Investigating Consumer Perceptions by applying the Extended Association Pattern Technique - A Study on Wooden Multistory Houses
Acta Wexionensia
No 194/2009 School of Technology and Design
Investigating Consumer Perceptions by applying the Extended Association Pattern Technique - A Study on Wooden Multistory Houses
Tobias Schauerte
Växjö University Press
Investigating Consumer Perceptions by applying the Extended Association Pattern Technique – A Study on Wooden Multistory Houses. Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Växjö University, Sweden 2009. Series editor: Kerstin Brodén ISSN: 1404-4307 ISBN: 978-91-7636-689-9 Printed by: Intellecta Infolog, Göteborg 2009
Abstract Schauerte, Tobias (2009). Investigating Consumer Perceptions by applying the Extended Association Pattern Technique – A Study on Wooden Multistory Houses. Acta Wexionensia No 194/2009. ISSN: 1404-4307, ISBN: 978-91-7636-683-7. Written in English. During the past years, the usage of wood as construction material in multistory applications has increased. In Germany and Sweden, various activities have been, and are about to be performed, to accentuate and improve the position of wooden multistory houses. In line with that, this thesis tries to contribute to the understanding of how consumers perceive durable products; in the contextual frame of how German and Swedish consumers perceive wooden multistory houses. It was hypothesized that consumers’ perceptions on durable products differ, depending on their age, income, national and within-country habitation. Based on the Means-End Chain Theory, the Association Pattern Technique has been further developed to collect and analyze data for two samples. In Germany and Sweden, 31 respectively 34 laddering interviews have been carried out which formed the base for a survey-study in each country. Here, 229 surveys were received from German, and 503 from Swedish respondents. The results show that age, income, national and within-country habitation have significant impact on consumers’ perceptions of wooden multistory houses. Moreover, the extension of the Association Pattern Technique was validated. It allowed for additional data to be gathered, which can be regarded as rather important, since it appeared in the most dominant Means-End Chains of the respondents in both Germany and Sweden. This helps to understand comsumers’ underlying reasons why one product is favoured over another. Keywords: Means-End Chain Theory, Means End Theory, laddering technique, laddering, Association Pattern Technique, end use analysis, wooden multistory houses, timber construction, wood construction, wooden housing.
To my wife Anja and my son Lucas. May the power of love always strengthen our cohesion!
Preface This doctoral thesis has been written at the department of Forest and Wood Technology, within the area of Forest Industry Markets, at the School of Technology and Design at Växjö University. It was funded by ‘Frans och Carl Kempes Minnesstiftelse 1984’, ‘Carl Fredrik von Horns fond’ and ‘Sparbankstiftelsen Kronan’, to whom I address my acknowledgements for their financial support. I want to thank my supervisors Professor Anders Baudin, School of Technology and Design; and Professor Anders Pehrsson, School of Management and Economics, both Växjö University. Through their constructive input, I got the necessary critical guidance to develop my skills and grow as a researcher. Beyond them, many other researchers have contributed to improve this work. Naming but a few I want to thank Bertil Hultén, Baltic Business School in Kalmar; Lars-Olof Rask and Åsa Devine, School of Technology and Design, for their valuable help in accomplishing this research. Furthermore I want to express my sincere gratitude to all other colleagues at the School of Technology and Design. You create an inspiring and stimulating working atmosphere, and I feel highly pleased and content to be a part of the same organization. Finally, and most of all, I thank my family. Without Your support, I would not have been able to conduct this project. Your love pushed me in hard times and made me feel strong again. Sandsbro, Växjö, 24 October 2009 Tobias Schauerte
Table of content 1
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 1.1
BACKGROUND – THE CONSTRUCTION MARKET OF RESIDENTIAL WOODEN HOUSES IN SWEDEN AND GERMANY ............................................................................................................................... 2
1.2
PROBLEM DISCUSSION.......................................................................................................... 4
1.3
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE..................................................................................................... 8
1.4
DELIMITATIONS .................................................................................................................... 8
1.5
OUTLINE OF THIS THESIS ...................................................................................................... 9
2
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................... 11 2.1
NEOCLASSICAL THEORY OF CONSUMER CHOICE .................................................................. 11
2.2
MATHEMATICAL APPROACHES ............................................................................................. 13
2.3
KANSEI APPROACH ............................................................................................................. 14
2.4
MEANS-END CHAIN THEORY ............................................................................................... 15 2.4.1
Different views on the elements in a Means-End Chain ........................... 17
2.4.2 Different views on information processing structures: motivational structure vs. semantic structure view ...................................................................... 19 2.4.3
Different views on theoretical perspectives: macro vs. micro level.......... 21
2.4.4 Different views on the structure of Means-End Chains: symmetric vs. asymmetric .............................................................................................................. 22 2.5
LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 24
3
THEORETICAL MODEL AND HYPOTHESES ....................................................... 26
4
METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................. 31 4.1
EXPLORATORY AND DESCRIPTIVE DESIGN ............................................................................ 31
4.2
QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE METHODS .......................................................................... 32
4.3
SCIENTIFIC CREDIBILITY ...................................................................................................... 32
4.4
DEVELOPMENT OF MEANS-END METHODS FOR COLLECTING AND ANALYZING DATA ................. 34 4.4.1
Repertory Grid Method ............................................................................. 35
4.4.2
Laddering Method..................................................................................... 36
4.4.3
Association Pattern Technique.................................................................. 38
4.4.4
Extended Association Pattern Technique.................................................. 41
5
APPLYING THE EXTENDED ASSOCIATION PATTERN TECHNIQUE ................ 44 5.1
SAMPLE STANDPOINTS ....................................................................................................... 45
5.2
FIRST STAGE: EXPLORATORY LADDERING INTERVIEWS .......................................................... 45
5.3
5.2.1
Data collection .......................................................................................... 45
5.2.2
Data analysis ............................................................................................. 48
5.2.3
Laddering results Germany ....................................................................... 50
5.2.4
Laddering results Sweden ......................................................................... 52
5.2.5
Comparison of German and Swedish laddering results ............................ 53
SECOND STAGE: DESCRIPTIVE MATRIX-SURVEY STUDY ......................................................... 55 5.3.1
Data collection .......................................................................................... 55
5.3.2
Summary Implication Matrices................................................................. 59
5.3.3
Cut-off level .............................................................................................. 60
5.3.4
Hierarchical Value Maps and most dominant perceptual orientations ...... 62
5.3.5
Matrix-survey results Germany ................................................................ 64
5.3.5.1
Different age-groups in Germany ................................................... 64
5.3.5.2
Different income-classes in Germany.............................................. 71
5.3.5.3
Different regions in Germany.......................................................... 76
5.3.5.4
Accumulated results for Germany ................................................... 79
5.3.6
6
Matrix survey results Sweden ................................................................... 80
5.3.6.1
Different age-groups in Sweden ...................................................... 80
5.3.6.2
Different income-classes in Sweden ................................................ 84
5.3.6.3
Different lands in Sweden................................................................ 88
5.3.6.4
Accumulated results Sweden ........................................................... 91
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS AND HYPOTHESES TESTING ................................ 93 6.1
EVALUATING AND DISCUSSING THE EXTENSION OF THE ASSOCIATION PATTERN TECHNIQUE ... 93
6.2
COMPARING PERCEPTIONS WITH REGARD TO HYPOTHESES AND THE THEORETICAL MODEL ..... 96 6.2.1
Comparison of age-groups in Germany .................................................... 97
6.2.2
Comparison of income-classes in Germany ............................................ 101
6.2.3
Comparison of regions in Germany ........................................................ 104
6.2.4
Comparison of age-groups in Sweden .................................................... 106
6.3
7
6.2.5
Comparison of income-classes in Sweden .............................................. 110
6.2.6
Comparison of lands in Sweden.............................................................. 113
6.2.7
Comparison of Germany and Sweden on accumulated level .................. 116
6.2.8
Test of hypotheses .................................................................................. 121
DISCUSSION OF EMPIRICAL RESULTS ................................................................................. 125
CONCLUDING REMARKS ................................................................................... 128 7.1
CONCLUSIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS .................................................................................. 128
7.2
PRACTICAL AND THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS ..................................................................... 130
7.3
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ........................................................................... 130
REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 132
1 Introduction This study investigates consumer perceptions of durable products within the contextual boundaries of wooden multistory houses in Germany and Sweden. Chapter one gives the reader an understanding of the construction markets in both countries. Moreover, it contains the problem discussion resulting in the research question to be investigated, the purpose and objective, as well as the delimitations and the outline of this thesis. In the past years, a growing interest of wood has emerged as a material alternative in many different applications. One reason for this is due to its environmental advantages, relative to other materials. The usage of one cubic meter wood as, for example, a substitute for other construction materials like steel, aluminium or concrete, reduces carbon dioxid (CO2) emissions by about 2 tons in average. This includes a decrease in emissions due to wood-specific processing techniques, as well as its natural carbon sequestration and storage capacity (BEYER ET AL., 2007). This makes wood especially advantageous when applied in different constructural contexts. According to the Swedish Ministry of Economics, the Swedish Forest and Wood Industry is globally at the forefront of wooden house construction1. Accomplishments and performances on the Swedish market could influence international markets as well. It is expected that future developments on European construction markets can follow the example of various Swedish initiatives, in order to establish wood as a competitive construction material (NÄRINGSDEPARTEMENTET, 2004).
The term wooden houses is frequently used for buildings which are built with wood as the construction material in the bearing structure (a.o. NÄRINGSDEPARTEMENTET, 2004; SIPARI, 2007; STEHN ET AL., 2008). This is also the view held by the author of the present study, and does not necessarily imply that facade elements are made of wood or that other visual wood appliances have to exist. 1
1
1.1
Background – the construction market of residential wooden houses in Sweden and Germany
Looking at different segments on the Swedish construction market, one can see that while wooden houses dominate the market segment of oneand two-family houses with approximately 93 % market share (TRÄ- OCH MÖBELINDUSTRIEFÖRBUNDET, 2008), the situation looks different on the market for multistory houses. After devastating fires destroyed large parts of several Swedish cities during the 19th century, building regulations changed in 1874. As a consequence, it was not longer allowed to construct wooden buildings with more than two stories (SVENSK FÖRFATTNINGSSAMLING, 1874). Yet, in 1994, regulations on the construction market changed and were adjusted towards functional requirements. Now, regulations are pointing to e.g. a certain time that a house has to resist burning or what weight it has to be able to carry (NÄRINGSDEPARTEMENTET, 2004). This modification implies that wood, after 120 years, can be considered as the bearing material in multistory buildings again, and intense movements on the construction market followed. In 2004, the Swedish government implemented a national strategy for more wood in constructions, striving to further develop industrialised production processes (SERRANO, 2008) and to improve the position of wooden multistory houses. It was argued that this was of major importance in order to trigger competition, since the construction market was, and mostly still is, equipped for conventional materials like concrete, steel, brick or stone (SCHAUERTE, 2007). Over the duration period of the strategy, from 2004 to 2008, wooden multistory houses were built in more than half of the 290 Swedish municipalities (SVENSSON, 2008). Consequently, this development led to an increased market share of about 10 % until 2005 (STEHN ET AL., 2008) and further up to about 14.5 % in 2009 (SVENSSON, 2009). In addition to that, wooden multistory houses are more and more accepted by end-users as well (SCHAUERTE, 2008), and have an upward tendency in this market segment. After the completion of the national strategy for more wood in construction, follow-up strategies have been launched by the Swedish ministry of Environment, which will continue triggering the positive trend of wood applications (MILJÖDEPARTEMENTET, 2008). In Germany, the construction market for wooden houses looks different. Considering one- and two-family houses, wooden houses had a market
2
share of 6.9 % in 1991 (STATISTISCHES BUNDESAMT DEUTSCHLAND, 2004). Over the years, the use of wood as a raw material became more and more attractive (BALDWIN, 2000) and increased to a market share of 12.9 % in 2003, and 14.5 % in 2008 (HOLZABSATZFONDS, 2009). Hence, even if only every seventh one- and two-family house is build in wood, the market share nevertheless more than doubled since 1991. Even though the use of wood on the construction market is increasing, it had not been considered as an alternative material for multistory houses in larger applications until 2002. Then, a modification of the Musterbauordnung (MBO) was adopted as an attempt to align the construction regulations from all German federal states, which are autonomous and may differ among national states. The MBO distinguishes between different construction categories. Here, the level of the top floor of a wooden multistory house, according to ‘construction category four’, can be up to 13 meters above ground (ARGEBAU, 2002)2. Yet, the MBO is not a strict construction regulation, but has to be regarded as a recommendation guideline for the federal regulations (DEUTSCHER STÄDTEUND GEMEINDEBUND, 2002). Construction projects that are developed according to the MBO, and planned to be built in a certain federal state, have to be approved by the Ministry for Construction in the respective federal state. This is a rather complicated procedure compared to other countries, yet, since the MBO became operative, several projects have been carried out in different federal states. Even if wooden multistory houses had only gained about 1.9 % of the market share by 2008, attempts can already be seen on the market to better utilize the advantages of wood in bearing constructions in order to upgrade the quality of the final product (INFORMATIONSDIENST HOLZ, 2008). Summing up, it can be said that in both Sweden and Germany various activities have been, and are about to be, performed in order to accentuate Here, just a brief description of the MBO is given since it comprises very complex and exceptional cases as well. There are several issues, where building licenses can be approved for constructions in wood, not belonging to this construction class four. In 2006, e.g., a German interest group requested a project in Berlin, where the top floor exceeded 13 meters height and thus assigned in construction class five. This project was submitted to be examined in a feasibility study, and finally a building license was granted. Read more about the Berlin project in Kaden (2007), about the MBO in ARGEBAU (2002), and the information site from the German Timber Promotion Fund (www.informationsdienst-holz.de).
