Social Representations of Mass Timber and Prefabricated Light-Frame Wood Construction for Multi-Story Housing: The Vision of Users in Quebec

Abstract

The increased use of wood and prefabrication are solutions that are helping to address current and future challenges in the construction sector. However, these practices are slow to become widespread due to the conservative nature of this industry. The objective of this study is to characterize the social representations of Province of Quebec (Canada) individuals with regard to these construction methods in order to determine the motivations and barriers to their use in the construction of multi-story housing. The social representations of a representative panel of the Quebec population were collected through standardized surveys. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The results indicate that the use of wood in the construction of high-rise multi-story housing is not part of the representations of a majority of Quebecers. The motivations identified are the aesthetics of wood and the environmental aspect, although forestry exploitation remains an important concern for respondents. The main barriers are the safety aspect and lifespan because they tend to dominate the other themes in decision making. The results suggest that the acceptance and adoption of these construction methods by users can be improved by adapting the transfer of knowledge towards the negatively perceived themes and the identified social groups.

1. Introduction

The construction sector is responsible for 39% of global greenhouse gas emissions [1]. In order to reduce the environmental footprint of buildings, efforts in the building sector have traditionally focused on operational phase emissions [2,3,4,5]. Embodied energy (energy consumption related to the materials used in construction) has, until recently, accounted for only 10% to 20% of total life-cycle energy consumption [6]. However, it seems complicated to continue to significantly improve environmental performance in the operational phase of the building without adding a significant contribution to the embodied energy of the building, such as reinforced insulation for example [2,4]. Thus, the decrease in energy consumption in the use phase, but also the higher consumption of materials, has led to a proportional increase in embodied energy in buildings [6]. This now constitutes 11% to 50% of the overall impacts in North America [5]. Of course, the shares of embodied energy and energy related to the operational phase are variable depending on the climates, construction methods and energy grid mixes of the regions of implementation [4,5]. This is particularly true in the Province of Quebec, where the embodied energy in construction can be as high as 46% due to its energy mix being primarily oriented towards hydroelectric power generation [2,7].

These new constraints, as well as the rapid decrease in non-renewable resources, are driving the construction sector to use low-carbon materials, such as wood, as an alternative to carbon-intensive materials, such as concrete or steel [8]. In addition, the potential for prefabrication and industrialization of construction processes [9], and the democratization of engineered wood products in the 2000s for multi-story building structures [10], have contributed to the development of this sector. However, although the use of wood is common in low-rise buildings, multi-story wood construction is still a niche, even in forest-rich regions, although it has great potential to improve the sustainability of the construction sector [11,12]. The rise of engineered wood products, updated building codes for fire protection combined with a pro-wood policy have led to the recent increase in wood use in Canada and the construction of taller wood buildings than before [13,14,15]. Today, Robichaud [16] noted that the use of wood as a structural material is more common for multi-story housing construction, with a strong preponderance of wood in constructions of four floors and fewer (84%) and a breakthrough for constructions with five and six floors (11%). He explained this evolution by a recent regulatory opening of the 2010 National Building Code allowing light-frame construction at five or six floors (applied in 2015 in Quebec). He also noted that the professionals believe that they will use more massive wood structures (38%) and light-frame structures (33%) in 5–6 story residential construction in the future [16].

In addition, wood construction technologies allow for industrialized prefabrication—the off-site manufacturing of building elements and components. This practice increases process efficiency throughout the various construction phases, allowing for increased productivity and production quality through a controlled factory environment [17,18]. Prefabrication is also considered as one of the main solutions to address the labor shortage in Quebec [19]. The various benefits of off-site construction have been documented many times [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27]. Construction time, planning, cost, quality, productivity, on-site worker safety, and environmental performance were identified by Kamali and Hewage [26] as the main benefits cited in the literature. However, these authors also noted the existence in the literature of conflicting studies, due to the singular nature of the projects, the actors involved, and the conditions of implementation. Among the disadvantages or challenges identified for prefabricated construction are, for example, the constraints related to the construction site and transportation, the complexity of communications and coordination, and the planning of operations, which becomes more complex than the traditional model due to the necessary concordance between the progress of preparatory work on site, construction in the factory, and delivery constraints. In addition, the initial financial investment required for this mode of manufacturing is much higher than traditional construction, implying an economy of scale in production [26,28]. Prefabrication solutions appear to allow a better production management, but require in return better management and integration of project stakeholders [24].

Based on the opportunities brought by wood material and prefabrication, multi-story wood buildings have been identified as one of the housing trends of the future [29]. However, despite its many advantages, wood remains an uncommon material for multi-story building construction [30], due to the very conservative nature of the construction industry, the very strong cultural change involved, and the social representation of innovation often associated with risk [21]. Thus, as previous research and experiences in various countries indicate, established ways of operating in multi-story construction favor widely used materials, such as concrete, as the structural materials, due to strong pre-established practices (established standards, regulations, construction culture, etc.) [21,31,32,33]. These dependencies have caused blockages. For example, dependence on existing practices in business model implementation and risk management have slowed the adoption of industrial wood construction technologies [30,34,35,36].

These findings reflect a lack of research on social representations about blockages. Thus, this study will firstly describe the state of the art of the acceptability of mass timber constructions and prefabricated construction in wood light-frame, by focusing on the representations of the users. Secondly, the results of the study carried out in Quebec will be presented.

A large volume of research on multi-story wood construction has focused on the views of construction professionals [30,33,37,38], who strongly influence material decision making in recent years [32,36,39]. However, perceptions of end users, drivers of demand, have received much less academic attention [36,40]. Among studies of consumer preferences for wood products, few addressed it as a structural material [41]. Most dealt with associated characteristics, such as its visual attributes [42], tactile attributes [43], its effects on users’ health through biophilia [44,45,46], etc. Although some studies compare wood to other materials [41], few compare consumer perceptions between concrete, steel, and wood in the context of multi-story built environment. Therefore, understanding of consumer preferences for wood over other materials in various applications in multi-story housing is limited. Although homeowner and tenant preferences currently have little influence on material selection, and are, thus, poor predictors of building material use in multi-family construction, this information is valuable to those making these decisions. This is especially important when new building systems and materials are introduced [12,41].

However, several studies have addressed users’ representations of wood as a structural material in multi-story construction [36,38,40,41,47]. One of the main findings is that, as for professionals, users’ representations are highly correlated with factors of tradition [41] or past experiences (such as major fires for example) [40]. Thus, users with greater knowledge of the material from a cultural, heritage, or experiential perspective (such as a previous housing) tend to be more favorable to its use in multi-story housing construction. Therefore, there is a need to study perceptions of wood in the context of use [40,41].

These studies show that physical characteristics of wood, as a structural material, are mentioned by users as one of the aspects that most influence their perception of this material in the majority of the countries studied [40]. Specifically, durability (lifespan and maintenance) and resistance of wood (to fire, water, or other natural events) are the main concerns of respondents, although some respondents also described wood as durable and resistant [40]. These studies also suggest that attitudes toward durability and strength have a major effect on structural material preferences [41]. For example, users tend to prefer concrete and steel for their structural strength to wood construction methods [40,41,47,47,48,49]. In addition, respondents for whom durability and strength are very important have an even stronger preference for concrete than for wood [41]. Høibø et al. [41] also found that there is a significant interaction effect between importance of durability, knowledge about wood, and type of structural material preferred. Thus, the more durability is important to users and the less they know about wood, the more they prefer concrete for the structure of buildings. However, when knowledge of wood is high, concerns about durability and strength have only a little influence on the preference of structural material. In other words, lack of knowledge leads to choosing of a safe and well-known option, such as a concrete structure.

On the environmental topic, on one hand wood is considered renewable, environmentally friendly during its life cycle by supporters, although this aspect was rarely mentioned [40]. In a study by Viholainen et al. [40], respondents valued local wood from responsible forest management practices. On the other hand, some respondents disapproved of wood use in construction due to deforestation and negative impacts on wildlife habitats [40]. Finally, respondents’ environmental concerns may increase preference for wood compared to other building materials [41]. However, the environmental friendliness of a wood product is less of a determining factor for a purchase compared to other product characteristics, such as quality and durability [50].

