the building code is a large or potential barrier. Fourth, the lack of technical information about CLT was perceived as a large barrier by 70.1% of respondents. Furthermore, 69.0% of respondents also indicated “promotion/educa- tion” as a large barrier. These results indicate that non- profit organizations looking into the advancement of wood construction could have an opportunity to further educate the U.S. engineering community. Table 7. Willingness to adopt CLT by respondents, if it were “readily available” in the U.S. for the participants’ building projects in the near future? N=87. Likelihood to adopt Count of respondents Percent Very likely 12 13.8% Likely 32 36.8% Uncertain 31 35.6% Unlikely 8 9.2% Very unlikely 3 3.4% Non-responses 1 1.1% 12 BioProducts Business 3(1) 2018 Findings also demonstrate that 58.6% of participants of this study believe that the amount of raw material used to manufacture CLT panels could represent a large barrier for the wide adoption of the system in the U.S. Based on the ten expert interviews from the study conducted by the authors in 2014, 6 respondents agreed that the main disadvantage of CLT is the large volume of wood required for its manufacture (Laguarda-Mallo and Espinoza 2014). In the same study, one interviewee with experience in design and calculation of CLT structures estimated that CLT panels use approximately three times the wood a wood-frame system requires. Unexpectedly, however, the amount of wood necessary to manufacture CLT panels was not seen as one of the possible barriers to archi- tecture firms surveyed in a later study (Laguarda-Mallo and Espinoza 2015), which suggests either informed knowledge about the U.S. forest inventory, or a lack of knowledge about the amount of wood required in the production of CLT, which is likely the case given that the level of familiarity with CLT was still low (only 4.3% of respondents indicated they were “very familiar” with CLT). In the present study, respondents were also given the opportunity to indicate any other perceived barriers not listed in the questionnaire. “Other” barriers listed included “no experience” and “contractor education.” Chi-squared tests (alpha = 0.05) were performed to determine whether there was a significant relationship between the level of familiarity with CLT and barriers to adoption of the system in the U.S. Tests indicate that there is a statistically significant relationship between the level of awareness of the respondent and the way the respondent perceives CLT availability (p-value =0.022, chi-squared = 14.732) as well as with the amount of 11.5% 12.6% 12.6% 20.7% 23.0% 27.6% 28.7% 42.5% 59.8% 46.0% 59.8% 49.4% 46.0% 48.3% 49.4% 42.5% 12.6% 26.4% 13.8% 16.1% 16.1% 10.3% 5.7% Maintenance cost Amount of wood CLT performance Availability of technical… Promotion/Education Compatibility with Building Code Construction cost Availability in the market Large barrier May be a barrier Not a barrier at all Percent of respondents Note: Percentages under 4% are not shown. Figure 6. Perceived barriers to adoption of CLT in the U.S. N=87. wood required to manufacture CLT panels (p-value = 0.008, chi-squared =17.370). Results indicate a significant relationship between the likelihood of adoption and the availability of technical information (p-value =0.032, chi-square = 13.767) as well as CLT performance (p-value =0.003, chi-square = 19.965), stressing the importance information has on the adoption process. Results also indicate that there is an opportunity to improve the likelihood of adoption by making information about CLT available to potential adopters. 4.0 Conclusion The primary purpose of this research was to examine the level of awareness, perceptions, and willingness to adopt CLT by engineering firms in the U.S, known as key actors in the material selection process. Finding of this study indicate that the level of familiarity with CLT in the structural engineering community in the U.S. is moder- ate, as only 13 respondents indicated they were “very familiar” with the CLT system. From all respondents with some familiarity with CLT, 33 firms indicated that they obtained the information from internet, 32 from maga- zines, and 32 at conferences, seminars or workshops. These findings are consistent with the results obtained from a similar study conducted by the authors with U.S. architecture firms (Laguarda-Mallo and Espinoza 2015). Results from this study