2
3
and improve the position of multistory houses made of wood, even if these activities differed in their magnitude. Yet, working with positioning issues of a product entails far more than changing construction regulations, developing production processes or improving technical characteristics (SCHAUERTE, 2008). Positioning is how consumers’ minds are affected3 (RIES & TROUT, 1981). 1.2
Problem discussion
The position of a product is its place in the mind of the consumer (RIES & TROUT, 1981), i.e., how the target group perceives the product in question. Perceiving a product is a cognitive process that, on the one hand, entails all product knowledge that is stored and organized in human memory; this knowledge base consists of both personal experiences and other information (GRUNERT & GRUNERT, 1995), e.g. new information from strategic marketing campaigns. On the other hand, consumers assess the product in question by evaluating its personal relevance, i.e. why the product is personally relevant for the consumer to choose (OLSON & REYNOLDS, 2001). Perceiving a product happens not only through its attributes, but also through its level of performance on each of these attributes. Investigating this helps to understand consumers’ current knowledge about the product in question (GRUNERT & GRUNERT, 1995), as well as why consumers favor certain products over others (GUTMAN, 1982). According to the Means-End Chain Theory on consumer behavior4, consumers link product attributes with certain consequences that are the result of the performance of these attributes. For example, a sports-shoe has ‘air support’ (attribute) which might have the consequence of ‘running faster’ or ‘feeling relaxed after running’. These consequences are in turn related to the consumers’ personal values like e.g. ‘physical fitness’ or In literature (a.o. KOTLER, 2003; AAKER, 1998; HOUGAARD & BJERRE, 2003), the terms ‘consumer’, ‘customer’ and ‘end user’ sometimes are used as synonyms and no clear distinction can be seen as universally accepted. Some regard ‘customers’ as the ones purchasing a product, while ‘consumers’ and ‘end users’ are seen as the ones finally using the product. Yet, ‘consumers’ sometimes are regarded as the ones purchasing as well. In this thesis, the term ‘consumer’ is used with the implication that the individuals in question potentially might purchase and use the product in question.
3
4
More about this approach in chapter 2.4 The Means-End Chain theory.
4
‘self-esteem’ (HERMANN & HUBER, 2000; VRIENS & TER HOFSTEDE, 2000). Hence, product attributes and their consequences have to be matched with personal values. Since consumers regard products as a set of utility components (HERRMANN 2000), a product’s perceived performance, i.e. the consequences of product attributes, constitutes the important link between the product and the consumer. Furthermore, consequences are often divided into functional and psychological consequences (PHILLIPS & REYNOLDS, 2009), and many studies show that linkages between different consequences are perceived by the consumer, constituting important parts of their product knowledge (a.o. GUTMAN, 1982; GENGLER & REYNOLDS, 1995; PIETERS ET AL., 1995; REYNOLDS & WHITTARK, 1995; NIELSEN ET AL., 1998; COSTA ET AL., 2004).
ET AL.,
In 1998, Ter Hofstede et al. developed a quantitative data collection technique, called the Association Pattern Technique, to elicit perceived linkages between attributes and consequences on the one hand, and conseqences and values on the other hand5. By doing so they neglected potential linkages between consequences, as they have been revealed in various other studies (a.o. LEPPARD ET AL., 2004; SKYTTE AND BOVE, 2004; WOODSIDE, 2004; HENNEBERG ET AL., 2009). Since consequences are the crucial connection between the product and the consumer, this non-consideration may lead to results that do not mirror consumer’s perceptions as a whole, i.e. important parts of consumer’s product knowledge may not be detected (SCHAUERTE, 2006). The Association Pattern Technique, as presented by Ter Hofstede et al. (1998), should therefore be extended to elicit potential linkages between different consequences to detect consumers’ product knowledge as a whole.6 Here, however, a distinction between durable products and non-durable products should be taken into consideration. This, because non-durable products are distinguished from durable products in terms of e.g. longevity and the level of importance for the consumer. Durability refers to a products’ expected operating life (KOTLER, 2003) and The Bureau of 5
More about this approach in chapter 4.4.3 Association Pattern Technique.
A more detailed elaboration of this extension is presented in chapter 4.4.4 Extended Association Pattern Technique.
6
5
Economic Analysis defines durable products as products that have an average lifetime of at least three years (KATZ, 1983). The average expected lifetime for a wooden house is 50 years, which comprises wooden multistory houses as well (BOVERKET, 2003). Thus, a wooden multistory house should be considered a durable product.7 Differences in the level of importance between durable products and nondurable products are to be found, for example, in terms of capital involvement, risk, available information before the actual purchase, and prior experience, all of which in turn affect the evaluation of various product attributes (MARELL MOLANDER, 1998) and their consequences. Yet, existing studies about durable products mostly concentrate on economic problems like predicting demand (a.o. HAUSER ET AL., 1983; SULTAN & WINER, 1993; BAYUS, 1991; BAYUS & GUPTA, 1992; BAYUS ET AL., 1989). However, according to Marell Molander (1998), this turned out to be difficult, since there was, and still is, a lack of understanding the underlying consumer behavior. Durable products are more important to the consumer and their specific attributes are evaluated more carefully, whereas non-durable products require a lower involvement on the part of the consumer. Their attributes and consequences are not appraised that carefully, and such products are regarded as relatively easy to substitute (KOTLER, 2000). Since a product has various attributes with numerous consequences, not all of these have the same importance in the eye of the consumer, which especially appears to be the case for durable products. Some are perhaps not important to be communicated to the consumer at all. Instead, the exact mix of attributes and consequences with which consumers want to satisfy their personal values, has to be found (MACMILLAN & MCGRATH, 2000). Understanding the relative importance of product attributes and their consequences for consumers is therefore vital (TAKADA & JAIN, 1991).
7 Considering a wooden multistory house as a ‘product’ might be regarded as controversial and should be further discussed. Consumers can not only use one single flat or condominium in a certain house, yet, they also have access to the stairway, laundry rooms, loft storages, parking areas or similar things. Therefore, some might regard ‘living’ in a multistory house as some kind of service instead. However, according to a.o. Kotler et al. (2001), the term ‘product’ does not only include tangible goods, but anything that can be marketed to satisfy a want or a need. This includes ‘service’ in the term ‘product’.
6
Further, the perception of products and the importance of attributes, consequences and their connection to personal values often depend on consumers’ different socio-demographic backgrounds. In literature, many background factors are listed that marketers could consider, like age, income, gender, education, religion, social class, lifestyle, within-country habitation, national habitation etc. (a.o. KOTLER ET AL., 2001; AXELSSON & AGNDAL, 2005). Regarding wooden multistory houses, some of these factors might have more practical relevance than others. National and within-country habitation might affect consumers’ perceptions of the product in question, since wood is used in different quantities and applications on the construction markets in Sweden and Germany, and even in different regions in each country (SCHAUERTE, 2006; TMF, 2009). In line with this, other researchers found differences in consumers’ perceptions and their preferences of different kind of products, services or brands, depending on national habitation (a.o. MACKAY & EASLEY, 1996; NIELSEN ET AL., 1998; DIBLEY & BAKER, 2001; LEPPARD ET AL., 2004; SKYTTE & BOVE 2004) and within-country habitation (a.o. KAHLE, 1986; PLÄCKING, 1990; CHAUDHURI & HALDER, 2005; ANDERS & MOESER, 2008). In addition to habitational aspects, marketers might also have to take the factor age into consideration, when planning and conducting marketing campaigns. Since wooden multistory houses can be built for different intended usages, like e.g. student hostels or rest homes for the aged, differences in perceptions among age-groups should be considered to make the product more attractive for the respective target group (SCHAUERTE, 2006). In other studies, age was found to affect judgmental cognitive processes, like information processing for preference choices, attitudes towards brands and perceptions (a.o. PLISKE & MUTTER, 1996; CHASSEIGNE ET AL., 1997; NOBLE & NOBLE, 2000; SCHIFFMAN & KANUK, 2004; MUSIÉLAK ET AL., 2006; COLE ET AL., 2008). Furthermore, marketers often have to consider income as a depending factor when marketing their products to different consumer groups. In the case of wooden multistory houses, this seems to be a relevant factor as well. Due to monetary reasons, planning all kind of residential projects has, amongst others, to consider the location of the building to be constructed. This might affect the potential clientele, since not all residential-seeking consumers might be able to afford offered objects on the one hand; nor might they be willing to accept objects, which
7
consumers affiliated to lower income-classes would choose. Here, differences in perceptions of wooden multistory houses due to varying income may be the base for consumer segmentation. Other studies show differences among income-classes when investigating e.g. quality perception of different kinds of food, (OSBORN, 1987; HOFFMANN, 2000), various services (SIVADAS, 1997; EDWARDS, ET AL., 2008), luxury goods (DUBOIS & DUQUESNE, 1993), product and store preferences (MUNSON & SPIVEY, 1981) and new products or styles (RICH & JAIN, 1968). Due to the above-mentioned arguments, age, income, national and withincountry habitation probably might affect consumers’ perceptions of wooden multistory houses, i.e. durable products. In chapter 3, these sociodemographic background factors are further elaborated on. As mentioned above, durable products have a unique character, compared to non-durable products. Since an understanding has to be created about the current product knowledge of consumers and the underlying reasons of why consumers favor a certain product over another, this understanding refers to how consumers perceive durable products and what factors might influence these perceptions. Therefore, the research question addressed in this thesis is: How do consumers perceive durable products, and what affects the perceptions? 1.3
Purpose and objective
The purpose of this thesis is to contribute to the understanding of how consumers perceive durable products. This will be done by trying to further develop an existing quantitative data collection technique, the Association Pattern Technique, to find linkages between different consequences. Extending this technique successfully would imply that a more holistic view of consumers’ existing product knowledge can be detected. 1.4
Delimitations
This thesis will neither investigate consumers’ decision-making processes of the product in question nor the possible differences between consumers’ perception of a product and its actual purchase. Thus, possible other
8
factors that might have influenced a decision making process will be disregarded as well, like e.g. the role of architects or other actors in the construction market. This, since the purpose of this research does not comprise the complexity of the whole buying process, but only the perception of wooden multistory houses. Furthermore, the results of this study are based upon the contextual frame of empirical data gathered from two samples, the German and Swedish respondents, and their perception of wooden multistory houses. Thus, other researchers have to decide whether or not these results can be transferred to other contexts8. In addition to that, the background factors age, income, national and within-country habitation were chosen to be investigated as potential factors that might affect consumers’ perceptions of the product in question. Other factors might exist that could be used to explain differences in perceptions; however, these could be focused on in upcoming research projects. 1.5
Outline of this thesis
Chapter 1, ‘Introduction’, gives the reader the background information about the contextual frame of this investigation. Further, the research question, the purpose, objective and delimitations for the investigation, are presented. Chapter 2, ‘Literature review’, contains different approaches to study consumer preferences, including the Neoclassical Theory of Consumer Choice in Microeconomics, mathematical approaches, the Kensai approach and the Means-End Chain theory. Chapter 3 presents the ‘Theoretical model and hypotheses’ that will be investigated in this study. Chapter 4, ‘Methodological considerations’, includes issues of research design and the credibility of results. Further, the development of methods associated with the Means-End Chain theory is described as well as the extension of the Association Pattern Technique.
8
Read more about this issue in chapter 4.4 Scientific credibility.
9
Chapter 5, ‘Applying the Extended Association Pattern Technique’, contains detailed information about how data for both the first stage, i.e. the explorative laddering study, and the second stage, i.e. the descriptive matrix-survey study, was collected and analyzed. Empirical results are presented. Chapter 6, ‘Discussion of results and testing the hypotheses’, evaluates the extension of the Association Pattern Technique. Furthermore, the hypotheses developed in chapter 3 are tested against the present data. Chapter 7, ‘Concluding remarks’, gives an answer to the research question, as well as practical and theoretical implications of the present results. Finally, suggestions for further research conclude this study.
10
2 Literature review Different approaches about consumer preferences are briefly presented and evaluated in terms of their appropriateness to uncover consumers’ current knowledge on wooden multistory houses, and to detect underlying reasons why they would prefer this product over other products in this product category. There exists a variety of approaches dealing with consumer preferences. Each of them differs in terms of appropriate applicability for e.g. product positioning, prediction of demand, new-product design, pricing strategy etc. Thus, to be applied in a proper way, each approach has to specify the procedure in which product perception is translated into preferences (SRINIVASAN & WINER, 1994). 2.1
Neoclassical Theory of Consumer Choice
One possible approach is the Neoclassical Theory of Consumer Choice in Microeconomics9, as well known as the Rational Choice Theory. One fundamental assumption of this approach is that, among others, for any two bundles of products, binary relations can be observed. These include that one product can be either ‘at least as good as’ (≥), ‘no better than’ (~), ‘less good than or equal to’ (≤) or ‘strictly better than’ (>) another good. Further, binary relations are complete if any two products x and y can be compared as x ≥ y or y ≥ x. If a third product z is involved, relations are regarded as transitive, if x is at least as good as y, and y is at least as good as z, then x is at least as good as z (if x ≥ y and y ≥ z than x ≥ z). These assumptions are of particular interest as they are fundamental to the definitions of rationality (SCHUMANN ET AL., 2007). Trying to satisfy Walras Law of ‘more is better’, consumers are thus expected to make rational decisions, based on rational preference relationships, which can be captured in the consumers’ direct utility function, U(x) (MILLER, 2006). This utility function is a function of the
For a more detailed description see e.g. Deaton and Muellbauer (1980), Schumann et al. (2007) or Silberberg (1978).