On another front, aesthetic and comfort features are generally positively mentioned. The respondents often referred to the lifestyle and quality of life of the occupants, to the aesthetics described as warm and natural, and to the heritage dimension [40]. The visual aspect is appreciated regardless of the respondents’ culture [40]. However, a small portion of respondents did not seem to appreciate the ambiance provided by wood. Some felt that too much wood in an interior could be overwhelming [40,51], and others felt that wood should not be exposed everywhere [40,52]. Overall, the study by Viholainen et al. [40] showed that for a majority of respondents, wood is a versatile building material (floors, decks, beams, trusses, windows, etc.), while another group at the other end of the spectrum defines wood as outdated, suitable for only a limited number of building applications, such as fences, gates, and perhaps sheds [40].

Topics related to economics of wood construction were rarely mentioned. In the Viholainen et al. study [40], the responses were largely about affordability of wood and included various answers such as cheap, affordable, or expensive. Conversely, Austrian, German, and Danish citizens most often state that wood is an expensive building material, both regarding construction and maintenance [40].

For prefabrication, Akmam Syed Zakaria et al. [21] identified three main factors in the literature as having a major role in the adoption of this construction method: (1) contextual factors, such as sustainability, economics, technology, government policy, and stakeholders; (2) structural factors, such as project type or size, procurement methods, management, and governance; and (3) human-related factors, such as experience and attitudes. This study will focus on all these factors, which will be addressed through representations. As with wood construction, representations related to prefabrication seem to be particularly important as they determine the personal attitudes of decision makers, which influence the selection of construction materials and processes [21].

Regarding light-frame wood prefabrication, much of the literature has noted, in the history of the industry, a negative public perception, independently of the material aspects [21,22,26,53]. Today, it hinders the rapid development of these construction techniques, despite the evolution of manufacturing processes and product quality. In addition, social representations about prefabricated construction have been characterized as very difficult to change, significantly influencing behaviors and decision-making processes [21,26]. However, it is recognized that many of the barriers to prefabricated construction stem from limited experience [22,54].

Others negative aspects of prefabrication are standardization and customization [54]. Indeed, prefabrication forces to work from standard components, which has often been opposed to customization and design authorship for architects [54]. The industry’s move toward greater automation and even robotics has been identified as offering very high customization [17,28,54].

In conclusion, mass timber and prefabricated light-frame wood construction, as new construction methods for multi-story buildings, face the challenge of adoption by professionals, but also by users.

To promote the use of wood, several recent studies have aimed to characterize users’ perceptions of wood material for multi-story housing construction [36]. These studies were mainly in Scandinavia (Finland, Sweden, or Norway) and Central Europe, with only a few in the United States, Australia, and Canada [36]. Despite the recent increase of studies on the development of multi-story wood housing construction market, international scientific research on the topic is still in its early stages [36]. In addition, it seems that very few studies have been carried out to compare the preferences of users regarding wood among others construction methods. Information on the role of financial issues, such as the role of insurance, in relation to the development of the multi-story wood construction market is completely lacking [36].

The literature suggests that wood construction and prefabrication have significant advantages for construction, but they are not sufficient for rapid acceleration of multi-story wood construction activity [21,33,36]. Lack of experience in using wood and dependencies on pre-established practices with concrete and steel continue to be the main barriers to integrating wood in multi-story construction [21,30,32,35]. In parallel, and although research suggests that end users have little influence on structural material selection, demand-side facilitators and barriers remain a major unknown, due to a gap in the research [36]. Therefore, this lack makes it impossible to determine if there is a demand for this type of construction.

The aim of this study is, therefore, to characterize the social representations of individuals regarding wood construction and prefabricated light-frame wood construction in the Quebec context in order to determine the current levers and barriers to its use in the construction of multi-story housing.

2. Materials and Methods

Human and social sciences survey methods allow people to express directly their views and opinions, which are unobservable and untestable. Therefore, the survey method is suitable for the purpose of the study. Considering the sample size required to achieve a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error, in line with social science standards [55,56], the use of a standardized questionnaire proved to be the most suitable approach. The interview method, although more qualitative, would have required too much time to approach a significant number of respondents.

The study is based on data collected in March 2021 by an electronic survey sent to 567 people, aged 18 and over, living in the province of Quebec from the Léger Opinion Online panel (LEO). Participants were selected by random representative sampling of the Quebec population, based on different criteria, including gender, age, and region of residence. Quotas were established based on socio-demographic data for Quebec [57,58].

Data collection was conducted in successive phases until quotas were reached. The use of online panels has limitations [59,60]. In particular, there is a bias related to the fact that respondents need internet access to participate, as well as a risk of poor-quality data generated by unmotivated respondents who provide false responses or respond too quickly. These limitations are balanced against the various strengths of online panels, including their cost-effectiveness, speed of collection, and guarantee of a large and demographically representative sample size. In addition, to mitigate these limitations, respondents with high non-response rates and those who responded too quickly to read the questions were eliminated and replaced with new respondents. A set of 400 valid questionnaires with an overall completion rate of 92.4%, a confidence level of 95%, and a margin of error of 5% were collected.

2.1. Content of the Questionnaire

The questionnaire was divided into five parts: the first with the three socio-demographic information necessary for the establishment of the quotas, the second on the structural materials, which aimed at positioning mass timber and wood light-framein comparison with the other main structural modes, the third on the representations associated with mass timber, the fourth on the representations associated with prefabrication in wood light-frame, and the fifth containing useful socio-demographic information.

The questions were developed in the spirit of the literature [41,47,53,61,62]. The questionnaire consisted only of closed-ended, single-choice, multiple-choice, and scale questions. For most of characterization questions, participants selected a proposal from different items offered or proposed new ones, if the item was not present. For qualification of social representations, they ranked items or evaluated listed variables using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from a negative to a positive value or from disagreement to approval [55]. In this study, prefabrication was not defined in order to let the respondents indicate their representations in relation to their own definition. Variables were asked in random order in multiple variables’ questions to reduce potential bias due to order.

Prior to diffusion, the questionnaire was pre-tested with a small sample of subjects to improve the quality of the writing and the reliability of the results. This test was conducted with seven respondents of varying socio-demographic characteristics. Comments received regarding content, question structure, and responses were used to improve the questionnaire. The questionnaire presented to the respondents contained 32 questions. The average completion time for the questionnaire was 14 min and 11 s. The final questionnaire is available in Appendix A in a detailed form by variable.

2.2. External Validity and Socio-Demographic Characterization of the Sample

Beyond the variables that made it possible to define the sample, various data were collected, as much on socio-demographic characteristics as on those of housings. The aim here was to characterize the external validity of the research and potentially to identify respondent profiles in a more detailed manner. These data include the type of neighborhood inhabited, the type of housing, the height of the building, the occupancy status (owner or tenant), the type of structure, the presence of wooden elements in housing, the professional category, the annual income, the link with the construction sector, and the cultural affiliations. Having constructed the sample on the basis of certain characteristics (gender, age, and region of residence), it appears that the sample is close to the characteristics of the Quebec population in other respects, or at least shows a similar trend.

Thus, in this sample, 62.5% of respondents reside in single-family or semi-detached houses, against 53.9% in the Quebec population [63], and 30.2% in apartment buildings or condominiums, against 45.5% in the Quebec population [63]. Among these buildings, 82.5% of them are buildings of four floors or fewer, compared to 88.3% in the Quebec population, and 17.5% of them are buildings of five floors or more, compared to 11.7% in the Quebec population [63]. There is, in the sample as well as in the Quebec population, a significant relationship between the type of dwelling and the occupancy status. Residents of single-family or semi-detached houses are mainly owners (88.2% of the sample versus 90.8% for the Quebec population), while residents of apartments or condominiums are mainly renters (76.3% for the sample versus 74.1% for the Quebec population) [63]. In total, 7.3% of respondents have a job related to the construction industry compared to 5.7% in the Quebec population [64]. However, it is important to note that the sample is not representative of the annual income of the Quebec population [65], since, as shown in Figure 1, modest incomes are under-represented and high incomes are over-represented.

