Institutional and policy frameworks shaping the wooden multi-storey construction markets: a comparative case study on Austria and Finland

Abstract

In the urbanizing society faced with the climate change challenge, wood has major potential as a lowcarbon and renewable construction material. Yet, Wooden Multi-storey Construction (WMC) remains a niche even in countries with rich forest resources. This paper compares the institutional and policy setting and assesses the WMC growth prospects in Austria and Finland, based on expert interviews, Delphi surveys, and the review of secondary materials. Clear differences were detected in the policy frameworks and institutional settings between the two countries. The Austrian fairly informal and largely private sector driven approaches to promote the growth of the WMC sector seem to have had a rather similar effect on the markets, as the formal policy measures, typically driven by the public sector in Finland. In both countries, the interviewed experts suggested additional, but partly different, policy measures and institutional changes to accelerate WMC market diffusion. In spite of the increase in WMC activity within the past ten years, the WMC market share is likely to remain rather low by 2030 in both countries, as the institutional frameworks are not expected to change abruptly. However, the future market prospects appear to be somewhat more positive in Finland compared with Austria.

A consumer-driven bioeconomy in housing? Combining consumption style with students' perceptions of the use of wood in multi-storey buildings

“…Additionally, MSWB also sequester carbon for several decades (Mahapatra and Gustavsson 2008 ), and therefore support a sustainable forest-based bioeconomy transition more than other short-lived timber products, like bioenergy or paper (Näyhä 2019 ). Amidst these positive possibilities, policy support was ultimately instrumental in the diffusion of MSWB in Finland (Vihemäki et al 2019 ). The resulting policy-push has contributed to an overall increase in the volume of wood-based material used in residential construction.…”

The impact of policy instruments on the first generation of Tall Wood Buildings

“…Beside regulatory requirements, Vihemäki et al (2019) suggest that economic and persuasive PIs may support wood constructionand these could be used in isolation or combined. Numerous policies based on diverse PIs were implemented to promote timber use by the building industry (e.g.…”

“…Mohammad et al, 2018;Hein, 2014;Robinson et al 2016). Interestingly, Vihemäki et al (2019) highlight that effective innovation support requires appropriate regulations, information diffusion and private interest. Finally, policies focused on information campaigns on timber construction benefits were implemented in countries such as, Sweden, Norway, and United Kingdom (e.g.…”

“…The potential benefits are evident; yet, numerous social, economic, technical, and political issues pose difficulties for using wood in construction (e.g. Dumler et al, 2020;Vihemäki et al, 2019). Even when in developed regions, significant amounts of wood have been harvested without affecting forest resources negatively, across tropical and developing regions, inadequate forest-management practices resulted in substantial degradation and deforestation (Ramage et al, 2017).…”

Main Design Considerations and Prospects of Contemporary Tall Timber Apartment Buildings: Views of Key Professionals from Finland

“…Multi-story timber construction has been promoted in Finland since the 1990s [8,9], and multi-story buildings can be the biggest opportunity for growth in timber construction in Finland [10]. Furthermore, today, multi-story timber building has had an opportunity to expand in Finland with policy support [11], as in the cases of the 14-story high Light-house Joensuu [12], the 13-story high HOAS Tuuliniitty [13], and the eight-story high Puukuokka 1 [14].…”