9
11
consumed quantities x=[x1,…, xn] of n-products and the indirect utility function V(p,y), with the price levels p and the total expenditure constraint y. The resulting Marshallian demand function is described as xi=xi(p,y), i=1…n (MILLER, 2006). One of the most well known advocates, and by some even called the father of Rational Choice Theory, is James S. Coleman. In the 1950s and 1960s he was aiming at answering questions like ‘what motivates action’ or ‘what directs action’ by means of empirical evidence (among others COLEMAN ET AL., 1957; COLEMAN, 1961, 1974, 1996). Coleman found that consumers motivate their actions by ‘rationality’ and that ‘maximization of utility’ directs their actions. Due to its relative general character, Rational Choice Theory was and still is being used in many investigations (a.o. BRYK ET AL., 1993; KISER & HECHTER, 1998, PUTNAM, 2000; GOULD, 2001; PATERNOSTER & POGARSKY, 2009). However, due to the assumptions that customer preferences were considered to be given, constant and sufficiently represented in market choices (GOWDY & MAYUMI, 2001), Neoclassical Theory of Consumer Choice and Rational Choice Theory have been targeted with serious criticism from the very beginning (a.o. LAVOIE, 1994; BOUDON, 1998, 2003; SMELSER, 1998; YAIR, 2008). Downey (1987) for example argues that one reason for the negative response to this approach in consumer preference research is because it ignores human habits and the difficulty of comparing choices. According to this author, habits and not calculations direct most acting. Interestingly, Yair (2008) found that the underlying empirical investigations performed by Coleman were of non-rational character. It is stated that studying motivators for action, Coleman himself used assumptions built on ‘insecurity’ and ‘existential anxiety’ rather than ‘rationality’. Further, investigating factors directing action, Coleman argues as well that consumers try to ‘conform to prominent others’. Thus, ‘insecurity’ should be seen as the motivator for action and ‘conformity’ directing that action (YAIR, 2008). In line with this, national economist Brinkmann (1989) states that there exist laws of human action that cannot be explained or investigated by means of the Neoclassical Theory in Microeconomics, since human behavior is guided by e.g. routines, satisficing situations, and conformity to opinion leaders.
12
Although continuous enhancements were made to use this approach in problems of consumer preferences and choice (a.o. LEE & PITT, 1986; HANEMANN, 1994; SRINIVASAN & WINER, 1994; BECKER, 1996), most contemporary microeconomic literature does not treat biases to validity of neoclassical axioms to consumer preference (VAN DEN BERGH ET AL., 2000). Therefore, this approach still lacks in explaining the underlying reasons of how consumers perceive, or why they favor, certain products over others. It is also incongruent with accepted models of human behavior verified by both experimental and theoretical work (GOWDY & MAYUMI, 2001). Consequently, it has to be concluded that the underlying principles of the Neoclassical Theory of Consumer Choice, Rational Choice Theory and further developed approaches relating to these theories are not in line with the purpose of this study, and advisably should be regarded with scepticism when investigating consumer preference motives. 2.2
Mathematical approaches
Attempts to contribute theoretically to this field were made by enhancing existing and developing new mathematical approaches, like e.g. the ‘expectancy-value model’ (FISHBEIN & AJZEN, 1975) or the ‘compensatory multi-attribute model’ (a.o. WILKIE & PESSEMIER, 1973). These try to evaluate attributes by weighing criteria for priority setting. The mathematical products of all defined criteria n, i.e. C1…Cn, and m weights W1…Wm, are added and the outcome is seen to be a useful tool within consumer preference research, facilitating consumers’ decision-making (SHEN & SPEDDING, 1998). Although this approach was adjusted towards certain applications, and is still applied in several cases (a.o. MEYER & SATHI, 1985; CHICK ET AL., 2000; SCHAPIRA ET AL., 2004), it cannot fill the described gap either. While correct in its mathematical and fundamental conceptual form, the conditions on which the model relies do not exist in reality (ZELENY, 1976). As an example of a more content-related critique, Grunert (1990) mentioned that rating scales, as used in the Fishbein approach, where cognitive categories are to be evaluated, do not originate from the respondents. They are formulated in advance by the researcher, which may seriously violate the validity of findings.
13
In addition to this, rating scales are met with other criticism. In 1991, Paulhus recognized three biases. First, social desirability can occur when respondents reply with an expected answer being socially correct; yet, not necessarily corresponding to their own opinion (SCHWARTZ ET AL., 1997). Second, acquiescence biases were observed in studies investigating customer values. Here, respondents marked almost all values as being very important in their life (SCHWARTZ & BARDI, 2001). This phenomenon becomes even more critical in cross-cultural studies, as some countries or cultures tend to be more acquiescent than others (GRIMM & CHURCH, 1999; BAUMGARTNER & STEENKAMP, 2001). Third, there exists a tendancy to mark the extreme points of a rating scale, as several studies indicate (CHEN ET AL., 1995; SMITH & SCHWARTZ, 1997; USUNIER & LEE, 2001). Thus, using rating scales implies the risk of distorted findings that do not mirror respondents’ opinions of reality (LEE ET AL., 2007). 2.3
Kansei approach
Returning back to the above mentioned critique by Grunert (1990) about pre-formulated cognitive concepts to be evaluated by respondents, this critique can also be applied to the Kansei approach to consumer preferences. Developed by the Japanese Mitsuo Nagamachi in the 1970s and 1980s, this approach refers to consumers’ psychological feelings and aesthetic impressions about a product (= ‘human Kansei’), which are seen as being affected by emotions and subjective senses of personal values (LEE ET AL., 2002, CHEN & CHANG, 2009). Since consumer preferences play an important role in product development (HSU ET AL., 2000), the competitiveness of a product is thought to be improved by linking consumers’ ‘human Kansei’, in terms of product attributes, to product design features (NAGAMACHI, 1995; ZHAI ET AL., 2009). This, since it is supposed that consumers’ psychological satisfaction can be retraced to the form features of a product. In this sense, product designers are particularly interested in identifying relevant form features to develop products that are in line with consumers’ expectations on the psychological level (CHEN & CHANG, 2009). In a product development process, this would move the focus from subjective assessments of the individual preferences of the product designers towards the corresponding emotional responses of the consumers about the product in question (NAGAMACHI, 1995, 1997; HSIAO & HUANG, 2002). Consumers’
14
subjective impressions are gathered by identifying product attributes and asking consumers to rate them on a scale according to their personal preferences (ISHIHARA ET AL., 1997). The Kansei approach is being applied in numerous studies (a.o. JINDO & SHIMIZU, 1995; TANOUE ET AL., 1997; HSU ET AL., 2000; NAGAMACHI, 2002; YAN ET AL., 2008; ZHAI ET AL., 2009; KOSAKA & SHIIZUKA, 2009; LEE ET AL., 2009) and receives rising attention as more researchers and practitioners are aware of combining basic functional requirements and consumers’ psychological needs (CHEN & CHANG, 2009). Here, two main critics have to be addressed. First, the Kansei words, which are at the disposal of the consumers when evaluating and rating them according to their psychological feelings, are predefined. They might e.g. be subjectively evaluated by specialists (MATSUBARA & NAGAMACHI, 1997) or collected from retail shops and magazines (NAGAMACHI, 1995). The possibility of exploring terms relevant for consumers is confined. In contrast, subjective assessments of ‘specialists’, in some cases probably product designers, come to the fore again, which it was originally intended to avoid. This issue of threat to result validity was commented on by Grunert (1990) and already mentioned above. Furthermore, evaluated Kansei words might hardly be connected to consumers’ personal preferences, since preferences are regarded as originating from consumers’ appraisal of personal relevance of the product in question (OLSON & REYNOLDS, 2001). According to consumer behavior literature, personal relevance is determined by personal goals or values (a.o. FENNELL, 1978; GUTMAN, 1982). This means that a product has to perform in a way that helps consumers to reach their goals or that matches the consumers’ personal values. A product’s performance, i.e. the positive and negative consequences that product usage entails, affects the relative importance of product attributes (WALKER & OLSSON, 1991), and is therefore essential for consumers when evaluating those products. Yet, Kansei words do not go beyond the attribute level. Therefore it can be questioned whether they really address consumers’ personal preferences or not, and what personal relevance they have in addressing consumers’ personal goals and values. 2.4
Means-End Chain theory
One approach that might fill this gap is the Means-End Chain (MEC) theory. It deals with consumer preferences and how consumers perceive 15
certain products, trying to understand why they favor one product over another (GUTMAN, 1997). MEC theory is based on a work by psychoanalyst Tolman (1932), who drew attention to the purposeful nature of individual behavior. In 1982, Gutman implemented this approach to the field of consumer research by exploring consumer knowledge (BARRENA FIGUEROA & SANCHEZ GARCIA, 2008). His conceptual model is based upon two basic assumptions. First, consumer behavior is dominantly influenced by consumers’ desired endstates, i.e. personal values. Secondly, consumers have to deal with an enormous amount of information regarding potential products that might help them to reach their desired end-states. Therefore they reduce this amount by categorizing and segmenting information to diminish choice complexity. This means that, within the framework of cognitive information processing, consumers try to form a conception of the suitability of the commodity in question, called ‘means’, to fulfill a specific want, called ‘end’. S/he focuses on the linkages between their desired state and the means to achieve this (GUTMAN, 1982). A MEC begins with a product attribute that, when the product is being used, will have one or more consequences, desired or undesired. These consequences are to be matched with the personal values of the consumers. That is, consumers learn to look for products whose attributes, in the case of product usage, will lead to desired consequences that will help to obtain personal values (COOLEN & HOEKSTRA, 2001; MOSSBERG, 2003). Attributes, consequences and values are also called the elements of MECs, representing three levels of abstraction, where the linkages between attributes and consequences belong directly to the product, whilst linkages between consequences and values are assigned to consumers’ subjective appraisal and personality (OLSON & REYNOLDS, 1983). The three different levels of abstraction, i.e. attributes, consequences and values, are of hierarchical nature with a flow from attributes toward values (GUTMAN, 1982). An attribute is not relevant by itself but gets relevant by leading to a desired consequence that is perceived by the consumer to help to achieve a personal value (WALKER & OLSSON, 1991). Consequently, the consumer is assumed not to buy products for the products sake but for the desired consequences and benefits it delivers when using it (a.o. MCALISTER, 1982; KROEBER-RIEL, 1992; COSTA ET AL., 2004). Therefore, MECs
16
are regarded as hierarchically ordered cognitive structures, linking consumers’ product knowledge with consumers’ self knowledge (a.o. LEPPARD ET AL., 2004; RUSSELL ET AL., 2004). Attributes, consequences and values, as the elements of MECs, are also called the content of consumer knowledge (TER HOFSTEDE ET AL., 1998) and constitute one part of MECs’ substance. Yet, due to above named reasons, the linkages that consumers establish between these elements are even more important (WALKER & OLSSON, 1991). The strength of these linkages, i.e. how important consumers perceive a connection between two elements, is called the structure of consumer knowledge (TER HOFSTEDE ET AL., 1998). MEC theory is seen as one of the most promising advancements in consumer research since the 1970s and 80s, where Tolman’s early work served as the basis for several authors to elaborate on Means-End models (a.o. HOWARD, 1977; COHEN, 1979; MYERS & SHOCKER, 1980; HERRMANN & HUBER, 2000; GRUNERT ET AL., 2001). MEC theory has many areas of application like e.g. helping to define components for advertising strategies (REYNOLDS & CRADDOCK, 1988) or working on issues related to product positioning and segmentation strategies (VALETTE-FLORENCE & RAPACCHI, 1991; TER HOFSTEDE ET AL., 1999; VRIENS & TER HOFSTEDE, 2000). Since the introduction of the MEC theory, different approaches within the theoretical framework have emerged. Sometimes, according to Reynolds & Olsson (2001), this often happened in a somehow haphazard manner, based on a researcher’s intuition and often driven by business applications. In some respects, MEC theory in its current condition may lack in clarity. Therefore, a discussion about the diversity of interpretation on such issues follows in the following sections, including the chosen point of departure for the present study. 2.4.1 Different views on the elements in a Means-End Chain While authors that investigate in MECs’ studies consistently use the elements attributes, consequences and values, they nevertheless break them down into different levels. Amongst others, Johnson (1984) and Tversky and Hemenway (1984) state that attributes should be broken down in respect of their level of abstraction. They are considered to be ‘concrete’ if they describe the physical/chemical/technical constitutions of
17
a product. These can be observed directly and/or measured objectively, e.g. less alcohol (product: beer). Each concrete attribute normally reflects just one fact, whereas ‘abstract’ attributes possibly provide a more comprehensive description of a commodity, e.g. full flavor (product: light beer). These abstract attributes of a certain product depend on the subjective perception of the individual, rather than on objective facts. Concerning consequences, concrete attributes of a product are said to lead to functional consequences, which specify the usefulness of the commodity and comprise the consequences of the product’s actual usage. Reverting to the ‘light beer’ example, the functional consequence of the concrete attribute ‘less alcohol’ might be ‘not gaining weight’. Further, socio-psychological consequences comprise all extras not vital to the actual function of the product that enhance the aesthetic appearance or the social acceptability of the buyer, e.g. ‘being regarded as sporty’ (HERRMANN & HUBER, 2000). According to Graumann and Willig (1983), a set of values constitutes explicit or implicit concentrations of ideals. They can be differentiated in terminal values that embody desirable goals in life (personal and social) and instrumental values, classified into moral and achievement oriented values (logical, intellectual, and imaginative). Returning to the example above, a terminal value could be ‘social recognition’, whereas ‘responsibility’ (moral) and ‘ambition’ (achievement) could serve as instrumental values. attributes
consequences
Concrete:
Abstract:
Functional:
Social:
Less alcohol
Full taste
Not gaining weight
Be regarded as sporty
values
Instrumental: Responsibility, ambition
Terminal: Social recognition
FIGURE 1: STRUCTURE OF THE MEANS-END CHAIN (HERMANN & HUBER, 2000).