Other characteristics were assessed, but they remain specific to the sample, since we do not have comparative data. Thus, the sample is also characterized by respondents living mainly in residential suburbs (59.6%) and downtown (23%). Concerning their housing building structure, light-frame wood structures are the most frequently declared by the respondents (45.9%), followed by concrete (14.5%) and mass timber (13%), while 23.3% do not know their housing structure. Regarding simplified professional categories, 37.4% of the respondents are employees, 25.9% pensioners, 8% managers and liberal professionals, 7.8% students, 6% intermediate professions, 5% unemployed, 2% workers, 1.3% craftsmen, merchants, or company managers, 0.3% farmers, and 6.3% people who classified themselves otherwise. Other data, such as the presence of wooden elements in the housing and cultural affiliation, were collected, but they had no influence on the results, and therefore, do not need to be detailed here.

2.3. Data Analysis

Processing of the data, obtained with the questionnaire, was performed using Sphinx IQ2 data analysis software [66]. The data were analyzed in three stages, using descriptive statistical methods.

In the first step, the main statistical treatments used were headcounts, percentages, and cross-tabulations to describe and summarize the data for each question. Responses to questions requiring item ranking were checked for consistency, and the distribution of responses was globally consistent.

In the second step, in order to determine whether the overall trend of the representations of the sample is rather positive or negative towards wood construction methods, a common scale was constructed. In order to be able to compare different types of variables, it was necessary to reduce them to the same type of data. To do this, variables that used Likert scales were used as a base, and the means were reversed when the question was asked in negative form in the questionnaire. This makes it possible to obtain data that express a favorable or unfavorable trend regarding wood construction methods. For textual variables, they were transformed into numerical values. Thus, the variables concerning lifespans are noted positively if the perceived lifespan is long, and negatively if the perceived lifespan is short. Finally, for the variables proposing a choice of materials, mass timber and wood light-frame were noted as positive while steel and concrete were noted as negative, while answers of the type I do not know were noted as neutral. The mode of analysis is identical for the textual variables concerning prefabrication versus on-site construction. Thus, the averages obtained express the trend of representation for each variable on an axis ranging from a positive (+2) to a negative (−2) representation of wood building methods. Thanks to these data treatments, it is possible to present all types of results on the same graph, which makes reading and overall understanding easier.

In the third step, multi-factorial analysis was performed by integrating all the responses (excluding the variables concerning the respondents’ characteristics) in order to highlight specific response profiles among the respondents. To make the results more relevant and readable, we decided to keep only variables that contributed most to the construction of the axes (above the average contribution). Factors are constructed by vector calculations, in relation to both the type of response and the number of individuals who chose that response. It is a representation in space of the sample’s responses represented on several factorial planes. Response profiles can, thus, be identified by comparing the positions in the graphs of the most contributing responses on several factorial planes. The position in space of two groups, thus, makes it possible to tell whether they are opposite or independent with respect to the origin of the axes. Thus, the flatter the angle is, the more opposite they are. That is to say that these groups are identical on one axis and opposite on the other, so they have a relationship of contradiction. Conversely, the righter the angle is, the more independent they are. The independent groups are constructed on different variables and have no or few items in common with other groups of respondents, so they are not positioned in relation to each other. The multi-factorial analysis was limited to the study of four factors in order to keep only the most contributing factors to the establishment of profiles.

In the fourth step, cross-tabulations were used to find significant relationships between population socio-demographic characteristics and responses about wood construction methods. A relationship was determined to be significant if a p-value ≤ 0.05 was obtained with the Khi2 statistical test. Only characteristics with at least five significant relationships with other variables were retained. This limit was set in order to deal exclusively with marked respondent profiles. Then, to understand these significant relationships, the nature of the majority representations in their distributions were analyzed. The distribution of the over-represented and under-represented headcount in relation to the statistically calculated theoretical distribution in each variable was then used to classify representations towards wood construction methods or prefabrication into three categories: rather positive, rather neutral, or rather negative. Thus, the identified respondent groups are statistically stronger contributors to a position with regard to the sample average.

3. Results

In this section, the results will be presented in two parts. First, the representations associated with the main structural materials, mass timber and prefabricated light-frame wood construction, will be detailed. Secondly, analysis of the response profile of the sample will be presented with global response profile, multi-factorial analysis of the responses, and the study of significant relationships between respondents’ characteristics and responses obtained.

Please note that in order to simplify the tables and figures presented below, abbreviations will be used for constructive systems: steel (S), concrete (C), mass timber (MT), wood light-frame (WLF, and prefabrication (P). Other abbreviations are also used for the response modalities: totally disagree (TD), disagree (D), it depends (N), agree (A), and totally agree (TA)

3.1. Representations Associated with Wood Construction Methods

3.1.1. Representations Associated with the Main Structural Materials

This section focuses on the comparison of different structural materials. The aim is to identify the advantages and disadvantages of each material by questioning the technical, aesthetic, comfort, and durability aspects.

Concerning the main structural materials, it appears that most respondents would prefer to live in buildings constructed with mass timber (42.5% of responses) for aesthetic reasons, construction quality, and thermal comfort (see Figure 2). Concrete buildings were the second choice, with 29.6% of responses, and are valued for the acoustic comfort, durability, and safety they provide. As for the buildings built with wood light-frames, they are chosen for local expertise and transformation capacity (new items proposed by respondents): knowledge of the construction method, structural evolution, or ease of construction and versatility. These results were partly confirmed by other questions about thermal and acoustic comfort. Thus, mass timber is considered better for thermal comfort (53.9%), followed by concrete (30.3%), wood light-frame (9.8%), and steel (6%). For acoustics, 63.6% of respondents believe that concrete provides better comfort, followed by mass timber (25.6%), steel (5.8%), and wood light-frame (5%).

For mass timber, aesthetics is all the more a factor of desirability because it is the only type of construction that the majority of respondents wish to leave visible in their housing. Indeed, 76.6% of respondents are in favor of it, compared to 23.5% for wood light-frame, 16.4% for concrete, and 9.3% for steel. Mass timber is also perceived as the most high-end structural material (37.3%), followed by concrete (34.5%), steel (26.3%), and wood light-frame (2%).

The buildings in which respondents would least like to live in are steel and light-frame wood buildings, in equal proportions (35.2% of responses) (see Figure 3). Thus, steel buildings are not appreciated for thermal and acoustic comfort they offer and for the aesthetics of the material. Light-frame wood construction is not desired for reasons of strength, durability, safety, and quality of construction. Finally, 26.3% of respondents do not wish to live in concrete buildings, due to aesthetics of material, thermal comfort, as well as environmental balance and atmosphere created by the material (cited spontaneously by the respondents). It is also important to emphasize that mass timber construction presents both very high desirability and low rejection in social representations (see Figure 2 and Figure 3). Note that concrete is as much desired as not desired.

Regarding the perceived lifespan of the main building materials, while the majority of respondents believe that the lifespan of a building constructed in steel, concrete, or mass timber is at least 60 years, 39.7% believe that lifespan of a light-frame wood building is 40 years or less. Only 15.5% think so for all other construction methods (see Figure 4).

Regarding the environmental impact, respondents find mass timber the more environmentally friendly for multi-story housing construction (29.5%), followed by wood light-frame (24.8%), steel (24.5%), and concrete (21.3%). This representation can be explained by the fact that the question concerned the construction of multi-story residences. In fact, a highly significant statistical relationship (p =< 0.01; dl = 15) exists between eco-friendly materials variable and the variables 15.1 (Khi2 = 53.76), 15.2 (Khi2 = 67.18), 15.3 (Khi2 = 55.51), and 15.4 (Khi2 = 35.21) dealing with the acceptability of a mass timber and light-frame wood high-rise construction (for details of the variables, see

Table A1. Questionnaire used for this study.

