building sustainability? - helsinki

Maatalous-metsätieteellinen tiedekunta

BUILDING SUSTAINABILITY?

Heini Vihemäki, Anne Toppinen & Ritva Toivonen, University of Helsinki

10/09/2018 1CRR Conference / Heini Vihemäki


OUTLINE

Background

Aims & approach

Context: WMC in Finland

Policy processed linked to WMC

Actors involved in the policy processes

Four Narratives on WMC

Conclusions & further research



BACKGROUND

• Global trends of urbanization, population growth, climate change

• GHG emissions, non-renewablematerials of the constructionsector

• Wooden multi-storey construction(WMC): the load bearingstructural framework made mostlyof wood-based products

• Several technologies

• Radical innovation

• Niche markets (still)

10/09/2018CRR Conference / Heini Vihemäki 3


BACKGROUND

• ”path-dependency” of construction sector: persistent waysof operating (BoU) as an obstacle towards increased useof wood (Mahapatra & Gustavsson 2008, Hurmekoski et al. 2015)

• Without markets interventions, difficult for WMC to gainsolid ground in the construction markets (Mahapatra et al. 2012, Hurmekoski et al. 2018)

• Yet, regulatory push & financial instruments may be problematic from the construction sector actors’ perps.



AIMS

1) To map the policy context of WMC in Finland (e.g. policy programmes, processes, agendas),

2) To identify the actors and networks engaged in the WMC-related policy processes, and explore their agency (narratives)

Research Questions:

• Which actors are involved in the policy processes around WMC in Finland (nationally)? (How do they relate to each other, e.g. co-operation & coordination of actions?)

• What kind of narratives do they have regarding WMC, esp. regarding the policy goals and instruments?



APPROACH

• Multi-level Perspective of Geels (2004) as a background theory

• Hajer’s (1995) discursive approach to environmental policymaking & politics as an conceptual/methdological approach

• focus on discursive interaction between the actors (i.e. language in use), and how it can create new meanings and positionings, bring actors together / divide them

• Storylines as “narratives on social reality through which elements from many different domains are combined and that provide actors with a set of symbolic references that suggest a common understanding” (Hajer 1995)



METHODS

• Thematic interviews of policyactors /experts on WMC (13 persons), recorded, transcriped

• Review of literature(academic, policy documents, media)

• Participatory observation in 5 events



• Civil-servants of Min. of Environment, Min. of Employment& Economics, Agriculture & Forestry (in total 5)

• Construction company/developer (3)

• Advocacy organisations, pro wood and other (3)

• Research and education (1)

• Expert organisation on sustainable building (1)

• Most actors operating at the national level, companiesmore local

• Analysis: close reading, identifying themes related to policy goals and measures, categorizing them


METHODS: INTERVIEWS


CONTEXT: WMC IN FINLAND

• 2nd highest % of residencies in multistory houses in Europe

• Urbanization, living in multi-story houses

• Historically, wood as frame material not allowed in multistory residential buildings (fire risk)

• “enabling” shifts in building regulations since mid-1990s, gradual, fluctuating growth of WMC



GROWTH OF WMC FLATSIN FINLAND


Source: Hurmekoski et al. (2018).


POLICY PROCESSESSUPPORTING WMC

During the 2010’s, several policy programmes and related processes linked to use of wood in construction

• National Forest Strategy and its National Wood Construction Programme (2011-2015)

• Finnish Bioeconomy Strategy 2025 (of 2014)

• National Forest Strategy 2025 (of 2015)

• National Wood Building Programme (NWBP) 2016-2021,

• Energy & Climate Strategy 2017-2030

• Roadmap to low-carbon construction, sustainable cities

• Various ministries leading the policy processes, shifting roles and need for coordination



ACTORS IN POLICY PROC.



ACTORS IN WMC POLICYPROCESSES

• Close collaboration, e.g. exchange of information, consultation, among the key actors

• High number of actors, informal and formal networks btw them

• Min. of Environment: emphasizing intra-ministry coordination (many programs, processes)



NARRATIVES (1): BIOECONOMY

• Wood construction seen as the”backbone of the bioeconomy”

• WMC as a means to advanceBioeconomy’s growth

• Arguments for WMC

• Availabilty of resources

• Sustainabilty

• Employment & economicbenefits (value chains)

• Psychological/healthbenefits


• “…forests grow and [when] wood is being used, it has many positive impacts, in Finland and on the national economy, value chains…” (int. 4).


NARRATIVES (2): INDUSTRY

• Goal to increase WMC as such, and to create more demand and markets for high-value wood products

• Arguments for WMC, e.g.

• Increased Value added of wood products

• Pre-fabrication as an advantage

• Sustainability aspects

Need to lower the regulatory requirements for WMC, new financial instruments

• “…the main objective [of the NWBP] is to increase wood construction, and as a sub-objective, it has been brought up that through the increase of wood construction, the carbon storage of the housing stock needs to be increased (int. 1)



NARRATIVES (3); SUSTAINABILITY

• sustainable development, shift to low-carbon or circular economy, as the main objectives

• Arguments for WMC

• Environmental sustainability

• Health, psychological

Instruments: regulatory reform, information sharing, voluntary market-based instrument



NARRATIVES (4): COUNTER

• The support to WMC by thegov. questioned, seen as unacceptable / unfair by”mainstream” companies

• ”material neutrality” as goal

• Arguments (against WMC)

• Not sustainable

• Lack of scientific evidenceon the benefits


”It is not realistic in any way that one could substitute concrete with wood in construction […] as the wood will simply not be enough…”

“there is a strong motivation to promote wood construction and the unwillingness to integrate our comments in the inner circles of the policy making”


CONCLUSIONS

• Path-dependency of concrete-domination not fully challenged, despite of long-term policysupport to WMC (low market %)

• Rise of climatechange/sustainability arguments

• Few central, well-connectedactors in the policy processes

• Four narratives linked to differenttypes of actors, divergent viewson policy goals & instruments



FURTHER RESEARCH

• More in-depth analysis of the narratives and theirrelations to the actors, other forms of agency(discursive coalitions), institutional and materialaspects

• Functioning of theinnovation system linked to WMC

• Comparative research on WMC policy frameworkwith Sweden and Austria



WOOD VISION 2025-PROJECTPolicy coherence, efficiency and instruments for significant growthof exports of WMC by 2025:

Funded by:

• Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland

• Metsämiesten säätiöfoundation

• Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners


Maatalous-metsätieteellinen tiedekunta 10/09/2018CRR Conference / Heini Vihemäki 21

THANK YOU!

Thank you!

[email protected]

https://blogs.helsinki.fi/woodvision2025/

building sustainability? - helsinki

Documents