Figure 1 shows the MEC from attributes to values, according to the above described approach. The perception of a product, here light beer, starts with activating the concrete and abstract attributes associated with it. This
18
impulse is propagated through the functional and socio-psychological consequences before reaching the instrumental and terminal values. Ter Hofstede et al. (1998), on the other hand, do not distinguish between different levels of attributes, consequences, and values. According to them, “…attributes are the concrete, tangible characteristics of a product. Consequences refer to what the product does or provides to the customer…Values are intangible, high-order outcomes or ends, being cognitive representations of consumers’ most basic and fundamental needs and goals.” (TER HOFSTEDE ET AL., 1998: 38) Keller (1993) in turn distinguishes between product-related and nonproduct-related attributes. Product-related attributes describe the ingredients necessary for performing the product or service function sought by consumers. They are related to a product’s physical characteristics. Non-product-related attributes are defined as external aspects of the product that relate to its purchase, like e.g. price information (BLATTBERG & WIESNIEWSKI, 1989), packaging or product appearance information, user imagery or usage imagery. As presented, different researchers have used different approaches to split the levels of abstraction in an MEC. Even if a four-level model with attributes, functional consequences, psychological consequences and values is seen as the most common (OLSON & REYNOLDS, 2001), or even as today’s standard (PHILLIPS & REYNOLDS, 2009), it is also stated that the higher the partitioning of the three basic levels ‘attributes’, ‘consequences’ and ‘values’, the higher the risk of overlapping, and the more difficult to properly distinguish between them (COSTA ET AL., 2004), which might violate scientific credibility. Thus, to guarantee clarity and simplicity in collecting and analyzing data, and thus to lower biases of the credibility of the result, the three basic levels of abstraction were not further separated in this study. 2.4.2 Different views on information processing structures: motivational structure vs. semantic structure view Due to diversity in conceptual interpretation of the early MEC theory, it is unclear how structures of information processing should be viewed.
19
Consumers try to give meaning to a certain product; yet, as Brunsø et al. (2004), Grunert & Grunert (1995) and others state, it is not explicit whether or not ‘meaning’ should be regarded in a motivational or in a semantic sense. Within the motivational structure view, it is argued that MECs allow for insights to be obtained into consumers’ buying motives (GRUNERT & GRUNERT, 1995). Goals, in terms of personal values, guide consumer behavior (GUTMAN, 1982) and are situationally unspecific (SCHOLDERER ET AL., 2002). Here, MECs can show the consequences and product attributes that are relevant for consumers to match their personal values. This top-down perspective, when regarding the hierarchical structure of MECs, is seen to be useful in understanding consumers’ underlying reasons why a certain product is favored over another. In this motivational structure view, information processing is driven by personal values (SCHOLDERER ET AL., 2002), and consumers’ knowledge in this view is also called ‘selfknowledge’ (BARRENA FIGUEROA & SANCHEZ GARCIA, 2008). The semantic structure view, on the other hand, considers information processing from a bottom-up perspective, investigating consumers’ consumption-relevant knowledge of a certain product (GRUNERT & GRUNERT, 1995). A comprehension process, determined by consumers’ existing product knowledge, tries to illuminate meaning in the product in question (BRUNSØ ET AL., 2004). This approach focuses on the way that consumers’ product knowledge is stored and organized in their memories (GRUNERT ET AL., 2001) and can therefore be regarded as being helpful in understanding how consumers perceive a certain product. Reverting to the early stages of MEC theory shows that it was aiming at conceptualizing consumers’ perceptions of objects. Higher level elements like values give meaning to lower level elements like consequences and attributes, and therefore motivate consumers’ decision making on different levels of abstraction (PHILLIPS & REYNOLDS, 2009). Furthermore, these different levels of abstraction, and the linkages between them, are regarded as cognitive structures. (AURIFEILLE & VALETTE-FLORENCE, 1995; WAGNER, 2007). The linked attributes, consequences and values in an MEC can therefore be regarded as representing consumers’ underlying motivation in decision making (CLAEYS ET AL., 1995). In various studies, linked elements are also depicted as e.g. ‘ladders of motives’ (BAGOZZI ET AL., 2003) or ‘motivational layers’ (COHEN & WARLOP, 2001). Thus
20
investigating consumers’ cognitive structures by finding reasons why certain attributes or consequences are desired can help uncover fundamental motivations in decision making processes (REYNOLDS & GUTMAN, 2001A; WAGNER, 2007). In line with these arguments, the motivational structure view is applied in this study. 2.4.3 Different views on theoretical perspectives: macro vs. micro level Describing the application of perceptions and values to the marketing of products, Reynolds & Gutman (1988) state that one can differentiate between two theoretically grounded perspectives. Within the more sociologically oriented macro perspective, products and their positioning strategies are directed to general target groups. This macro perspective is appropriate to be applied when investigating segmental or total market levels of analysis. Yet it can be argued that this is a rather general classification that fails to provide an understanding of how products fit into consumers' lives. The key defining components of a positioning strategy are missing, i.e. the linkages between the product and the personally relevant role it has in consumers’ lives (REYNOLDS, 1985). Further, the micro perspective can be described as based upon psychological aspects, and focuses on the linkages between product attributes, their consequences, and the values of the consumer (GUTMAN, 1982). The consequences of attributes are important for the assessment of the product’s usefulness (LANCASTER, 1966). It is not a package of attributes that is wanted, yet a set of utility components. It can be argued that consumers do not know all utilities provided by a product, since they concentrate on those that match their needs or values (HERRMANN & HUBER, 2000). This means that consumers do not perceive all attributes and their consequences from a product and further, not all of the ones perceived are equally important to them. To match personal values it is crucial to give consumers the exact set of attributes and consequences they want – and no more (MACMILLAN & MCGRATH, 1996). This ‘micro’ perspective can be applied on the individual level of analysis.
21
In this study, the Association Pattern Technique is used as the method for data collection10. This approach merges both the micro and macro level by combining the individual level, i.e. personal laddering interviews, as the base for the segmental or total market level, i.e. country-wide survey studies. Mentioned criticism about the failure to provide understanding of linkages between a product and a consumer’s life on the macro level can thus be overcome. 2.4.4 Different views on the structure of Means-End Chains: symmetric vs. asymmetric Since the early developments of MEC theory, the structure of MECs, i.e. the elements attributes, consequences and values, has been regarded as hierarchical and symmetric. As Gutman (1982, 1997) argues, the usage of products with certain attributes and their respective consequences can affect whether or not personal values, in terms of goals, can be attained; and not vice versa. In 2001, psychologist Niemeyer et al. performed a study validating the structure, process and content of construct hierarchies. They encourage researchers applying this approach to elucidate consumers’ self-relevant constructs and personal meanings (NIEMEYER, ET AL., 2001). Thus, a hierarchical order of the elements in MECs can be seen as a fundamental theoretical assumption. Nevertheless, some researchers question this hierarchical structure (a.o. BUTT, 1995; LEITNER, 1995; VAN REKOM & WIERENGA, 2007). Van Rekom’s & Wierenga’s (2007) results suggest a semantic network approach to be applied, and that the importance of attributes, consequences and values in an MEC is determined by its centrality and not by its level in the hierarchy. Scrutinizing van Rekom’s & Wierenga’s study (2007) shows, however, that their results lack in scientific credibility on several points and should be viewed with respect to the following. First, they state that in the hierarchical approach, the level in the hierarchy indicates the importance or prominence of an element. Yet, according to MEC theory, elements get their importance by associated relationships to other elements. It is not the elements themselves that are important, but the perceived linkages between them (REYNOLDS & GUTMAN, 1988).
10
Compare chapter 4.4.3 Association Pattern Technique.
22
Secondly, van Rekom & Wierenga (2007) state that the hierarchical structure found in many studies is a consequence of the data collection techniques used, and can therefore be described as an artifact. However, associated data collection techniques, e.g. the Laddering technique, were developed according to the theoretical foundations of the Means-End theory, i.e. that MECs are hierarchical. This means of course that, when fulfilling criteria of scientific credibility, researchers try to use methods that help them to study what they are aiming at, instead of studying something else (GUMMESSON, 2000). Thus, as long as there is no clear scientific evidence of MECs not being symmetric, data collection techniques used, like the Laddering technique, serve as a credible foundation of the data material collected. Thirdly, in their analysis, van Rekom & Wierenga (2007) took one concept from the network approach (centrality of a concept) and one from the hierarchical MEC approach (level in the hierarchy) and compared how these are correlated to an external, independent measure of importance; this is to show that centrality in a network indicates the importance of elements, rather than the level in an MEC. To start with, this comparison is not similar in terms, and can therefore be regarded as a self-fulfilling prophecy. According to the network theory, the importance of elements is determined by its centrality (VAN REKOM & WIERENGA, 2007). The level of an element in the hierarchy, on the other hand, is no characteristic of how important this element is, as described above. Therefore this comparison could hardly show a result being in favor of the hierarchy approach. Furthermore, the external, independent measure was part of a survey study answered by respondents who rated the importance of elements on a seven-point scale. The elements in this survey were a result of a qualitative laddering study, in which those elements that were mentioned most often as ‘ends’ were included. Examining these elements shows that elements from the categories ‘consequences’ and ‘values’ are mixed together. If researchers would agree on the appropriateness of such rating scales to investigate importance, ‘values’ should at least be separated from ‘consequences’, since ‘consequences’ are means to achieve or obtain ‘values’. Thus, a ranking order just on the ‘value’ level would be appropriate. Nevertheless, preference judgments made by consumers, such as the rating method applied by van Rekom & Wierenga (2007), have
23
been found as being inaccurate (FOTOPOULOS, ET AL., 2003) and should therefore be regarded with scepticism (REYNOLDS & GUTMAN, 1988). These are just some of the results shown by a closer investigation of van Rekom’s & Wierenga’s (2007) study, showing that their findings lack scientific credibility in terms of construct validity and reliability. Phillips & Reynolds (2009) came to a similar conclusion, mentioning that the authors failed in meeting several fundamental theoretical and methodological assumptions when collecting and analyzing data. A reanalysis of their data instead, according to these assumptions, turned out to be in favor of the hierarchical MEC approach (PHILLIPS & REYNOLDS, 2009). This means that the theoretical foundations of the MEC theory cannot be questioned by van Rekom’s & Wierenga’s (2007) findings, and remain valid even for the present investigation. 2.5
Literature review summary
In order to motivate the choice of the underlying approach for the present study, the above reviewed approaches are summarized and compared below. Approach
Focus lies on…
Advantages
Disadvantages
Neoclassical Theory of Consumer Choice
… rational decision making.
Due to assuming rational decision making, human behaviour can be modelled.
Consumer preferences are assumed to be given and human habits are ignored.
Mathematical Models
Kansei
Means-End Chain Theory
Content of rating scales do … evaluating attributes Can help to understand often not originate from by weighting criteria for consumer’s preferences in respondents. Rating scales priority setting. decision making may distort findings. … linking consumers’ feelings and aesthetic impressions about a product with product attributes.
Does not consider consequences of product attributes and how these are linked to consumer’s values.
Can explain underlying Predictive power in … consumers’ personal reasons of how consumers consumers’ decision values that guide their perceive products and why making is not validated by behaviour. one product is favoured now. over another.
TABLE 1: LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY
24
Can identify relevant form features for product development.
As described above, the Means-End Chain Theory has advantages over the other mentioned approaches, since it helps to understand how consumers perceive products. Therefore it is chosen as the theoretical framework for the present study.