Variable Wording	Question	Subquestion	Items
Obtaining consent from respondents
1. Gender	You are:		A man A woman Non-binary
2. Age	How old are you?		Under 18 years old 18–24 years old 25–34 years old 35–44 years old 45–54 years old 55–65 years old 65 years and older
3. Region of residence	In which region of Quebec do you live?		Abitibi-Témiscamingue Bas Saint-Laurent Capitale-Nationale Centre du Québec Chaudière-Appalaches Côte-Nord Estrie Gaspésie-Îles de la Madeleine Lanaudière Laurentides Laval Mauricie Montérégie Montréal Nord-du-Québec Outaouais Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean
4. City of residence	In which city?		open answer
The structural materials (shown in the images below) support the building and provide solidity to resist time, loads, and weather. At the end of construction, they are often no longer visible, hidden by the finishing materials.
PICTURE NOT AVAILABLE FOR COPYRIGHT REASONS Steel building	PICTURE NOT AVAILABLE FOR COPYRIGHT REASONS Concrete building	PICTURE NOT AVAILABLE FOR COPYRIGHT REASONS Mass timber building	PICTURE NOT AVAILABLE FOR COPYRIGHT REASONS Light-frame wood building
5. Positive building preference	Which of these buildings would you most like to live in?		Steel building Concrete building Mass timber building Light-frame wood building
5.1. Reason for positive building preference	For what reason(s)?		Acoustic comfort Thermal comfort Durability Aesthetics of the material Quality of construction Safety Solidity Other: open answer
6. Negative building preference	Which of these buildings would you least like to live in?		Steel building Concrete building Mass timber building Light-frame wood building
6.1. Reason for negative building preference	For what reason(s)?		Acoustic comfort Thermal comfort Durability Aesthetics of the material Quality of construction Safety Solidity Other: open answer
7.1. S Lifespan 7.2. C Lifespan 7.3. MT Lifespan 7.4. WLF Lifespan	In your opinion, what is the average lifespan of a building constructed in:	Steel Concrete Mass timber wood light-frame	20 years or less 40 years 60 years 80 years 100 years and more
8. Eco-friendly materials	What do you think are the most environmentally friendly structural materials for multi-story housing construction?		Steel Concrete Mass timber wood light-frame
9. Acoustic comfort	What materials do you think provide the best acoustic comfort?		Steel Concrete Mass timber wood light-frame
10. Thermal comfort	What materials do you think provide the best thermal comfort?		Steel Concrete Mass timber wood light-frame
11. High-end materials	In a multi-story housing, what structural materials do you consider high-end?		Steel Concrete Mass timber wood light-frame
12.1. Exposed S 12.2. Exposed C 12.3. Exposed MT 12.4. Exposed WLF	Would you leave these structural materials visible in your residence?	Steel Concrete Mass timber wood light-frame	Not at all Rather not It depends Rather yes Very much so
13.1. MT fire safety	Regarding mass timber construction, do you agree with the following statements?	Mass timber construction performs as well as concrete in the event of fire.	Totally disagree Disagree It depends Agree Totally agree
13.2. MT deterioration		Very often, mass timber structures do not age well (cracks, swelling, moisture, mold, termites, etc.).
13.3. MT structural strength		A building built with mass timber is less resistant than buildings built with other materials.
13.4. MT structural deformation		A mass timber structure deforms over time.
13.5. Exposed MT degradation		A visible wood structure degrades rapidly over time.
13.6. MT maintenance		A wooden structure requires more maintenance than a concrete structure.
13.7. MT construction cost		For multi-story housings, mass timber is more expensive than concrete.
13.8. MT insurance cost		When living in a mass timber building, insurance costs are higher.
13.9. MT chemical treatment		Mass timber contains many chemicals.
13.10. Deforestation		The use of wood in construction leads to deforestation.
13.11. Biodiversity damage		The monoculture of forests producing timber harms biodiversity.
14. MT qualitative exposure	Would you appreciate having a mass timber structure at least partially visible in your residence?		Not at all Rather not It depends Rather yes Very much so
15.1. MT 1–4 floors 15.2. MT 5–6 floors 15.3. MT 7–12 floors 15.4. MT 12 floors and more	Mass timber construction is suitable for building multi-story housings:	4 stories or less Between 5 and 6 stories Between 7 and 12 stories More than 12 stories	Totally disagree Disagree It depends Agree Totally agree
16.1. P temporary building	Mass timber construction is suitable for building multi-story housings:	Temporary constructions	Totally disagree Disagree It depends Agree Totally agree
16.2. P high quality		Quality
16.3. P fragility		Fragility (climatic events, etc.)
16.4. P identical design		All identical designs
16.5. P affordable		Affordable construction
16.6. P factory production		Factory made
16.7. P pollution		Pollution (transport, etc.)
16.8. P standardization		Standardization
16.9. P controlled cost		Controlled costs
16.10. P regulation		High regulatory requirements
16.11. P fire safety		Low fire safety
16.12. P structural resistance		Low structural resistance
17. P lifespan	In your opinion, what is the lifespan of a prefabricated light-frame wood building?		20 years or less 40 years 60 years 80 years 100 years and more
18.1. P common use	Regarding light-frame wood construction, do you agree with the following statements?	Prefabricated light-frame wood construction is widespread in Quebec.	Totally disagree Disagree It depends Agree Totally agree
18.2. P variety of designs		The architectural design possibilities (aesthetics, shape, etc.) of a prefabricated building are more limited than for a site-built building.
18.3. P noticeable difference		Once the building is built, it is impossible to see the difference between a prefabricated building and a site-built building.
18.4. P 5–6 floors		Multi-story housings of 5 to 6 stories can be built with wood light-frame.
19. P quality preference	Which type of construction do you think offers the best quality?		On-site construction Prefabricated construction Both types of construction offer the same quality I don’t know
20. P structural preference	Which type of construction do you think offers the best structural strength?		On-site construction Prefabricated construction Both types of construction offer the same structural strength I don’t know
21.1. P reduce construction time	In your opinion, the use of prefabricated construction allows:	Reduced on-site construction time	Totally disagree Disagree It depends Agree Totally agree
21.2. P reduce nuisance		Reduced nuisance related to the construction site
21.3. P reduce cost		Reduced cost of the project
21.4. P increase quality		Increased quality
21.5. P reduce waste		Reduced construction waste
21.6. P reduce environmental impact		Reduced environmental impact of the building
21.7. P increase worker safety		Increased worker safety
22. Inhabited neighborhood	What type of neighborhood do you live in?		Downtown Residential suburb Countryside
23. Type of housing	You live in:		An apartment/condominium A semi-detached house A single-family home Another type of residence
24. Height of building	What is the construction height of your building?		4 stories or less Between 5 and 6 stories More than 6 stories
25. Housing structure	What is the type of structure of your residence?		Steel Concrete Mass timber wood light-frame I don’t know Other: open answer
26. Wooden housing items	In your residence, are any of the following items made of wood?		Doors Furniture Moldings Stairs Exterior siding Interior wall cladding Flooring Ceiling cladding Window Nothing Other: open answer
27. Occupancy status	You are:		Homeowner Tenant
28. Professional category	What is your professional category?		Farmers craftsmen, merchants, or company managers managers and liberal professionals intermediate occupationsemployees workers pensioners students unemployed Other: open answer
29. Link to industry	Is your job related to the construction industry?		Yes No I don’t know
30. Annual income	What is your annual income range?		Less than 25,000 CAD Between 25,000 and 50,000 CAD Between 50,000 and 70,000 CAD More than 70,000 CAD I do not wish to answer
31. Cultural affiliations	What are your cultural affiliations?		Quebecer North American South American European African Asian Oceanian Would you like to be more specific? open answer

Note: The questionnaire presented here is a translation. The original questionnaire, distributed in French, is available upon request from the authors.

). Thus, respondents rating wood as unsuitable for high-rise construction were particularly likely to think that steel and concrete were more environmentally friendly choices. Conversely, respondents rating wood as suitable for this type of construction rank it as more environmentally friendly.

Furthermore, regarding the environmental impact of wood in construction, 14.7% of respondents believe that it contains a lot of chemicals. Moreover, 52.5% of respondents think that the use of wood in construction causes deforestation and 48% that the monoculture of the producing forests damages biodiversity.

3.1.2. Representations Associated with Mass Timber Construction

The study of mass timber construction representations permits to identify its assets and its disadvantages by questioning essential technical aspects, such as its cost, its lifespan, and its safety aspect.

Globally, construction in mass timber is perceived as expensive. Indeed, 60.9% of Quebecers think that multi-stories construction in mass timber is more expensive than an equivalent in concrete, 53.6% that a wood structure requires more maintenance, and 39.7% that home insurance fees for these buildings are higher.

Mass timber is globally perceived as durable. As observed in Figure 4, 82.9% of respondents believe that its lifespan is equal or superior to 60 years. Only 21.5% of Quebecers think that wood deforms over time. However, the results indicate that 30.9% of respondents think that a mass timber structure often ages badly, while only 26.1% think the opposite. Moreover, 26.2% think that a visible wood structure degrades quickly over time.