show that the highest rated attributes of CLT are its aesthetic characteristics and its environmental and structural performance. On the other hand, lacking availability in the market was one of the perceived disadvantages of the product, which coincides with the current state and domestic availability Laguarda-Mallo and Espinoza — Awareness, Perceptions and Willingness to Adopt CLT by U.S. Engineering Firms 13 of CLT in the U.S. Similarly to what was found in a previ- ous study by the authors (Laguarda Mallo & Espinoza 2015), engineering firms familiar with CLT participating in this survey indicated lacking availability, initial costs, and building code compatibility issues as the largest perceived barriers to adoption of the system in the U.S. Further, a considerable percentage of study respondents perceived CLT performance and maintenance costs as additional barriers. This is consistent with the lack of experience surrounding CLT among U.S. construction professionals. Survey results suggest that engineers would be hesitant to adopt CLT, even if it were readily available in the U.S. market. Findings of this study show that improving and expanding wood educational programs and making information about innovative wood-based construc- tion systems readily available to potential adopters (e.g. architects, engineers, contractors, etc.) will be of great importance to the CLT market. Certainly, the wide adoption of CLT in the U.S. will take time. Demonstration projects recently developed in the U.S. and Canada may help. The experiences of professional that worked in the design and/or construction of these projects, as well as the perceptions and experiences of end users, could be used to educate professionals and consumers alike on the possibilities of CLT systems and promote its wide adoption across the U.S. Rewards for embracing CLT will also help with the acceptance of the construction system in the U.S., while showcasing CLT's capabilities in demonstration buildings. Information obtained from this study will inform organizations supporting the forest products industry, such as non-profit, government and industry associations, businesses willing to enter the CLT market, and professionals interested in embracing the possibilities this novel system has to offer. 5.0 REFERENCES ACEC. (2016). American Council of Engineering Companies, 2016, from http://www.acec.org/ Anderson, B. P., K.; Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A State-of-the-Science Review, Prospective Commentary, and Guiding Framework. Journal of Manage- ment, 40, 1297-1333. doi: 10.1177/0149206314527128 ANSI. (2012). Standard for Performance-Rated Cross-Laminated Timber (Vol. ANSI/APA PRG 320-2012, pp. 29): American Na- tional Standards Institute. APA. (2015). The Engineered Wood Association Retrieved April 7, 2015, from http://www.apawood.org Armstrong, G., Kotler, P., & He, Z. (2013). Marketing: an introduction (10th Edition ed.): Prentice Hall. Arts, J. (2008). Essays on New Product Adoption and Diffusion. PhD, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brusells, Belgium. Beal, G. M., Rogers, E. M., & Bohlen, J. M. (1957). Validity of the concept of stages in the adoption process. Rural Sociology, 22(2), 166-168. Berg, N. (2005). Non-Response Bias. In K. Kempf-Leonard (Ed.), ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SOCIAL MEASUREMENT (Vol. 2, pp. 865-873). London: Academic Press Bernheimer, A. (2015a). Timber in the City: ORO Editions. Bernheimer, A. (2015b). Timber in the City: ORO Editions. Chen, Y. (2012). Comparison of environmental performance of a five- storey building built with cross-laminated timber and concrete. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Cooney, M. (2014). Perceptions in Marketing. Part 1. Business Life. com. Retrieved from http://www.businesslife.com/articles. php?id=387 Crespell, P. (2015, March 2015). Crespell, P., & Gagnon, S. (2011). Cross-Laminated Timber: a Primer [PowerPoint Presentation]. Vancouver, B.C. Canada: FPIn- novations. CWC. (2014). Canadian Wood Council Retrieved November 15, 2014, from http://cwc.ca CWC. (2015). The Canadian Wood Council CWC Retrieved April 7, 2015, from http://cwc.ca Dieterich, J. H., & Okubo, P. G. (1996). An unusual pattern of re- curring seismic quiescence at Kalapana, Hawaii. Geophysical research letters, 23(5), 447-450. Dillman, D. A. (2011). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method--2007 Update with new Internet, visual, and mixed-mode guide: John Wiley & Sons. Evans, L. (2013). Cross Laminated Timber: Taking wood buildings to the next level. Continuing Education Center Retrieved March 3rd., 2014, from http://continuingeducation.construction. com/article.php?L=312&C=1138 Forest Products Laboratory. (2010). Wood handbook: wood as an engineering material: United States Government Printing. Forest Products Laboratory. (2011). Economic Use of Beetle‐Killed Trees (pp. 10): USDA Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. FPInnovations. (2011). CLT- Assessing the Market Opportunity in North America. Cross Laminated Timber Symposium, Feb- ruary 8-9, 2011 [PowerPoint Presentation]. Vancouver, BC: FPInnovations. FPInnovations. (2013). CLT Handbook: Cross-laminated Timber: FPInnovations. Gagnon, S. (2011). CLT – Structural Design. Cross Laminated Timber Symposium, February 8-9, 2011 [PowerPoint Presentation]. Vancouver, B.C. Canada: FPInnovations. Gagnon, S., & Karacabeyli, E. (2013). Status of Cross-laminated Timber construction in North-America. In P. J. d.-S. Cruz (Ed.), Structures and Architecture: New concepts, applications and chal- lenges (pp. 66-73). EH Leiden, The Netherlands: Taylor & Francis. Ganguly, I., Koebel, C. T., & Cantrell, R. A. (2010). A categorical modeling approach to analyzing new product adoption and usage in the context of the building-materials industry. Tech- nological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(4), 662-677. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2009.10.011 Gatignon H., T. M. L., Smith W., Anderson P. (2002). A Structural Approach to Assessing Innovation: Construct Development of Innovation Locus, Type, and Characteristics. Management Science, 48(9), 1103-1122. doi:10.1287/mnsc.48.9.1103.174 Gayle, R. (2008). The 5 steps to adopting an innovation. Spreading Science, 8, 2014. Gronross, J. C. M. (1997). Assessment of the market potential for environmentally certified lumber and wood products among 14 BioProducts Business 3(1) 2018 buyers of new homes in Minneapolis/St. Paul and Chicago. Master of Science, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Hanle, L. J., K.; Smith, J. (2013). CO2 Emissions Profile of the U.S. Ce- ment Industry (pp. 14): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Harris, R., Ringhofer, A., & Schickhofer, G. (Eds.). (2013). Focus Solid Timber Solutions - European Conference on Cross Laminated Timber. Graz University of Technology, Austria. Harvey, J. W. (1979). Evaluative conflict and information search in the adoption process. Advances in Consumer Research, 6(1), 209-213. Hirschman, E. C. (1980). Innovativeness, Novelty Seeking, and Consumer Creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 7(3), 283- 295. doi: 10.2307/2489013 IBM. (2017). SPSS software - Predictive analytics software and solutions Retrieved April 26, 2016, from http://www-01.ibm. com/software/analytics/spss/ ICC. (2015). International Code Council Retrieved April 19, 2015, from http://www.iccsafe.org Karacabeyli, E., & Douglas, B. (Eds.). (2013). Cross-Laminated Timber Handbook. Pointe-Claire, QC: FPInnovations and Bionational Softwood Lumber Council. King, C. W. (1966). Adoption and diffusion research in marketing: An overview: Institute for research in the behavioral economic and management sciences. Koyanagi, R. Y., Endo, E. T., & Ward, P. L. (1976). Seismic activity on the Island of Hawaii, 1970 to 1973. The Geophysics of the Pacific Ocean Basin and its Margin, 169-172. Kuilen, J. W. G. V. D., Ceccotti, A., Xia, Z., & He, M. (2011). Very Tall Wooden Buildings with Cross Laminated Timber. Procedia Engi- neering, 14(2011), 1621-1628. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. proeng.2011.07.204 Laguarda-Mallo. (2014). Awareness, Perceptions and Willingness to Adopt Cross-Laminated Timber in the United States. MS, Univer- sity of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN. Dissertations & Theses @ CIC Institutions; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I database. Laguarda-Mallo, & Espinoza. (2014). Outlook for Cross-Laminated Timber in the United States. BioResources, 9(4), 7427-7443. Laguarda-Mallo, & Espinoza. (2015). Awareness, Perceptions and Willingness to Adopt Cross-Laminated Timber in the United States. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2015(94), 198-210. Laguarda-Mallo, & Espinoza, O. (2016, August, 2016). Cross-Lami- nated Timber vs. Concrete/Steel: Cost Comparison Using a Case Study. Paper presented at the World Conference on Timber Engineering, Vienna, Austria. Laguarda Mallo, & Espinoza. (2015). Awareness, Perceptions and Willingness to Adopt Cross-Laminated Timber by the Architec- ture Community in the United States. Journal of Cleaner Produc- tion(0). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.090 Lehmann, S. (2012). Sustainable Construction for Urban Infill De- velopment Using Engineered Massive Wood Panel Systems. Sustainability, 4, 2707-2742. Lehmann, S. H., C. (2011). Sustainable Infill Development Using Low Carbon CLT Prefabrication: Adaptation for the South Australian Context. Zero Waste SA Research Centre for Sustainable Design and Behaviour. University of South Australia. MacKeever, D. (1997). Engineered Wood Products: a Response to the Changing Timber Resource: Pacific Rim Wood Market Report. Mayo, J. (2015). Solid Wood: Case Studies in Mass Timber Architecture, Technology and Design (1st. Edition ed.): Routledge. McCoy, A. P., Thabet, W., & Badinelli, R. (2009). Understanding the role of developer/builders in the concurrent commercialization of product innovation. European Journal of Innovation Manage- ment, 12(1), 102-128. doi: doi:10.1108/14601060910928193 Microsoft. (2017). Microsoft Office Excel: Microsoft. Retrieved from https://products.office.com/en-us/excel Oneil, E. E., & Lippke, B. R. (2010). Integrating products, emission offsets, and wildfire into carbon assessments of Inland North- west forests. Wood and Fiber Science, 42, 144-164. Oqvist, R., Ljunggren, F., & Agren, A. (2012). On the uncertainty of building acoustic measurements - Case study of a cross- laminated timber construction. Applied Acoustics, 73(2012), 904-912. Paun, D., & Jackson, G. (2000). Potential for Expanding Small- Diameter Timber Market - Assessing Use of Wood Posts in Highway Applications (pp. 28). Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. Pealer, C. (2007). Professional Liability Insurance: when to Get Serious. Architectural Record. Puettmann, M. E., Bergman, R., Hubbard, S., Johnson, L., Lippke, B., Oneil, E., & Wagner, F. G. (2010). Cradle-to-gate life-cycle inventory of US wood products production: CORRIM Phase I and Phase II products. Wood and Fiber Science, 42(2010), 15-28. Qualtrics. (2016). Qualtrics, from http://www.qualtrics.com/ Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press. Sanders, S. L. (2011). Behavior of Interlocking Cross-Laminated Timber (ICLT) Shear Walls. MSc, Brigham Young University. Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 33-53. Sido, K. R. (2006). Architect and Engineer Liability: Claims Against Design Professionals: Aspen Publishers Online. Slaughter, E. S. (2000). Implementation of construction innova- tions. [Article]. Building Research & Information, 28(1), 2-17. doi: 10.1080/096132100369055 Staube, J., & Burnett, E. (2005). Building Science for Building En- closures. Westford, MA, United States: Building Science Press. Sue, V. M., & Ritter, L. A. (2012). Conducting online surveys: Sage. Tangkar, M., & Arditi, D. (2004). Innovation in the Construction Industry. Civil Engineering Dimension, 2(2), pp. 96-103. Tatum, C. B. (1987). Process of innovation in construction firm. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 113(4), 648-663. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2005). Overcoming Barriers to Innovation in the Home Build- ing Industry - Volume I (pp. 176). Silver Spring, MD: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Devel- opment and Research/Building Technology Incorporated. Urban, B. O., & Gilbert, A. C., Jr. (1971). Five dimensions of the in- dustrial adoption process. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research (pre-1986), 8(000003), 322. US Census Bureau. (2017). United States Census Bureau Retrieved February 16, 2016, from http://www.census.gov US Energy Information Administration. (2016). Consumption and Efficiency Retrieved Nov. 2, 2016, from http://www.eia.gov/ consumption/ Wagner, E. R., & Hansen, E. N. (2005). Innovation in large versus small companies: insights from the US wood products industry. Management Decision, 43(6), 837-850. Zumbrunnen, P., & Fovargue, J. (2012, 16-19 July). Mid-rise CLT buildings - The UK's experience and potential for AUS and NZ. Paper presented at the World Conference on Timber Engi- neering, Auckland.