25
3 Theoretical model and hypotheses In this chapter, a theoretical model and four hypotheses are developed. First, the terms ‘perception’ and ‘durable products’ are briefly presented, followed by a review of potential factors that can influence the perception of these kinds of products. The perception of a product is regarded as a process containing two main aspects. First, existing product knowledge that consists of personal experiences and other information concerning the product in question is stored and organized in the human memory. Secondly, consumers evaluate the product by its personal relevance. That means: is the product relevant for the consumer to choose, and if yes, why is that the case (GRUNERT & GRUNERT, 1995; OLSON & REYNOLDS, 2001)? This evaluation takes place by linking existing product knowledge in terms of product attributes and their consequences with the personal values of the consumer. In this way, consumers can differentiate between the relevance of different products, and favor one product over another (GUTMAN, 1982). As elaborated on in chapter 1.2, the evaluation of product attributes and their consequences is affected by their level of importance. This means that commodity or convenience products, i.e. non-durable products, are evaluated differently compared with longevity or durable products. Since the term ‘durable product’ comprises products with an average lifetime of at least three years (KATZ, 1983), and wooden multistory houses have an average lifetime of at least 50 years (BOVERKET, 2003), these are to be considered as durable products. Consequently, product attributes and their consequences might be evaluated differently by consumers compared to non-durable products and hence, consumers’ perceptions of such products might differ. This, since e.g. capital involvement and thus risk taking is much higher for such products. Research shows that perceptions are context dependent (a.o. ENGEL ET AL., 1995; KOTLER ET AL., 2001; MOSSBERG, 2003), i.e. they might change from context to context and over time. Even if the product in question is the same, this does not imply that this product is perceived in the same way by all consumers (OVERBY ET AL., 2005). Moreover, consumers may use the same product, yet, for different reasons (AAKER & MAHESWARAN, 1997; BAGOZZI 26
& DHOLAKIA, 1999). Consumers have different cognitive structures, since personal experiences and other information from the environment can be influenced by different variables (FENNELL, 1978). In investigating attributes, consequences and values, attention has to be paid to the cognition that consumers do not perceive all attributes and their consequences of a product. In addition, the ones perceived might not be equally important (MARELL MOLANDER, 1998). Various researchers found cross-national differences in consumers’ perceptions of different kinds of products or services. Leppard et al. (2004) investigated perceptions of the perceived role for food in affecting cognitive performance. Nielsen et al. (1998) studied consumer perceptions of vegetable oil, and MacKay and Easley (1995) looked at perceptions of gifts on different markets. Dibley and Baker (2001) found cross-national differences in how snacks brands are perceived, whilst Skytte and Bove (2004) investigated how retailer value was perceived for pork and fish products. In 2005, Grunert and Bech-Larsen explained choice option attractiveness for food products differentiated by national affiliation. Other cross-national studies reveal differences to be considered in international market segmentation (TER HOFSTEDE ET AL., 1999) or for consumer-led product development (GRUNERT & VALLI, 2001). These examples, to name but a few, show that national habitation can affect consumers’ perceptions. In addition to national habitation, other socio-economical factors have been found as affecting the perception of products or services (a.o. HEBDEN & PICKERING, 1974; PAAS, 1998). Three characteristics that frequently show differences in perceptions are age, income and within-country habitation (AXELSSON & AGNDAL, 2005, PLÄCKING, 1990). Age was found to affect judgmental cognitive processes, like information processing for preference choices (PLISKE & MUTTER, 1996; CHASSEIGNE ET AL., 1997; HERSHEY & WILSON, 1997; MUSIÉLAK ET AL., 2006). Noble and Noble (2000) found age-related differences in attitudes towards brands and the price-quality ratio, preferences for technology and purchasing behavior. Cole et al. (2008) concluded that there are age differences in consumer preferences to different brands and Czellar (2003) proposes that age, among others, determinates differences in consumer attitudes. Schiffman and Kanuk (2004) stress the importance of segmenting markets into different age-groups, since distinctive differences in consumer preferences can be observed. Needs and interests change with age, and marketers often
27
use age as a base for product positioning, e.g. for different drinks (THOMPSON, 2000; NEUBORN, 2001), leisure travel, playing golf (MORTON, 1999) or luxury trademarks (KLEIN, 2001). Other studies investigated consumer preference differences depending on age, for e.g. newspapers (POINDEXTER & LASORSA, 1999), clothing (KLAASSEN, 2001), theme parks (GARFIELD, 2001), online shopping (SZMIGIN & CARRIGAN, 2001) and vacation cruises or health clubs (BRADLEY & LONGINO, 2001). Kotler (2003), Solomon et al. (2006) and other marketing textbook authors mention income as a common factor when segmenting markets. The meaning or importance of different products or product groups for different income-classes often goes beyond functional utilities but are sometimes regarded as status symbols or related to personal values of selffulfilling character. Investigating consumer preferences related to income, Verbeke et al. (2005) concluded that the higher the income, the higher the perceived relatedness of D-Vitamin in fish to health issues. Other studies that show differences among income-classes investigated in e.g. quality perception of fresh meat (HOFFMANN, 2000), advertising effects (EDWARDS, ET AL., 2008), leisure activities (SIVADAS, 1997), cars, luxury goods (DUBOIS & DUQUESNE, 1993), product and store preferences (MUNSON & SPIVEY, 1981), new products or styles (RICH & JAIN, 1968) or diet foods and drinks (OSBORN, 1987). Habitation in terms of regional or within-country differences have been found as affecting consumer preferences (a.o. KAHLE, 1986; PLÄCKING, 1990; CHAUDHURI & HALDER, 2005; ANDERS & MOESER, 2008) and their effect on positioning strategies (PANKHANIA & LEE, 2007). A variety of products or services were investigated, and regional differences were found for, a.o., different brands of peanut butter (FABRICANT, 1996), desserts (CHAKER, 1999), coffee bars (DAWIDOWSKA, 2002), insurance and pension programs (MOGELONSKY, 1996), burgers (CUREY & WARD, 1998), electronic equipment (DEBARROS, 2000), usage of different household electronics (FETTO, 2002), coffee drinking preferences (HAWKINS ET AL., 1980), or the willingness to try new products and the associated risks (GENTRY ET AL., 1988), to name but a few. As shown, national habitation, age, income and within-country habitation prevalently can explain differences in consumer preferences for various products or product groups. Thus, these socio-demographic factors might as well affect how consumers perceive durable products. Nevertheless, no
28
study to the knowledge of the author exists today that investigates in these four characteristics as affecting consumers’ perceptions of durable products, except Schauerte (2006). In that study, age, income and withincountry habitation were found to have an impact on the perception of German consumers when it comes to durable products (SCHAUERTE, 2006). However, as will be described in chapter 4.2.4, the way data was analyzed in that study had to be adjusted, which potentially might result in different findings. Moreover, in the present study, the sample from 2006 was extended by data from a Swedish sample. In line with these arguments, the following four hypotheses will be tested in the present study and are graphically presented in figure 2. Hypothesis 1: The perception of durable products differs among consumers with different national habitation. Hypothesis 2: The perception of durable products differs among consumers with different age. Hypothesis 3: The perception of durable products differs among consumers with different income. Hypothesis 4: The perception of durable products differs among consumers with different within-country habitation.
29
National habitation
Income
Perceptions of durable products
Within-country habitation
Age
FIGURE 2: SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS POSSIBLY INFLUENCING PERCEPTIONS OF DURABLE PRODUCTS
Studying the afore-described four background factors does not imply that other background factors are unimportant. As mentioned in chapter 1.2, many other factors are listed in literature that could be investigated, like gender, education, religion, social class, lifestyle etc. (a.o. KOTLER ET AL., 2001; AXELSSON & AGNDAL, 2005). Nevertheless, age, income, within-country and national habitation have been choosen due to their practical relevance. In addition to these, potential other factors of interest are mentioned in chapter 7.3 Suggestions for further research.
30
4 Methodological considerations This chapter contains short discussions about methodological issues relevant in the present study, including exploratory and descriptive design, quantitative and qualitative methods, and problems related to validity and reliability. Further, the development of the Association Pattern Technique is presented, which is suggested to be further expanded to gather useful additional data. 4.1
Exploratory and descriptive design
A research design is the proposed way of how the purpose and the question of the inquiry are linked with the data collection and the conclusions drawn (BAKER, 1999). It serves as the foundation for successfully conducting a research project and its main purpose is to avoid situations, where the collected data does not address the initial research intention (YIN, 2003). According to Malhotra (1999), research designs can e.g. be classified into exploratory and descriptive ones. Exploratory research provides insights into the problem at hand and creates or increases the understanding of it; often by applying qualitative methods on small and non-representative samples. Descriptive research instead describes market characteristics or functions, mostly by means of quantitative methods with large and representative samples. Since the Association Pattern Technique is used as the data collection method11, this study has both an exploratory and a descriptive part. The first part of the data collection, personal laddering interviews, should be carried out in an exploratory way to identify the relevant range of concepts that will be taken into the second part (TER HOFSTEDE ET AL., 1998). In this second part, the matrix-survey, focus lies on describing characteristics of certain groups of consumers (MALHOTRA, 1999), i.e. how the perception of
11
Compare chapter 4.4.3 Association Pattern Technique.
31
wooden multistory houses varies among consumers of different age, income, within-country and national habitation. 4.2
Quantitative and qualitative methods
Although it is not completely agreed amongst researchers on how to define quantitative and qualitative methods (ALVESSON & SKÖLDBERG, 1994), it can be seen as some kind of consensus that quantitative methods result in data in numerical form or in data that can be measured, while qualitative methods result in data that is not of numerical nature, nor can it be measured (TROCHIM, 2000; PUNCH, 2000). Researchers sometimes come to the point where there are no clear implications as to whether the data to be gathered has to be either qualitative or quantitative. Therefore, based on an understanding of how to measure and use numbers, the researcher has to decide whether or not, and how, to use quantitative or qualitative methods; or a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods to serve the purpose of the inquiry (PUNCH, 2000). As will be described in chapter 4.4, the Association Pattern Technique (APT) is used to collect the desired data. Even though the authors that introduced and validated this method state that it is a quantitative method (TER HOFSTEDE ET AL., 1998), this might only be true for one part of the method. Depending on its application, APT combines personal laddering interviews (qualitative) and a matrix-survey (quantitative). The qualitative method elicits key elements that are taken for further investigation in a large-scale study of quantitative form. Thus, qualitative and quantitative data are collected in conjunction with each other to serve the purpose of this study. 4.3
Scientific credibility
The attempt to accomplish a credible, coherent, and consistent research design implies two key concepts: validity and reliability (YIN, 2003). According to Gummesson (2000: 91) validity is “… the extent to which researchers are able to use their method to study what they had sought to study rather than (often without being aware of it) studying something else.”
32
This means that the collected data is relevant concerning the research question and includes different aspects, which are summed up under construct validity, internal validity, and external validity. Construct validity refers to a correct establishment of the operational measures for the concepts being studied, internal validity to the creation of a causal relationship (only used in causal case studies), and external validity to the domain to which the findings of a study can be generalized (YIN, 2003). To meet the requirements for construct validity, data collection has to be carried out in an objective way (YIN, 2003); yet, it is almost impossible to reach objectivity in an absolute sense. Nevertheless, this does not mean that researchers fall into uncritical subjectivity. At the very least they have to aim at a high level of detached honesty, one that moves the focus from the researchers themselves (GILLHAM, 2000). In order to fulfill this requirement, other researchers have been involved in this study at certain stages, where the author’s subjectivity potentially could have affected the outcome of the investigation. The proceeding at these stages is described in each corresponding chapter.12 The requirements for internal validity can most appropriately be fulfilled in causal research, and are thus not further elaborated on. Concerning external validity, it can be said that it is very difficult to generalize the outcome of a study (TROCHIM, 2000; YIN, 2003; GUMMESSON, 2000). This is because there are three major threats to be dealt with, i.e. people, places, and time. Generalizations can fail, if e.g. researchers state that the result of a study, which was carried out with certain people at a certain place at a certain point of time, can be transferred to e.g. another time, another place, and other people. In doing so, the researcher has to decide if this kind of transfer is acceptable or not. Nevertheless, researchers should try to achieve analytical generalizations in terms of theoretical or methodological features (TROCHIM, 2000). Existing methods to investigate in consumers’ perceptions have not been applied for the product category ‘durable products’, except by Schauerte (2006). In that study, an existing data collection method, the Association 12
Compare chapter 5.2.2 and 5.3.3.
33
Pattern Technique, was further developed by adjusting it to the characteristics of that very product category. Results showed that the suggested enhancement revealed valuable information for the population studied, i.e. consumers in Germany (SCHAUERTE, 2006). In the present study, the development of that method can be further validated by being applied to an additional population, i.e. consumers in Sweden. Demonstrating the usefulness of additional findings tracing back to the method development in Schauerte (2006) can further strengthen and validate that enhancement towards analytical generalization, meeting requirements of external validity. Reliability refers to the accuracy with which data is collected and managed. This includes the concern that a researcher investigates what s/he intends to investigate. Therefore, reliability demonstrates that the operations of a study, such as the data collection, can be repeated with the same outcome by another researcher, which is referred to as replication logic (GUMMESSON, 2000). By following the suggested steps of the original method in collecting and analyzing data, it was attempted to assure a relatively high degree of reliability in this study. At some stages, the original steps were changed and adjusted to serve the purpose of this investigation. Explanations on how and why adjustments were made can be found in the respective chapters. Nevertheless, since the collected data comprise information about the dynamic phenomenon perceptions, the particular point of time where the data was gathered has to be taken into consideration. Perceptions are context dependent and thus change over time. Respondents could give somehow different answers when asked at another point of time. This in turn could lead to different findings, if another researcher would carry out the same study at a later point of time. 4.4
Development of Means-End methods for collecting and analyzing data
Several authors have contributed to the field of methods that both gathered and analyzed data of MECs. Since the techniques to collect data have to be appropriate to elicit consumer knowledge, they are borrowed from experimental psychology, and developed to address internal mental
34
structures. Some of these techniques are presented below as a subjective selection based on current literature about how data collection methods concerning MECs developed over time. 4.4.1 Repertory Grid Method The Repertory Grid Method (RGM) is a technique adapted from a psychological theory of human cognition, i.e. personal construct theory. The central assertion of this theory is that humans organize their world into conceptual entities, i.e. objects of interest, and classify and differentiate them by a series of attributes called ‘constructs’ (HUDLICKA, 1996). Since these constructs can be adapted, confirmed or disconfirmed, they reflect current perceptions (RUSSELL & COX, 2004). The RGM has been developed to measure cognitive complexity quickly and efficiently (ZINKHAN & BRAUNSBERGER, 2004) and represents meanings associated with products (RUSSELL & COX, 2004). Respondents use their own words to describe their concerns. This method is basically a qualitative one that allows the collection of each respondent’s actual and realistic concern towards a product, rather than using researcher-generated rating scales to assess this knowledge (MUCCI & HOUGH, 2003). Consequently, one can gain a broad picture of how purchase decisions are made for certain products (MARSDEN & LITTLER, 2000). Taking up the light beer example from Herrmann & Huber (2000) again13, the RGM can be applied as follows. Within several rounds of interviews, triplets of different light beers are shown to the interviewees. The respondents are then prompted to name those attributes that create a similarity between two of the three beers, while simultaneously creating dissimilarity from the third one. This process continues until no new attribute can be named. In this way, a comprehensive list of attributes can be created. Next, the respondents are asked to name the two levels of each attribute that exhibit the greatest dichotomy, representing positive and negative attribute poles. These data can then be used to create a matrix, showing the three different beers at the top row and the two poles of each of the attributes. Finally, the interviewee has to state whether the level of various 13
Compare chapter 2.4.1.