Mass timber has a good confidence in its structural capacity, as only 14.8% consider that it is a less resistant construction method than others. On the other hand, only 22.5% of respondents consider that mass timber performs as well as concrete in a fire situation, against 46.1% who consider it less safe.

As for its use in high-rise construction, 64.5% of respondents believe that mass timber is suitable for building multi-story housing of 4 floors or fewer, compared to 31.8% for 5 and 6 floors, 13.2% for 7 to 12 floors, and 7.7% for more than 12 floors. These results (see Figure 5) suggest that in the representations of Quebecers, mass timber is not well suited to high-rise construction, despite the desirability and structural confidence stated above.

3.1.3. Representations Associated with Prefabricated Light-Frame Wood Construction

The comparison between prefabricated light-frame wood construction and on-site light-frame wood construction aims to identify the advantages and disadvantages of the prefabrication method by questioning its technical, aesthetic, and durability aspects.

Concerning the light-frame wood prefabrication, 53% of respondents estimate that it is a common construction technique in Quebec, while 35.3% estimate that it is uncommon. Moreover, 60% define it as factory construction, while 29% believe that It depends.

In addition, 47.9% of respondents believe that prefabrication is synonymous with standardization and 34.3% with identical constructions. In total, 33.9% of Quebecers think that design possibilities (aesthetics, shape, etc.) are more limited compared to on-site construction. However, 43.5% agree that once built, it is impossible to see the difference between a prefabricated building and a building built on site.

According to 54.8% of Quebecers, prefabricated light-frame wood construction reduces construction waste, and 36.7% believe that it reduces the environmental footprint of the building. However, 21.2% of Quebecers associate this method of construction with the generation of pollution (transportation, etc.), while 46.5% chose the It depends modality.

Regarding the financial aspect, 48.5% of respondents associate prefabrication with controlled costs, and 50.8% think that prefabrication allows to reduce the cost of the project. However, while 37% of respondents associate light-frame wood prefabrication with cheap constructions, 33.4% do not agree with this statement.

Quebecers are divided on the quality of prefabricated wood light-frame, with many respondents choosing the answer It depends. Indeed, while 43.2% of respondents estimate that it results in high quality construction, 42.4% do not pronounce themselves clearly. Similarly, only 26.5% of respondents think that it increases the quality of construction, while 46.2% think that It depends. This construction method is associated by 42.9% of respondents with high regulatory requirements, while 44.2% do not pronounce. Finally, 37.6% of respondents think that on-site construction and prefabricated construction offer equivalent quality. However, 33.6% of respondents believe that on-site construction is more qualitative, compared to 13.8% for prefabricated construction.

The results show that the estimated lifespan of a prefabricated light-frame wood building is almost identical to that of on-site construction (see Figure 6). Thus, 36.7% of Quebecers estimate its lifespan to be 40 years or less, compared to 39.7% for a site-built light-frame wood building. On the other hand, prefabricated construction is considered synonymous with temporary construction for 20.4% of respondents.

Regarding the safety aspect, 24.5% of respondents associate prefabricated construction with low structural resistance and 26.3% with low fire safety. Moreover, 31.1% of Quebecers associate prefabrication with fragile constructions (for example, to climatic events). Finally, 38.7% of Quebecers think that on-site construction offers better structural resistance than prefabricated construction, while 37.4% find that they offer the same structural performance and 10.6% are in favor of prefabricated construction when both construction methods are proposed.

As for the use of wood light-frame in high-rise construction, only 27.8% of respondents believe that it can be applied to build five and six stories buildings, compared to 31.5% for mass timber buildings.

Regarding the constraints related to the construction site, the respondents believe that the use of prefabricated construction reduces the on-site duration of construction (76.5% of respondents) and nuisances (72.2%), and 62% believe that this construction method increases the safety of workers.

3.2. Response Profiles

First, the average response profile of the entire sample will be detailed, before looking at the groups of respondents formed by similar response patterns and the socio-demographic characteristics that have a marked influence on responses.

3.2.1. Global Response Profile

This section presents the average trend regarding the qualification of wood construction methods. The standard deviation of responses is not represented here because it is not relevant. Indeed, answers generally follow a normal distribution with a widespread due to the specific representations of each respondent. Moreover, a five-level scale does not allow to calculate a standard deviation with enough finesse to be significant. The standard deviations observed are large and similar between the variables (between 0.83 and 1.31), so they do not provide a better understanding of the data.

Figure 7 shows that wood construction methods are positively perceived for thermal comfort, treatments applied to wood, and environmental impacts. On the other hand, they are largely perceived as not performing well for acoustic comfort and as not being high-end.. Moreover, although wood construction methods are perceived as more ecological, the majority of respondents believe that this industry causes deforestation and damages ecosystems.

For mass timber, the results shown in Figure 7 suggest that exposed wood, lifespan, and structural strength are perceived positively by the population. The variables on aging of mass timber structures appear to be, on average, relatively neutral. On the other hand, construction and operating costs, as well as fire safety, are the most negatively perceived. Furthermore, the construction of high-rise buildings in mass timber is widely accepted for four floors and fewer. For five–six floors, the representation is neutral. However, beyond seven floors, the representation is largely negative.

Finally, Figure 7 shows that wood light-frame has a rather neutral perceived average lifespan and that respondents do not want to see it exposed in their housing.

For light-frame wood prefabrication, the results in Figure 8 suggest that the average perception is positive or almost neutral, except for a few variables. The advantages on the building site (such as reduction of construction time, reduction of nuisances, and increase of safety) and construction cost are among the clearly positive representations. Among the representations associated with other subjects, factory manufacturing is seen as being of high quality and meeting demanding regulations, but it does not seem to increase in quality compared to on-site construction. Prefabrication seems to have a slightly better environmental impact than on-site construction, mainly due to reduction of construction waste. On preferences and design, representations concerning its definition are realistic and shared, and use are accepted; however, regarding the possibility to customize and vary designs, respondents demonstrate a rather neutral position. Although prefabricated construction is not associated with temporary construction, it is not perceived as a solution for improving the life span compared to on-site construction. Quebecers have a rather neutral opinion about the safety of these constructions; according to them, they do not represent an improvement in structural resistance, fire safety, or weather events. High-rise construction with five–six floors is also perceived in a neutral way. Finally, when prefabrication is compared to on-site construction, with respect to structural resistance and quality, its representation is rather negative.

3.2.2. Multi-Factorial Analysis Response Profiles

Using a multi-factorial analysis on four factors, groups were identified that significantly shared common response patterns (excluding socio-demographics).

The factorial plane between factors 1 and 2 and factors 3 and 4 revealed three independent groups (see Figure 9a,b).

The first group, from factor 1, is characterized by a very clear positive representation of wood construction methods, including prefabrication. These respondents affirm that it is possible to build in height with mass timber from 4 to more than 12 floors, that mass timber has a good structural resistance, good performance in terms of fire safety, lifespan, construction cost, and environmental impact, and that it has appreciated aesthetic qualities. This group perceives prefabrication as having positive characteristics in terms of service life, construction quality, design, structural strength, and fire safety.

The second group, from factor 2, is characterized by a very negative representation of mass timber on fire safety, lifespan (including exposed timber elements), and maintenance cost. Moreover, this groups is characterized by a negative representation of prefabrication, especially regarding quality, lifespan, structural strength, five–six-story high construction, design possibilities, and safety of workers on site.

The third group, from factor 3, is characterized by a positive representation of the environmental aspect of mass timber and a positive or neutral representation of prefabrication. Specifically, this group has a positive representation of design and potential for quality improvement through prefabrication. They are also undecided about their preferences in terms of quality and structural strength between prefabrication or on-site construction, as well as about its benefits on construction lifespan.

On the factorial plane between factors 3 and 4 (see Figure 9b), there are three opposing groups, two of which (corresponding to the 4th and 5th groups identified) contributed to factor 4.

The fourth group is characterized by a positive representation of lifespan of mass timber and light-frame wood construction. It is also marked by a negative representation towards prefabrication regarding five–six-story high construction, design possibilities, environmental footprint, potential to reduce construction waste, quality improvement, and benefits for on-site worker safety.

The fifth group, opposite the previous group, is characterized by a negative representation of the lifespan of light-frame wood construction and prefabricated light-frame wood construction. However, this group is also characterized by a positive representation of prefabrication on environmental aspects, such as reduction of environmental footprint and construction waste, potential for quality improvement through prefabrication, and benefits for on-site worker safety.