35
attributes for each brand corresponds more closely to the positive or the negative pole. This could be documented with a 1, indicating that the actual level corresponds to the positive pole, and a 0, indicating that the actual level corresponds to the negative pole, and entered into the matrix (HERRMANN & HUBER, 2000). An infirmity of this method is that distinctions elicited by the RGM tend to remain on the attribute level (REYNOLDS & GUTMAN, 2001). Thus, hierarchies of knowledge types, like those addressed with the Means-End Chain theory, cannot be detected adequately (RUGG ET AL., 2002). 4.4.2 Laddering Method The Laddering Method (LM) was developed by Hinkle in 1965 as a reaction to the insufficient applicability of the RGM (RUGG ET AL., 2002), and is the most common technique to uncover cognition chains (ORSINGHER & MARZOCCHI, 2003). The LM offers useful insights about why consumers favor certain products over others when making their purchasing choices (Wansink, 2000). Metaphorically seen, a laddering interview is similar to the typical picture of a psychologist interviewing a patient, since this method reveals insights of the respondent’s knowledge base that are not apparent. Using this method, the roots of why consumers buy certain products can be detected. LM uses a series of progressive questions of the type ‘Why is that important to you?’ that are posed in structured, in-depth, one-to-one interviews that allow the interviewer to understand how a product’s attributes, the consequences of using it, and the personal value it satisfies, are linked with each other (REYNOLDS & GUTMAN, 1988; RUGG ET AL., 2002). These links are then organized in a hierarchy, called Hierarchical Value Map (HVM). The product’s attributes are placed on the lowest level, consequences at a higher level, and values at the highest level of abstraction. According to Orsingher and Marzocchi (2003), consumers learn to favor and buy products that are instrumental in obtaining desired consequences that match their values. The following example is taken from Vriens & Ter Hofstede (2000), showing how such a hierarchy can be built.
36
Interviewer: You indicated that you prefer touch control buttons (attribute) to rotary control buttons (attribute) on your car stereo. Why is that important to you? Respondent: It allows me to control my car stereo more easily and comfortably (consequence). Interviewer: Why is an easier and more comfortable control important to you? Respondent: Well, because that makes me feel safer driving my car (consequence). Interviewer: Why is it important to feel safe in your car? Respondent: Well, if I drive more safely … I feel I secure my family better (value). The resulting HVM can be modeled as illustrated in figure 3, where one attribute leads to more than one consequence and three consequences to one value, i.e., three ladders or MECs were uncovered. value Family security
consequences
attribute
Feel safe in the car
Easy control of car stereo
Driving the car safely
Touch control button
FIGURE 3: HIERARCHICAL VALUE MAP FOR THE CAR-STEREO EXAMPLE
It can also be the case that several attributes lead to just one consequence and this single consequence matches with more than one value. This is shown in the HVM for Haagen-Dazs ice cream in figure 4 (WANSINK, 2003), where 15 different complete and two incomplete MECs were detected.
37
VALUES CONSEQUENCES
Impress others
ATTRIBUTES
Self esteem
Affordable luxury
Excellent flavor
Sensory taste
Accomplishments
Reward myself
Quality
Expensive
Family
Indulgence
Socially accepted
Sophisticated
Foreign sounding
Health concern
Elegant package
Convenience
Low fat
Various sizes
FIGURE 4: HIERARCHICAL VALUE MAP FOR HAAGEN-DAZS ICE CREAM
Due to its qualitative form, one weakness of the LM is its difficulty to be applied in large-scale representative samples, since this would require too much time and involve skilled qualitative interviewers, which makes such a study too expensive. As a consequence, the Association Pattern Technique (APT) was developed. 4.4.3 Association Pattern Technique In 1998, Ter Hofstede et al. proposed and validated a quantitative approach to gather MEC data, as an enhancement of the LM. This surveybased method comprises two matrices, one attribute-benefit matrix14 and one benefit-value matrix. In the attribute-benefit matrix, attributes are listed in columns and benefits in rows, analogously in the benefit-value matrix.
14
The authors use the term ‘benefit’ instead of ‘consequence’.
38
Ter Hofstede et al. (1998) suggest that a two-stage work should be carried out. In the first stage, the LM elicits attributes, benefits and values by means of qualitative personal interviews. Approximately 30 laddering interviews are seen to be sufficient in this identification stage (VRIENS & TER HOFSTEDE, 2000). Alternatively, this first stage can be stopped when no more attributes, consequences or values have been generated by the last interviews performed (DE FERRAN & GRUNERT, 2007). In the second step, the results from these qualitative laddering interviews are used to create the association pattern matrices, where respondents are supposed to mark a cell where a linkage is perceived to exist. This kind of two-step approach enables researchers to collect data from a larger sample and was already used successfully in several global studies (TER HOFSTEDE ET AL., 1999). It was originally inspired by the work of Gutman (1982), who used two matrices of the above-described form; with the difference that Gutman had a priory defined attributes and consequences (TER HOFSTEDE ET AL., 1998). Possible attribute-consequence and consequence-value matrices are presented in tables 2 and 3, which are based on a pre-study about the associations of wooden multistory houses of Swedish and German students (SCHAUERTE, 2004). CONSEQUENCES
ATTRIBUTES
Cost reducing
Environmentally friendly
Warm atmosphere
Durability
Fire resistance Living material Pleasant smell Inexpensive
TABLE 2: POSSIBLE ATTRIBUTE-BENEFIT MATRIX
39
VALUES
CONSEQUENCES
Peace of mind
Increased quality of life
Concern about the environment
Cost reducing Environmentally friendly Warm atmosphere Durability
TABLE 3: POSSIBLE BENEFIT-VALUE MATRIX
The APT uses the advantages of the LM, i.e. detecting consumer’s cognitive structures and the underlying reasons of why certain products are favored over others. At the same time, it overcomes its disadvantage of its hardly being applicable in large-scale samples (REYNOLDS, 2006). Further, it is repeatedly recommended for segmentation studies, as well as international comparisons (COSTA ET AL., 2004), and is already being applied in such studies (GRUNERT & VALLI, 2001). Nevertheless, emerging criticism has to be discussed. According to Reynolds (2006) and Phillips & Reynolds (2009), applying the APT can violate underlying assumption of the LM. According to them, crucial issues are that: (a) The content in the matrix-survey has to result from adequate prior research. (b) Using two matrices (AC and CV) implies just three levels of abstraction (A, C and V), which means that useful and meaningful information on the consequence level cannot be obtained. (c) Respondents’ involvement in the interview stage is not provided by anonymous survey-matrices, i.e. respondents might recall linkages between various elements, since they are apparent in the survey, rather than naming them spontaneously in an interview situation (DE FERRAN & GRUNERT, 2007). By trying to meet these requirements and avoiding violating underlying assumptions of the MEC theory, the following points can be stated:
40
(a) The matrix-survey is built upon the results of a laddering study which is an adequate technique for gathering MEC data. (b) Relating back to the argumentation in chapter 2.2.1, attributes, consequences and values are not further separated in this study. However, the following sub-chapter 4.4.4 about the Extended APT should be considered and be seen as addressing that criticism. (c) A similar bias concerning respondents’ involvement can also occur with the LM by itself. Interviewees might give artificial sets of answers (BOTSCHEN ET AL., 1999), i.e. trying to appear intelligent, they aim at finding rational answers upwards through the hierarchy to justify their behavior (VELUDO-DE-OLOIVEIRA ET AL., 2006), or they might give socially desireable answers (GRUNERT & GRUNERT, 1995). However, due to its anonymous character, this bias carries less weight in quantitative studies (DE FERRAN & GRUNERT, 2007), which is also true for the APT or the Extended APT. Further, a list of attributes, consequences and values revealed by the LM and used in quantitative studies does not appear to affect findings (BOTSCHEN & THELEN, 1998; RUSSELL ET AL., 2004). 4.4.4 Extended Association Pattern Technique Although being regarded as an improvement, the APT, as applied by Ter Hofstede et al. (1998), represents a simplification of a MEC by considering only attribute-consequence and consequence-value linkages. This means that only linkages between bordering lines of abstraction can be detected. The mentioned authors question the usefulness of additional data from attribute-attribute (AA), consequence-consequence (CC) or value-value (VV) matrices and advert to the raised burden for the respondent in filling in additional matrices. They do so, even though it is clearly stated in literature that MEC theory has its focus on the consequences of attributes, as experienced by consumers, since these are consumers’ main concern (OLSON & REYNOLDS, 2001). As Olson and Reynolds (2001) state, consequences are almost always connected to other consequences, which make them most crucial when evaluating choice alternatives. Unsurprisingly, CC linkages could be detected in several MEC studies (a.o. LEPPARD ET AL., 2004; SKYTTE AND BOVE, 2004; WOODSIDE, 2004; VAN REKOM
41
ET AL., 2006; HENNEBERG ET AL., 2009), compare as well the Hierarchical Value Map for Haagen Dazs ice cream in figure 4.
Even if the afore-mentioned aspect with additional work for the respondents might have a negative impact on the response rate, the value of possible additional data gathered should not be underestimated. Comparing the product category investigated in this study, i.e. durable products (wooden multistory houses), with the product category used in Ter Hofstede et al. (1998), i.e. non-durables (food and provisions), it can be argued that the consumers’ level of involvement is higher in the case of durables. This means that the latter’s attributes, and the consequences of the same, are evaluated more carefully (KOTLER, 2000). Further, within the MEC, attributes get their importance or relevance by their perceived performance, i.e. their consequences, that is of highest importance for the consumer (OLSON & REYNOLDS, 2001). This might justify an extension of the APT by using an additional CC-matrix. However, it may seem contradictory to suggest including a CC-matrix, while, as mentioned earlier, the partitioning of consequences into functional and psychological is not considered. Why not break down consequences into a functional and psychological part and implement a matrix with these two kinds instead? This was not accomplished, since such a matrix would not take possible cases into account, where psychological consequences lead to other psychological consequences, e.g. ‘pleasant housing’ could possibly lead to ‘good image’ or ‘individual housing’ to ‘get inspired’. Such constellations would not have been detected with a matrix of that kind, but would instead require additional matrices, increasing the workload for respondents even more, while still bearing the potential problem of overlapping levels of abstraction as pointed out by Costa et al. (2004). Thus, by adding a more general CCmatrix, the simplicity of the A-C-V structure of the MECs can be kept, while possible linkages between functional and psychological consequences or linkages between consequences of each kind can be revealed without labeling these as such. By that, important information can be gained on the consequence level.
42
Considering these arguments, the APT was extended and a supplementary CC-matrix was tested by investigating perceptions of durable products (SCHAUERTE, 2006). The results show the usefulness of the extra CC-data gathered, whilst a negative impact on the response rate could not be traced to the additional matrix. Thus, validation of the Extended APT was supported, and it was suggested to apply the Extended APT for any investigated product category and/or a different population to strengthen its validation (SCHAUERTE, 2006). In the present study, a Swedish dataset and the German dataset from Schauerte (2006) were used; however, the way of analyzing was adjusted compared to Schauerte (2006), as described in chapter 5.3.4. This might possibly lead to different results for the German data, compared to Schauerte (2006), including a different view on the usefulness of the additional CC-matrix. Thus it has to be evaluated if additional data gathered by the CC-matrix uncovers valuable information about consumers’ perceptions on the product in question.
43
5 Applying the Technique
Extended
Association
Pattern
This chapter contains detailed information about how data for the first stage, i.e. the explorative laddering study, and the second stage, i.e. the descriptive matrix-survey study, was collected and analyzed. Empirical results are presented. Using the Extended APT to uncover MECs implies a two-stage study. It starts with the exploratory stage, where personal interviews are carried out to elicit attributes, consequences and values. These are used to develop association pattern matrices to gather data from larger samples (VRIENS & TER HOFSTEDE, 2000)15. Table 4 gives an overview of all data collected in both stages of this study16. Exploratory stage: LM Germany/Sweden
Descriptive stage: EAPT Germany/Sweden
Number of respondents
31/34
229/503
Type of data
qualitative
quantative
The analyzed data…
… provides insights into the problem at hand.
… describes market charateristics.
TABLE 4: OVERVIEW OF DATA COLLECTION
15
For a more detailed description of this method compare chapter 4.4.3.
16
For further details see appendix 2.
44
5.1
Sample standpoints
In order to understand why consumers favor one product over another, data collection techniques, associated with the Means-End Chain theory, aim at distinguishing the product to be investigated from another product within the same product category. Here, usage context plays an important role. If respondents use a product within the investigated product category, this can help them to more easily recall differences between such products, as well as personally relevant concepts of the product to be investigated. Therefore, the population in the present study fulfills the requirement of living in a multistory house at the time. Moreover, the goal in both stages of the data collection was to collect data in terms of a random sample. No systematic choices were made e.g. concerning location or size of cities or alike. The aim was a random choice of respondents, and the selected procedures do not indicate any deviation from the principle of randomness. A more detailed description of how respondents were targeted in the two steps of data collection is presented in the respective chapters, 5.2.1 and 5.3.1. 5.2
First stage: exploratory laddering interviews
Here, issues are mentioned concerning respondents, problems occurring during the personal laddering interviews and how these were handled, as well as how the raw data material was analyzed to achieve reliable and valid results. 5.2.1 Data collection In this first stage of the present study, 31 personal laddering interviews were carried out in Germany and 34 in Sweden. Thereby, no purposive selection was performed, except for representative geographical reasons. Therefore it can be said that respondents in both countries were chosen randomly. Two persons from each federal state in Germany were interviewed, except for ‘Thüringen’, where only one interview was carried out. 15 women and 16 men between the ages of 20 and 59 were interviewed. Further, to assure that a product within the same product category was used, it was ascertained that interviewees were living in multistory houses at the time.
45
For the Swedish study, it was likewise aimed to achieve a corresponding configuration concerning age, sex and geographichical distribution. Here, respondents from 34 interviews ranged between 18 an 68 in age, encompassing 19 women and 15 men. In all national counties, two interviews were carried out, except ‘Gotland’, ‘Jämtland’, ‘Norrbotten’, ‘Västerbotten’, ‘Västernorrland’, ‘Västmanland’, ‘Uppsala’ and ‘Dalarna’, where only one person was interviewed. Individuals passing by, or who happened to work at the hotel were the author stayed, were asked to be interviewed. Originally, two interviews were planned to be carried out in each federal state (Germany) and each national county (Sweden). Yet, since no more new attributes, consequences and/or values could be elicited, the author was satisfied with the above presented number of interviews in each country, according to de Ferran & Grunert (2007). This is also in line with Vriens & Ter Hofstede (2000), who suggest that approximately 30 interviews should be carried out. The interviews followed the suggested guidelines by Reynolds and Gutman (1988), and started with a direct comparison of the product ‘wooden multistory house’, with another product from the same category, a multistory house made of stone, brick and steel. Respondents were asked to name differences that were seen between these two products. In case the mentioned difference was not bipolar, as the method requires for further processing, the interviewee was asked how the product in question could be distinguished from the other product concerning the mentioned attribute. For example, ‘price’ was named as a difference, yet cannot be regarded as bipolar. Thus, it was asked if wooden multistroy houses were considered to be more expensive or less expensive than multistory houses made of stone, brick and steel. Another difficulty that had to be mastered was that of respondents mentioning differences that already were on a higher level of abstraction than the attribute level. This phenomenon was already recognized in previous studies (a.o. NIELSEN ET AL., 1998; COSTA ET AL., 2004; GRUNERT & BECH-LARSEN, 2005), and can be addressed by so-called ‘reverse laddering’, i.e. asking questions like ‘What do you think the reason for this is?’ to ladder back to the first level of abstraction.
46
Another issue occurring during the interviews was the appearance of negative attributes. This aspect was described by Reynolds and Gutman (1988) as negative laddering, and it was suggested that the one pole of the attribute, which was preferred by the respondent, was taken for further questioning. However, it is suggested here that the preferred pole should not immediately be decided upon at the attribute level. If the difference mentioned between the two products is that wooden multistory houses are perceived to be ‘more expensive’, but the preferred pole, most likely being ‘less expensive’, is considered for further questioning, then the real perception of the product would not have been detected. Instead, a description about how the respondent wants the product to be would have been created. Thus, the attribute pole mentioned, and not the preferred one, served as the basis for further questioning at this stage. All named differences on the attribute level were written down by the interviewer, until no more could be mentioned by the respondent. After this first task, the interview continued with the interviewer taking up difference by difference, following suggestions offered by Reynolds et al., (2001) asking e.g.: ‘Why is it important to you that …?‘ or ‘What happens as a result of that?’, for positive attributes, and ‘What does it mean to you that … ‘ or ‘Why is that negative for you?’, for negative attributes. Proceeding this way, the interviews moved on from the level of attributes to the next level in the hierarchy, i.e. consequences of the attributes17. At this stage, the consequences of the perceived, mentioned pole were turned into the preferred consequences. Taking up the example with ‘more expensive’ from above, one consequence mentioned was that the respondent ‘cannot save money’ and that he ‘does not have money in cases of emergency’. These two, not preferred consequences, were then turned into positive consequences for further questioning so as to uncover the personal value of the respondents, as shown in figure 5.
17
Compare method description in chapter 4.4.2.
47
Attribute, not preferred
Consequence 1, not preferred
Consequence 2, not preferred
More expensive
Not able to save money
Do not have money in case of emergency
Being able to save money
Having money in case of emergency
Feeling secure
Consequence 1 preferred
Consequence 2, preferred
Personal value
FIGURE 5: EXAMPLE ON TURNING ‘NOT PREFERRED’ INTO ‘PREFERRED’ CONSEQUENCES
Moving up the ladder of abstraction continued until the respondent was unable to answer or mention any new aspects. The resulting ladders were noted by the interviewer and served as raw data for the analysis part (NIELSEN ET AL., 1998). The time required for carrying out the laddering interviews ranged from 25 to 60 minutes, highly dependent on the respondent’s ability to move up the ladder of abstraction and the amount of mentioned aspects being relevant for him or her. 5.2.2 Data analysis In Germany, all interviews were carried out in German, and in Sweden in Swedish. Before analyzing them, both were translated into English. The analysis of the laddering the data itself starts with a content analysis (a.o. SPIGGLE, 1994; GENGLER & REYNOLDS, 1995; FOOTE & LAMB, 2002). This aims at reducing the amount of data by finding frequent patterns of meaning, which can be grouped together and be regarded as similar (GENGLER ET AL., 1995). Therefore, content analysis is performed by first categorizing all responses into the three fundamental ‘attribute’, consequence’ and ‘value’ levels,
48
and secondly, by grouping similar responses and coding these groups (REYNOLDS & GUTMAN, 1988; ROININEN ET AL., 2004, 2006). Nevertheless, specific rules and guidelines for carrying out this part of the analysis are not established yet(COSTA ET AL., 2004), and distinctions between ‘attributes’, ‘consequences’ and ‘values’ are sometimes hard to determine (GRUNERT & GRUNERT, 1995). As a result, content analysis can be seen as a highly subjective process, always leaving space for controversial opinions (GENGLER & REYNOLDS, 2001). Furthermore, problems of indexicality are likely to occur, i.e. the need for context information about certain responses when content analyzing (GUTMAN, 1991; GRUNERT ET AL., 2001). Therefore, the grouping and coding should be carried out by more than just the researcher responsible for the specific study. This researcher’s individual, idiosyncratic cognitive categories of the topic in question may influence the grouping of the result considerably, as s/he has to estimate the semantic difference between the given responses (GRUNERT & GRUNERT, 1995). Involving several researchers guarantees a relatively high convergence of the meaning that will be attached to the collected data material (GENGLER ET AL., 1995; FOTOPOULOS ET AL., 2003; COSTA ET AL., 2004). In this study, the biases referred to have been addressed by involving six independent researchers, all being active at the time at the department of Wood Technology and Forestry at Växjö University. The collected laddering data were grouped and labeled by five researchers18, while the resulting classifications were further controlled and validated by three other researchers19. Occurring disagreements were solved by discussing the available context information, until all responses were grouped. According to method descriptions, content analysis continues with summarizing all the grouped and labeled attributes, consequences and values in a so called Summary Implication Matrix (SIM), where the frequencies of all linkages between the levels of abstractions are displayed. Furthermore, by deciding on an appropriate cut-off level, the most important linkages should be taken to the next step in the analysis,
18
Åsa Gustafsson, Klara Helstad, Matti Flinkmann, Lars-Olof Rask and Tobias Schauerte.
19
Rolf Björheden, Mårten Bendz and Anders Baudin.
49
i.e. the development of specific Hierarchical Value Maps ‘HVMs’20 (a.o. REYNOLDS & GUTMAN, 1988; LEPPARD ET AL., 2004; RUSSELL & BUSSON ET AL., 2004, RUSSELL & FLIGHT ET AL., 2004). In the present study, these parts of content analysis have not been carried out at this stage. Linkages being of minor importance to the respondents of the laddering interviews should not be taken away by deciding on a cut-off level. This is because the content of the matrices should comprise the whole range of relevant concepts elicited (TER HOFSTEDE ET AL., 1998). Therefore, all grouped and coded attributes, consequences and values served as the base for the matrix-survey. Developing SIMs and HVMs will be based on the survey results instead. 5.2.3 Laddering results Germany All in all, the 31 German interviewees participating in the laddering interviews mentioned 26 different attributes, 45 consequences and 12 values. These were grouped and labeled as described above. The involved researchers agreed in 77 out of 83 cases, i.e. 92.8 %. Remaining differences were solved by discussing the available context information and re-analyzing the underlying data until mutual agreement was achieved. Respondents mentioned four negative consequences, which were turned into positive consequences as shown in table 5. NEGATIVE
POSITIVE
Too many reparations
Less reparations
Housing as a factor of insecurity
Secure housing
Financial disadvantages
Financial advantages
Limited freedom of action
Freedom of action
TABLE 5: TURNING NEGATIVE INTO POSITIVE CONSEQUENCES (GERMANY)
Finally, 30 summary content codes were created, with 10 attributes, 12 consequences and 8 values. Table 6 shows all codes as underlined headings for all the elements mentioned.
20
Compare HVM in method chapter 4.4.2.
50
Attributes:
Consequences:
Values:
(1) Natural material: organic material, natural material (2) Individual architecture: good to combine with other materials, individual architectture, customized architecture, special and individual (3) Healthy interior: good for one’s health, good interior climate, healthy interior climate, healthy (4) Warm interior atmosphere: warm atmosphere, good and cosy living atmosphere (5) Not common housing: not common housing (6) Innovative & modern: most modern, innovative (7) High construction & material risk: high fire-risk, instable construction, asymmetric walls, short lifetime, high mould-risk, not sound-proof (8) Lower costs: lower monthly overheads, lower base price (9) Higher costs: higher monthly overheads, more expensive base price (10) Energy saving: energy saving
(1) Healthy living: living healthily, good for the lungs, healthy living, good for allergic sufferers (2) Pleasant & comfortable housing: pleasant living, feeling well, comfortable housing, feeling of home, makes me feel at home, makes me relaxed (3) High quality & safety standards: guarantees good safety arrangements, high living standard, guarantees high quality and safety (4) Individual housing: individual arrangement of housing space, impact on the design, makes wishes come true, participation when re-/arranging housing space, housing according to my wishes, something that not everyone else has, do not want the same as everyone else (5) Too many reparations: do not want to repair things all the time, maintenance repairs would be too frequent (6) Housing as a factor of insecurity: insecure housing, do not want to be afraid living somewhere, cannot live a normal life, do not want to be afraid that things get broken, cannot live a secure life (7) Good image & reputation: good ecological image, gives me good reputation, good reputation in the neighborhood, good reputation, earning respect and appreciation from others (8) Financial disadvantages: cannot safe money for other purposes, fast decrease in value, cannot spend money on something else, cannot spend money on vacation and hobbies as I want (9) Positive for the environment: renewable resource, good for the environment, contribution to environmental conservation (10) Financial advantages: being able to safe money, spend money on something else, need money in case of emergency (11) Limited freedom of action: cannot do things I want to do, no privacy (12) Inspires & wakes up creativity: inspires and wakes up creativity
(1) Good health: good health (2) Feeling comfortable: peace of mind, feeling comfortable (3) Having fun: having fun (4) High quality of life: high quality of life (5) Self-realization: being something special, self-realization (6) Need of security: family safety, secure family existence, need of security (7) Concern about the environment: concern about the environment (8) high self esteem: reaching high self-esteem
TABLE 6: SUMMARY CONTENT CODES FOR GERMAN LADDERING DATA
51
5.2.4 Laddering results Sweden The laddering interviews with the 34 Swedish respondents revealed in 33 different attributes, 29 different consequences and 11 different values, which were grouped and labelled as described above. Here, involved researchers agreed in 69 out of 73 cases, i.e. 94.5 %. As in the analysis of the German data, divergences were resolved by means of available context information until it was agreed on a solution. Three negative consequences were mentioned, which were turned into positive ones, as described in chapter 5.2.1 and shown in table 7.
NEGATIVE
POSITIVE
Housing as a factor of insecurity
Secure housing
Financial disadvantages
Financial advantages
Limited freedom of action
Freedom of action
TABLE 7: TURNING NEGATIVE INTO POSITIVE CONSEQUENCES (SWEDEN)
This finally resulted in 10 summary content codes for attributes, 10 for consequences and 6 for values, as presented in table 8.
52
Attributes:
Consequences:
Values:
(1) Modern & aesthetic: modern, positively aesthetic, more aesthetic, aesthetic (2) Typical Swedish housing: Swedish, one is used to it (3) Positive for the environment: better for the environment, less CO2 emissions (4) High construction & material risk: not sound proof, worse fire protection, mould problems, bad sound insulation, mould risks, high fire risk, no long life-time, easier for burglars (5) Warm interior atmosphere: smells better, warm interior atmosphere, welcoming, more inviting, pleasant interior atmosphere (6) Natural material: natural material, more living material (7) Healthy interior: clean compartment air, healthy interior, better for ones health (8) More expensive to run: more expensive housing, more expensive to run, higher monthly installments, more expensive to live in, more expensive maintenance (9) Higher construction costs: higher construction costs (10) Lower construction costs: lower construction costs
(1) Healthy living: natural living, healthy living, good for allergic sufferers (2) Worth the money: worth the money, willing to pay more, willing to pay for the feeling (3) Active environmentalism: active environmentalism (4) Good image & reputation: higher status in the community (5) Pleasant & comfortable housing: more pleasant, comfortable housing, feelings of home, more homelike, soft & mellow feeling of housing (6) Financial disadvantages: financial disadvantages (7) Individual housing: individual housing, more exclusive, having your own, more flexible design, genuine housing, more special, not like all the others, uncommon, easier to modify the apartment, more flexible with wooden frame walls, easier to furnish (8) Limited freedom of action: worse privacy, harder to affect the design (9) Financial advantages: financial advantages (10) Insecure housing: Insecure housing
(1) Good health: good health, living a healthy life, (2) Feeling comfortable: peace of mind, feeling comfortable, harmonic life, pleased with life (3) High quality of life: high quality of life (4) Self-realization: self-realization (5) Need of security: family safety, need of security (6) Concern about the environment: concern about the environment
TABLE 7: SUMMARY CONTENT CODES FOR SWEDISH LADDERING DATA
5.2.5 Comparison of German and Swedish laddering results When comparing laddering results, it can be seen that the German study revealed 83 attributes, consequences and values as raw data, compared to 73 in the Swedish study. Ten summary content codes for attributes were constructed for each country; however, only four of these have the same content, i.e. ‘natural material’, ‘healthy interior’, ‘warm interior atmosphere’ and ‘high construction & material risk’. In Schauerte (2006),
53
it was concluded that the content codes ‘higher costs’ and ‘lower costs’ should have been divided, considering the difference between construction costs and running costs. This differentiation was however too late to consider for the data collection in Germany. Nevertheless, it was done with the Swedish laddering data, resulting in the content codes ‘more expensive to run’, ‘higher construction costs’ and ‘lower construction costs’. Interestingly, ‘less expensive to run’ was not mentioned by Swedish interviewees and thus not taken into consideration for further investigation. German interviewees considered living in wooden multistory houses as ‘not common housing’, while Swedish respondents perceived it as ‘typical Swedish housing’. Further, ‘energy saving’ was only mentioned as an attribute in Germany. Another difference in content codes is that German interviewees named issues associated with ‘individual architecture’ and ‘innovative & modern’. The comparable counterpart from the Swedish sample is ‘modern & aesthetic’. Even though these codes seem to be similar in nature, researchers involved in content coding agreed on a distinction. This is also the case for the content code ‘positive for the environment’. In the German study, this code was seen as a consequence, while discussions among researchers, when analyzing the data material of the Swedish study, led to a change towards regarding it as an attribute causing ‘active environmentalism’ instead. Other differences and similarities concerning content codes for consequences are the following. For the German matrix-survey, 12 consequence summary content codes were developed, while ten codes were used for further investigation for the Swedish study. Amongst these, eight codes are the same, which indicates a relatively high agreement among interviewees of both nationalities. Yet German respondents named ‘high quality & safety standards’, ‘inspire & wakes up creativity’ and ‘too many reparations’ as consequences which were not considered by the Swedish interviewees. These, however, mentioned that wooden multistory houses are ‘worth the money’, which did not appear in the German data. Moving on to the highest level of abstraction, all personal values elicited from the Swedish respondents can be seen in the German sample as well. However, the German interviewees mentioned ‘having fun’ and ‘high selfesteem’ in addition to these.