3.2.3. Profile of Responses Related to Respondents’ Characteristics

Cross-tabulations analysis between socio-demographic characteristics of the population and responses obtained allowed us to highlight significant relationships. Among all the characteristics, the type of housing structure, gender, and age of respondent had the highest number of occurrences of a significant relationship with all the other variables (see

Table 1. Response profile related to respondents’ characteristics regarding wood construction methods. Green cells present a positive perception, red cells a negative perception, and X cells a neutral perception.

Woodlight-frame

Lifespan

7.4. WLF Lifespan

Exposed wood

12.4. Exposed WLF

X

Preferences

5/6. Building preference - WLF

Mass timber

5/6. building preference - MT

High-rise construction

15.4. MT 12 floors and more

15.3. MT 7-12 floors

15.2. MT 5-6 floors

X

15.1. MT 1-4 floors

X

Safety

13.3. MT structural strength

X

X

X

13.1. MT fire safety

X

Costs

13.8. MT insurance cost

13.6. MT maintenance

13.7. MT construction cost

X

X

Lifespan

13.2. MT deterioration

X

13.4. MT structural deformation

X

7.3. MT Lifespan

X

Exposed wood

13.5. Exposed MT degradation

X

12.3. Exposed MT

14. MT qualitative exposure

X

Wooden construction methods (MT and WLF)

11. High-end materials - WLF

11. High-end materials - MT

Comfort

10. Thermal comfort

9. Acoustic comfort

Environmentalimpact

13.11. Biodiversity damage

13.10. Deforestation

13.9. MT chemical treatment

X

8. Eco-friendly materials - WLF

8. Eco-friendly materials - MT

Subject

Variable wording

Inhabitants ofsteel buildings

Inhabitants ofconcrete buildings

Inhabitants ofmass timber buildings

Inhabitants of light-frame wood buildings

Inhabitants who do not know the construction method

Men

Women

18 to 24 years old

25 to 34 years old

35 to 44 years old

45 to 54 years old

55 to 65 years old

Over 65 years old

Type of structure of the occupied building

Gender

Age

and

Table 2. Response profile related to respondents’ characteristics regarding light-frame wood prefabrication. Green cells present a positive perception, red cells a negative perception, and X cells a neutral perception.

Light-frame wood prefabrication

Advantage related to the construction site

21.7. P increase worker safety

21.2. P reduce nuisance

X

21.1. P reduce construction time

X

X

X

High-rise construction

18.4. P 5-6 floors

X

Safety

20. P structural preference

X

X

X

X

X

X

16.12. P structural strength

X

X

16.11. P fire safety

X

16.3. P fragility

Quality

19. P quality preference

X

X

16.10. P regulation

X

X

16.2. P high quality

X

X

21.4. P increase quality

X

16.6. P factory production

16.5. P affordable

X

X

X

Costs

21.3. P reduce cost

16.9. P controlled cost

Lifespan

16.1. P temporary building

17. P lifespan

Environmental impact

21.6. P reduce environmental impact

X

X

21.5. P reduce waste

X

16.7. P pollution

Preference anddesign

18.3. P noticeable difference

X

18.2. P variety of designs

X

X

16.8. P standardisation

X

X

16.4. P identical design

X

18.1. P common use

X

X

Subject

Variable wording

Inhabitants of steel buildings

Inhabitants of concrete buildings

Inhabitants of mass timber buildings

Inhabitants of light-frame wood buildings

Inhabitants who do not know the construction method

Men

Women

18 to 24 years old

25 to 34 years old

35 to 44 years old

45 to 54 years old

55 to 65 years old

Over 65 years old

Type of structure of the occupied building

Gender

Age

). The other characteristics, such as the region of residence in Quebec, type of neighborhood, type of residence, height of the building occupied, occupation status (owner or tenant), presence of wooden elements in housing, professional category, annual income, link with the construction sector, and the cultural affiliations did not contribute significantly to the establishment of the response profiles (number of occurrences of significant relationship less than or equal to 5 for each variable).

Type of Housing Structure

The type of housing structure occupied by the respondent presented 32 occurrences of significant relationships with the variables studied (see Table 1 and Table 2).

Respondents occupying housing built with steel or concrete have rather close negative representations. They contribute significantly to a rather negative perception of wood construction methods. More specifically, they have a negative perception of lifespan of wood light-frame and mass timber and the safety aspect and maintenance costs of a mass timber construction, but also of exposed solid timber structures. For positive representations, their representations are different. Steel housing residents qualify cost of construction favorably for mass timber construction. Residents of concrete housings have a positive perception of wood light-frame as an exposed structural material. They also have a strong preference to stay in concrete over wood light-frame and mass timber housings. These two groups also have different views on prefabrication. The inhabitants of steel housings have a positive perception of the quality of construction and fire safety, and a negative perception of the lifespan, advantages over the nuisances linked to the construction site, and the fact that it is a widespread practice in Quebec. Residents of concrete housings have a negative perception of its advantages in terms of construction site nuisance and safety, both structural and fire-related.

The respondents living in mass timber housing have a divided perception of a positive vision regarding mass timber (ageing and deformation) and the safety aspects for its structural resistance on the one hand, and a negative vision regarding general lifespan (in years), construction in height with mass timber, and appearance of mass timber on the other. They also have a negative view of light-frame wood prefabrication in terms of its advantages over construction site nuisance.

Inhabitants of light-frame wood housing have a rather positive perception of wood construction methods. They would, therefore, prefer to live in a mass timber or light-frame wood housing compared to steel and concrete housings. More specifically, they have a positive perception of the lifespan of wood light-frame and mass timber, safety aspect of a mass timber construction, exposed mass timber structures, maintenance costs of a mass timber structure, forestry management, and building high with mass timber. They also have a rather neutral view about the cost of construction for mass timber, and a negative perception of exposed wood light-frame. Regarding prefabrication, they have a positive perception of the safety aspect, quality, lifespan, high-rise construction, design possibilities, advantages over construction site nuisances, and the fact that it is a widespread practice in Quebec.

Respondents who do not know their housing’s construction method have a rather negative or neutral perception of wood construction methods. Thus, they would not prefer to live in light-frame wood housing. More specifically, they have a negative perception about the lifespan of wood light-frame and mass timber, safety aspect of a mass timber construction, lifespan of exposed mass timber, and forest management. They were also neutral about lifespan of mass timber, its safety, ability to build high, cost of construction, and appearance of mass timber. Regarding prefabrication, they have a negative perception about quality, lifespan, and safety from weather events. They also have a neutral perception of the safety aspect (fire safety, structural resistance), design, quality, advantages of high-rise construction in prefabricated wood light-frame, its advantages over the nuisances linked to construction site (construction lifespan), and the fact that prefabrication is a widespread construction method in Quebec.

Respondent’s Gender

Respondent’s gender presented 17 occurrences of significant relationships with the variables studied (see Table 1 and Table 2).

Men contribute more, and significantly, to a rather positive perception of wood construction methods. More specifically, they are characterized by a positive perception of the lifespan of mass timber, safety it offers (both structural and fire), degradation of exposed mass timber, and environmental aspect. Regarding prefabrication, they have a positive perception of its design possibilities, its environmental balance, its lifespan, quality of a prefabricated light-frame wood construction, its safety (for its structural resistance), and the fact that prefabrication is a widespread construction method in Quebec. However, they believe that the difference between a prefabricated construction and an on-site one remains visible once built.

Women contribute more, and significantly, to a rather negative and neutral perception of wood construction methods. More specifically, they are characterized by a negative perception of the environmental aspect of wood use. They also present a neutral perception on the safety aspect (for its structural resistance), lifespan of mass timber, degradation of visible mass timber, and environmental aspect (chemical products). Regarding prefabrication, they present a negative perception of the environmental aspect, lifespan, construction in height in prefabricated wood light-frame, quality, and safety aspect on structural resistance. They also express a neutral position on the fact that the difference between prefabricated and on-site construction remains visible once built.

Respondent’s Age

Respondent’s age presented 13 occurrences of significant relationships with the variables studied (see Table 1 and Table 2). It mainly influences answers about prefabrication, with little influence on those about mass timber. Thus, for mass timber, those 25 to 34 years old have a neutral perception of structural strength, while those 34 to 44 years old and 55 to over 65 years old express a positive opinion on this subject. The latter groups also have a positive opinion regarding the lifespan of mass timber.

Regarding prefabrication, all age groups from 18 to 65 contribute significantly to the expression of neutral or negative trends, while the over 65 years old age groups express a rather positive perception of light-frame wood prefabrication. In more detail:

• For preference and design, on the variety of the design in prefabrication, individuals 18 to 24 years old have a neutral perception, while individuals over 65 years old possess a positive perception.
• For the environmental impact, the reduction of construction waste is perceived neutrally by individuals 35 to 44 years old, negatively by individuals 55 to 65 years old, and positively by individuals over 65 years old. Regarding the reduction of environmental impact, individuals 18 to 24 years old and individuals 55 to 65 years old take a neutral position, while individuals over 65 year old have a positive perception of this construction technique.
• For quality, the fact that prefabrication is affordable is perceived neutrally by individuals 35 to 44 years old and individuals over 55 years old. Factory construction is a definition of prefabrication that is not shared by individuals 45 to 54 years old, while it is approved by individuals over 65 years old. The fact that prefabrication increases construction quality is viewed negatively by individuals 25 to 34 years old, neutrally by individuals 55 to 65 years old, and positively by individuals over 65 years old. Whether prefabrication is synonymous with high quality is perceived neutrally by individuals 25 to 34 years old and individuals 55 to 65 years old, negatively by individuals 45 to 54 years old, and positively by individuals over 65 years old. Finally, with regard to the preference of construction methods in relation to quality, individuals 18 to 24 years old are neutral, individuals 25 to 34 years old position themselves negatively, and individuals over 65 years old position themselves positively towards prefabrication.
• For safety, on the preference of the construction methods according to the structural resistance, individuals 25 to 34 years old and individuals over 55 years old are neutral, while the individuals 35 to 44 years old position themselves negatively towards prefabrication.
• For the advantages relative to the construction site, more specifically on reduction of construction time, individuals 25 to 34 years old and individuals 45 to 54 years old express a neutral perception, while the individuals over 55 years old express a negative perception.

4. Discussion

4.1. Representations Associated with Wood Construction Methods

4.1.1. Representations Associated with the Main Structural Materials and Mass Timber Construction

In general, the results of this study suggest that Quebecers prefer mass timber construction. Concrete is the second choice and wood light-frame is the last choice, tied with steel. This main result differs from the conclusion obtained by Høibø et al. [41], who determined that concrete construction was widely preferred for multi-story housing construction, followed by steel and wood. This is possibly due to the fact that Quebecers have more experience with wood construction given the importance of the forestry sector in Quebec. However, the reasons of liking concrete construction are identical in both studies and are linked to its lifespan and safety characteristics [41].

Mass timber, concrete, and steel all appear to have very long lifespan representations. In contrast, perceived lifespan of wood light-frame is short, while the average building lifespan is estimated to be 50–60 years [67]. These data suggest that respondents have a much higher lifespan representation than the reality, but that for a light-frame wood construction, many underestimate it. This reflects the importance of the perceived gap between these different construction methods. Although the mass timber lifespan is generally perceived as long, there remains a portion of respondents who believe that timber deforms over time, ages poorly, or degrades rapidly when exposed. Unlike the literature [40,41], this demonstrates that it is not the lifespan, but the characteristics of aging that remain an issue for some respondents. However, the degradation of exposed wood is a limitation that should be considered further, because we did not specify in the question whether this exposure is exterior or interior, which could explain in part the answers obtained. For wood light-frame, the results obtained are consistent with the literature and describe strength, durability, safety, and construction quality as the primary sources of fear for respondents.

Mass timber is trusted for its structural capacity, but it is rated as less safe than concrete for fire. Thus, a small proportion of respondents believes that it is possible to build five stories or more with mass timber. Similarly, wood light-frame is considered by a small proportion of the population as being able to build multi-story buildings of five and six floors. These results suggest that in the representations of Quebecers, wood construction methods are not well adapted to high-rise construction, despite desirability and structural confidence stated above. It is possible that the negative perception of seven or more stories of mass timber high-rise construction is primarily due to the safety aspect, which has also been evaluated in the literature as particularly influential on respondents’ positioning [41].

In North America, another concern for users when choosing a residence and its structural material is acoustic comfort [68]. In a study by Viholainen et al. [40], the observed representations were split between respondents who defined wood as performing well and those who described its performances as poor. Similar to Bader Eddin et al. [68], this study suggests that wood construction methods are not considered to perform well for acoustic comfort in buildings, while concrete appears to be more suitable.

Mass timber and, to a lesser extent, wood light-frame are considered materials with the best environmental impact. However, the supply and forestry aspects appear to be highly polarized, with responses ranging from mostly negative to neutral. Although Quebec’s forests are being managed more responsibly than in the past [69], there still seem to be concerns about the preservation of ecosystems. The study by Viholainen et al. [40] found that the provenance of wood (sustainably managed forests) was an important criterion for gaining public approval for its harvesting and that clearcutting was considered problematic by respondents, which is consistent with the results of this study. The labeling of wood as a local product and environmental certifications, thus, have a very important effect on user preference and are essential assets for the sector [69,70].

Similar to other studies [36,40,41], mass timber clearly stands out as possessing aesthetic characteristics that are desired by an overwhelming majority of users. This is not the case for other materials. Although it does not seem to be the most important criterion for users, offering multi-story housings with exposed wood could stimulate demand and generate opportunities for the wood construction sector. However, respondents also expressed preferences for the amount of wood [40,41,42]. The majority of respondents want to use wood on certain parts of walls and ceilings, and only a few want wood everywhere or no wood at all.

Mass timber construction is also perceived as expensive, during both the construction and operational phase (maintenance and insurance). Since few studies have addressed these aspects in depth, it would be relevant in a future study to compare the financial costs throughout the lifespan of buildings (financing, construction cost, insurance, maintenance, end of life, etc.) according to construction methods (wood, concrete, steel, etc.). This would help determine if this representation is well founded.

4.1.2. Representations Associated with a Prefabricated Light-Frame Wood Construction

Concerning light-frame wood prefabrication representations, overall, the responses suggest that prefabrication is a relatively well-known construction technique in Quebec. Quebecers noted certain advantages also cited in the literature, such as reduction of nuisances related to construction site, etc. [26]. More nuanced representations regarding certain topics (such as environmental impact and costs) are also discussed in the literature, as these benefits are not necessarily automatic due to the specific conditions of each project [26]. However, it is important to note that the concept of prefabrication was not defined to not influence the responses obtained. Thus, the study does not provide any indication of what type of prefabrication respondents are talking about.

In general, the results seem to indicate that representations are more influenced by the construction material than by the construction technique (on site or prefabrication). Thus, prefabrication is evaluated by the respondents in a similar way to wood light-frame on lifespan, safety, and construction height. This contrasts with the findings of Smith [54], who noted that in its history, prefabrication has been associated with negative representations, such as low lifespan and poor construction quality. Therefore, it is possible that the image of prefabrication has changed in a positive way over the past few decades. However, although off-site construction is perceived as safe overall, the distribution of responses illustrates that despite a good confidence in prefabrication, a portion of respondents believe that this solution is less resistant.

Regarding construction quality of prefabrication, the results illustrate a shared opinion, marked by a high response rate of it depends. The benefits observed in the literature do not seem to be automatic in the market and especially in social representations [21]. This could be due to a difficulty for users to determine how their housing was constructed. Thus, it is possible that respondents sometimes have difficulty to evaluate certain characteristics of a construction.

However, in the representations, the opposition between prefabricated construction and on-site construction regarding quality or structural resistance suggests that on-site construction has an equivalent or more positive image for a large majority. It would be interesting to identify the reasons for this finding in a future study.

On the financial side, prefabrication is perceived positively. However, the use of the term affordable as a positive economic classification may be incorrect. Affordable could rather mean inferior quality as opposed to an economic bargain. Thus, it is not possible to draw any conclusions on this issue.

Finally, issues regarding freedom and design possibilities in prefabricated construction were also identified in the literature [54]. The results of this study indicate that a significant portion (about 1/3) of the sample still associates prefabrication with limitations in terms of design. Prefabrication is still attached to a form of standardization, which is in fact the opposite of customization [71], and which is probably the cause of this representation. Although it is possible to practice prefabrication by standardizing components rather than complete constructions in order to have a great deal of design freedom [72]. The commercial practice of manufacturers in Quebec, mainly centered on construction of single-family homes from catalogs, certainly shapes users’ representations through the commercial communication.

4.2. Response Profiles

4.2.1. Global Response Profile

As mentioned earlier, the overall response profile is only a general trend of the sample. However, the results obtained illustrate several points.

For mass timber or prefabricated wood light-frame, respondents have strong representations because either positive or negative averages are observed, but quite few neutral averages. Averages are neutral for variables concerning mass timber aging and degradation, as well as five–six-story construction and wood light-frame lifespan. Thus, respondents show either that they are not sure of their knowledge or that they lack information on these topics.

Themes with positive trends, such as thermal comfort, ecological character, aesthetics of exposed wood, lifespan, and structural strength of mass timber, should be given more consideration by building stakeholders in marketing their products. It would seem that ecological character and possibility of exposing mass timber can generate demand due to the difference between wood and other building materials.

Negatively trending issues, such as acoustic comfort in wood construction, forest management, fire safety, high-rise construction, and construction and operating costs of mass timber are the main topics on which stakeholders should focus their communication and research and development efforts in order to alleviate users’ concerns and increase the market share of mass timber construction.

For light-frame wood prefabrication, it is also possible to make several observations. On the one hand, the themes with positive trends, such as benefits on the building site, potential to reduce construction waste, and potential to reduce costs, could also be used by the stakeholders to further support the marketing of their products.

On the other hand, a large part of the themes discussed are perceived neutrally and there are no negatively perceived themes. The distribution of responses to these variables follows a normal distribution, and many respondents chose a neutral or near-neutral position, unlike trends observed for wood construction methods, which were more polarized. One hypothesis would be that the great number of neutral positions is due to a lack of knowledge of respondents on the subject, and therefore, a difficulty to position themselves. Thus, variables identified as neutral about prefabrication should be the object of a specific communication, because it is probably possible to obtain more positive social representations.

4.2.2. Multi-Factorial Analysis Response Profile

A more detailed analysis of the different positions of response groups shows that positive opinions associated with mass timber are mainly based on environmental aspect and material’s lifespan, but also on its aesthetics, its structural resistance, its safety aspect for fire and high-rise construction, and its construction cost. The negative opinions associated with mass timber are linked to the safety aspect (fire safety), lifespan (including exposed timber elements), and maintenance cost. For light-frame wood prefabrication, positive opinions are mainly based on quality, lifespan and design, but also on its safety aspect (structural resistance and fire safety), environmental aspect, and its benefits on workers’ safety. The negative opinions associated with light-frame wood prefabrication are based primarily on lifespan, design, quality, compatibility with high-rise construction, and worker safety benefits, but also on its environmental and safety aspects (structural strength and fire safety).

The multi-factorial analysis allowed to determine that representations on wood construction in Quebec population are divided into five positions:

• Totally favorable whatever the wood construction method;
• Totally unfavorable regardless of the type of wood construction;
• Partially favorable to neutral towards mass timber construction and prefabrication;
• Partially favorable for mass timber and wood light-frame but unfavorable for prefabrication;
• Divided on prefabrication.

Generally speaking, the polarizing topics in the response groups are lifespan and fire safety for mass timber construction, and quality, lifespan, design, safety, and environmental performance for light-frame wood prefabrication.

4.2.3. Profile of Responses Related to Respondents’ Characteristics

The results of the study show that certain socio-demographic and housing characteristics contribute to the constitution of response profiles. Thus, the type of housing structure occupied by the respondent is the strongest contributor (experiential dimension), followed by gender and age.

Type of Housing Structure

Respondents who do not mention that they live in wood buildings (steel, concrete, and unknown structure residences), and thus, do not have experience with wood, have a rather negative view of wood construction methods.

Respondents who live in mass timber buildings have an overall positive view of wood construction methods. However, the detailed analysis of their answers illustrates what seems to be inconsistencies. For example, they have a positive perception of an exposed wood light-frame, while they express a negative one about of exposed mass timber. This can certainly be explained by confusion due to the lexicon used. On the other hand, they express a negative view about the lifespan of mass timber and its potential for low-rise construction. These positions are difficult to explain and would require special consideration in a future study.

Respondents who live in light-frame wood buildings express a largely positive tendency toward wood building methods. The responses of this group, which constitutes 45.9% of respondents, suggest that experiential dimension significantly affects the representation of building materials. This finding is consistent with the findings of Høibø et al. [41], who also determined that experience and knowledge of materials significantly influence user preferences.

Regarding light-frame wood prefabrication, the results are similar to those for wood construction methods. The groups that do not live in wood buildings (steel, concrete, and unknown structure residences) contribute more to a negative or neutral perception, while respondents living in light-frame wood buildings contribute to a largely positive representation. However, the group living in mass timber housing is closer to the groups not living in wood buildings with a rather neutral and negative contribution. These observations tend to confirm the hypothesis that the experiential dimension plays a very important role in the constitution of social representations.

The results of this study indicate that there is a clear relationship between the structural material of the occupied residence and the representations about building materials. In general, the themes that polarize these groups the most are lifespan, safety, and exposed wood. Other themes that polarize respondents to a lesser extent are cost, high-rise construction, and environment.

However, it is important to view these results with caution as there was no verification of the structural materials of the buildings occupied by the respondents. The data collected are, therefore, based solely on their declarations. Thus, there is some doubt as to the actual nature of the structural materials of the buildings occupied by the respondents. Moreover, the group living in steel-built residences has a small number of respondents given their low proportion in the sample, so the results for this category of respondents have a large margin of error.

Respondent’s Gender

The respondent’s gender also helps to identify response patterns. Men have a largely positive opinion according to the significant relationships identified. Conversely, women express a neutral tendency (on mass timber and prefabrication design) and negative tendency (on the environmental impact of wood and different aspects of light-frame wood prefabrication). Regarding wood construction methods, the polarization is concentrated on environment, lifespan, and safety. For prefabrication, the polarization is concentrated on design, environment, and, to a lesser extent, lifespan, safety, high-rise construction, and quality.

The results, therefore, suggest that a difference in representation of wood construction exists between the genders. In addition, they allow us to define women as priority targets for communication in order to create leverage in demand.

Respondent’s Age

The significant relationships between age and the variables show that this characteristic has little influence on representations of mass timber and wood construction methods in general. On the other hand, these relationships exist mainly with regard to prefabricated light-frame wood construction, especially on quality. They are dominated by neutral tendencies, which suggest a lack of experience and knowledge about prefabrication. Only the group of people over 65 years old have a marked positive representation on the majority of the observed relationships.

5. Conclusions

The increased use of wood and the use of prefabrication techniques in the construction of multi-story housing are solutions that help to meet the current and future challenges of the construction sector. The aim of this study was to characterize the social representations of Quebec individuals with respect to these construction methods in order to determine the actual levers and barriers to their use in the construction of multi-story housing. The results indicate that majority of users in the province of Quebec are in favor of mass timber and of light-frame wood prefabrication. Furthermore, the study of the response profiles revealed that certain groups of respondents were privileged targets for evolving representations about wood construction.

Based on these results, building professionals should showcase the positively perceived qualities of wood, such as environmental aspect and aesthetics of wood. However, the forest industry should communicate its environmental practices in Quebec more, as this part of the environmental aspect remains an important concern for respondents. It is also very important to address the recurring themes in the negative social representations of wood, whether it is mass timber or wood light-frame, such as the safety aspect and lifespan. The use of wood in the construction of high-rise multi-story housings still does not seem to be part of the social representations of a majority of Quebecers, because of these issues. This is consistent with the findings of other authors, who stated that perceptions related to lifespan and safety tend to dominate other themes when making decisions [40,41]. Thus, this study provides a basis for defining mediation methods and tools adapted of course to the topics but also to the types of profiles, in order to pursue knowledge transfer more effectively.

As found in the literature, knowledge of wood increases preference for its use as a structural material [30,41]. Thus, if increased use of wood is a goal to address industry issues, then knowledge transfer about negatively perceived topics to identified social groups may be an effective tool to promote its adoption.