54
All in all it can be stated that there are similarities and differences to be found in the two national sets of laddering data resulting in the presented summary content codes. Nevertheless, after this first stage of the APT, it cannot be said if and how these affect the final results of the present investigation in one way or another, as the matrix-survey study remains. 5.3
Second stage: descriptive matrix-survey study
In this chapter it is described how survey data was collected in Germany and Sweden, and how it was analyzed. The analysis was performed according to recommended instructions by various authors (a.o. PIETERS ET AL., 1995, REYNOLDS & GUTMAN 1988, 2001). First, a Summary Implication Matrix (SIM) was developed. Then a cut-off level was elaborated on, and finally Hierarchical Value Maps (HVMs) were created to display the results. These three procedures are described in detail in chapters 5.3.2 to 5.3.4 below. 5.3.1 Data collection After eliciting attributes, consequences and values in the personal laddering interviews, all summary content codes were translated into German and Swedish to develop the respective association pattern matrices, i.e. the matrix-surveys. In contrast to Ter Hofstede et al. (1998), attributes in the attribute/consequence-matrix (AC-matrix) were not placed in columns, and consequences were not placed in rows, yet vice versa. This was because respondents were asked to mark perceived linkages between attributes and consequences. This task can possibly be performed more easily if the natural flow of reading for the respondents, i.e. from left to right, is kept. The consequence/consequence (CC) and consequence/value (CV) -matrices were developed accordingly. Further, the diagonal fields, i.e. fields 1.1, 2.2, 3.3 etc., of the CC-matrix were marked black to avoid answers of a non-logical nature, since a consequence cannot lead to itself. Developing the CV-matrix, the positive consequences shown in table 5 were considered. As a result, the number of consequences decreased for both the German and the Swedish versions, compared to the AC- and CC-matrices, since the positive pole of the
55
negative consequence ‘financial advantages’, already existed.
disadvantages’,
i.e.
‘financial
A preliminary version of the German matrix survey was tested (n=5) and small modifications were made, based on their comments. In addition to the matrices, respondents were given a sheet with socio-demographic questions21, an explanation on how to reply, a personal letter with details about the anonymity of their data, and a stamped addressed envelope. Upon returning the survey and a separate paper with their address, respondents had the possibility to receive a lottery ticket worth 1 € (Germany) or 25 SEK (Sweden). For each country, the matrix survey, the guide and the personal letter are attached in Appendix 1. The population consists of those individuals who lived in multistory houses at the time. Here, protection of data privacy in Germany complicated finding appropriate addresses of potential respondents. Thus these could not be located by name. Instead, addresses of condominiums up for sale, and flats to be rented out, could be located by means of e.g. online real estate agencies. Since multistory houses comprise more than one apartment, both condominiums and flats could be sought after relatively effectively as different kinds of habitation in rural as well as urban regions. Consequently, Swedish addresses were collected in a similar way. The gathered addresses were targeted by personally by car, and additional multistory houses in both countries were chosen randomly on that trip. Although this procedure seems to require more resources in terms of time and money, it actually turned out to be less expensive than posting all surveys. In addition to that, it could be guaranteed that the targeted respondents really fulfilled the prerequisite of living in a multistory house, which increases the validity of the received answers, and thus the empirical findings. No additional information about the respondents answering the survey was at hand. Since no purposive selection of respondents was performed, except for geographical reasons, the distribution of the matrix-survey was carried out in a relatively random way.
These questions included more variables than those being relevant for this specific study. They will be used for further research on this field and serve other purposes. 21
56
In Germany, 2900 surveys were equally distributed over three regions, north-west (800 surveys), south-west (1000 surveys) and east (1100 surveys). Differences in the numbers of surveys in each region are due to different numbers of federal states in these regions. In Sweden, 3900 surveys were handed out in the three lands Götaland (1600 surveys), Svealand (1400 surveys) and Norrland (800 surveys). As in Germany, the number of surveys in each land corresponds to the number of counties in each land22. In Germany, 229 individuals responded, which corresponds to a response rate of 7.9 %. The Swedish survey was returned by 503 respondents, equaling a response rate of 13.2 %23. Due to the distribution procedure described above, it was not possible to send out reminders, because it was not possible to trace non-respondents by name, which possibly would have increased the response rate in both countries. However, it can be noticed that the Swedish response rate is much higher than the German one, the latter being regarded as rather low. Since the complexity of the survey was identical in both countries, this cannot serve as an explanation of the difference in responding. It could be argued that since the product in question has a market share of 1.9 % in Germany, compared to 14.5 % in Sweden, it is considerably more common in Sweden. This possibly had an effect on the response rate being higher in Sweden, as Swedes probably recognized the product to a higher extent than Germans. Even so, 229 received responses from Germany, and 503 from Sweden, were considered to be sufficient to perform an analysis and accomplish the investigation. Yet, trying to analyze the non-response rate with respect to the problem of generalization, systematic differences between responses and nonresponses from the sample are considered. Among age, income and habitation, the only possibility of scrutinizing potential differences is to look at the response rates from the German regions and the Swedish lands,
22 See appendix 2 for the disposition of German federal states into regions and Swedish counties into lands. 23
See appendix 2 for a detailed list of response rate per region (Germany) and land (Sweden).
57
since it is known how many surveys were handed out in each of them, and how many of them were answered24. Based on chi-square test25, the adjusted contingency coefficient Cadj by Pearson shows the significance or strength of the association in a table of any size (MALHOTRA, 1999). In case of no association, i.e. the variables are statistically independent, the value of the coefficient will be zero. With rising strength of association, Cadj tends towards 1.0, which is the maximum value (BOURIER, 1999). It is calculated as Formula 1:
Cadj =
χ2
C* χ 2 + n C* − 1 ⋅
with: χ2 = chi-square, n = total sample size, C* = min {v, w}, where v, w = number of row and column cells, respectively, in the contingency matrix
Looking at the response and non-response rates in Germany and Sweden respectively, Cadj reaches a value of .158 (Germany) and .116 (Sweden), for the three regions and lands in each country investigated. This indicates that just a weak systematic difference between the regions in each country can be seen. That means that the response rate is only marginally affected by the region or land to which the respondents belong. Comparing both countries at an aggregated level reveals a Cadj of .12. Even this relatively low value indicates that there is only a minor systematic difference between the response rates and the respondent’s belongingness to either Germany or Sweden. Nevertheless, even if the application of a test of significance would have shown a systematic difference, this would not provide any information about what the individuals who did not reply would have answered. Since the sample is taken randomly, it can be considered as a reasonably good reflection of the respective population. Regarding the non-responses, there
24
See appendix 2.
Read more about the chi-square test in statistical standard literature, e.g. Aczel (1993), Hair et al. (1998) or Bourier (1999). 25
58
is no way to find out whether or not they differ in any systematic way from the responses that were received. The interpretation and usage of the present results have therefore to be regarded with respect to this, and as mentioned in chapter 4.3, people, places and time are be seen as major threats to external validity. This implies that researchers who want to transfer the results of the present study to other people, places and times have to decide whether or not this transfer is acceptable (TROCHIM, 2000). Furthermore, to allow for a single background factor analysis of the factors age, income, national and within-country habitation, a correlation analysis was performed, using the phi coefficient (ø), as suggested by Fleiss (1981). With rising strength of correlation, ø tends towards 1.0. Results show that the strongest correlation of all possible factor combinations in both the German and the Swedish sample is the one between age and income. The values of .357 (Germany) and .453 (Sweden) indicate, however, that no strong correlation exists between the background factors in both samples. 5.3.2 Summary Implication Matrices All survey responses were entered into SPSS 16.0 for Windows and a Summary Implication Matrix, SIM, was created for each of the AC-, CCand CV-matrices. In a SIM, the accumulated observations of a certain group of respondents can be presented in several ways. The absolute frequency of a cell shows the total number of respondents that marked a certain cell. Further, the relative frequency of a cell shows its relative importance in comparison to all the other cells in that row, i.e. its explanatory power. The sum of all absolute frequencies in a row is also called the out-degree. The in-degree of an element is the sum of absolute frequencies of all the cells in a column in relation to the other columns. While Pieters et al. (1995) use the in- and out-degrees with absolute numbers (absolute frequencies), their ratio (relative frequency) is used in this study to directly show an element’s relative importance in comparison to all the other elements. All SIMs are attached in Appendix 4 and served as the base for developing specific Hierarchical Value Maps26, HVMs, for
26
Read more about Hierarchical Value Maps in the following chapter 5.3.4.
59
the respective groups of interest, i.e. different groups of age, income and habitation. Among German respondents, only two observations were received from the age-group ‘younger than 20 years’. These have therefore been grouped together with the 76 observations from ‘20-34 years’ and the resulting new category named ‘younger than 35 years’. Consequently, the same agegroups were created for the Swedish data. All other demographic variables of interest in this study could be kept in their original form, and the received response distribution is attached in Appendix 2. 5.3.3 Cut-off level With the respective SIM as points of departure, HVMs can be developed. Yet, the most important linkages between two levels of abstraction have to be found to ease interpreting the HVMs. This task can be accomplished by choosing an appropriate cut-off level. A cut-off level is to be seen as a tool that minimizes the complexity of a HVM (PIETERS ET AL., 1995). Choosing a cut-off level does not mean finding the most important elements on each level of abstraction but the most important linkages between the elements. Although several authors suggest different ways of choosing a cut-off level (a.o. REYNOLDS & GUTMAN, 1988; PIETERS ET AL., 1995), a theoretical or statistical proved method does not exist today (GRUNERT ET AL., 2001). Instead, a subjective determination from the researcher is seen as the general rule of thumb. This means that a compromise has to be found between keeping information quality assisted by a cut-off level allowing many linkages on the one hand, and creating a manageable HVM to be interpreted, assisted by a cut-off allowing few linkages on the other hand (GRUNERT ET AL., 2001). As done with the gathered laddering data, a relatively high degree of validity on this considerably subjective issue of analysis was aimed to be reached. Thus, two other researchers27 from the same department were involved in elaborating on an appropriate cut-off level. In the beginning, views diverged to a large extent. One researcher supported Fotopoulos et al. (2003), which suggested that a cut-off level should not allow for less than 70 % of the explanatory power of the respective row to be included in 27
Åsa Devine and Ragnar Jonsson.
60
a HVM, with an average number of between 75 and 80 %. The other researcher instead marked that this would result in too many linkages to be considered, since in some rows the concentration rates of responses were not distinctive enough to allow for less than five or sometimes six linkages to be included in the respective HVM to reach 70 % explanatory power. A low concentration rate and a relatively low distinctiveness could be seen as a result of the product ‘wooden multistory house’ or the product category ‘durable products’. As described earlier, durable products are more complex than non-durable products, which were investigated in other Means-End studies where diverse cut-off levels were used. This issue seems to have an effect on the responses in the survey-matrices. In many cases, the relative value of the observations per cell entry has a similar degree of distinctiveness. This implies a low concentration rate of responses in that row, which means e.g. that an attribute does not just lead to one single consequence, but to several consequences, and that these linkages are perceived to be of similar importance. Thus, other criteria for an appropriate cut-off level had to be elaborated upon and the following three criteria were set up and applied on the group with the smallest number of respondents, i.e. ‘age-group 65 years and older’ with 30 German respondents. First, at a maximum, the three most important linkages from one row will be taken to a HVM. Cutting at a level of three, five or ten is practically common when investigating in concentration rates (BOURIER, 1999). Yet the researchers involved in developing the criteria for the cut-off level for this study already regarded a top-four level as being too complex and difficult to interpret. Therefore, a top-three level was chosen. Secondly, one single linkage should at least have 10 % of the explanatory power in that respective row. This ensures the relative importance of that linkage. Thirdly, the absolute frequency of a cell has to amount to at least 10 observations. This implies that, at a minimum, 10 respondents had to perceive a certain linkage, which is regarded as a general rule of thumb. The third criteria implies that in the mentioned age-group ‘65 years and older’ from the German sample, one third of all respondents are needed for a certain linkage to pass this third criteria. To guarantee comparability among all available groups of respondents, this criterion was adjusted 61
when applied to other demographic groups. The relative amount of observations to be reached was the same for each group, i.e. one third; yet, the absolute number of observations was ascertained according to the absolute number of respondents in each group. Appendix 3 shows the respective number of observations for each group to be reached in order to pass this third cut-off criterion. These three cut-off criteria were set up to minimize the subjectivity that possibly would have affected the proceeding in this study. Elaborating this way, the involved researchers tried to look for a balance in the combination of criteria to develop an appropriate cut-off level being in line with the investigated product category and the purpose of this study. 5.3.4 Hierarchical Value Maps and most dominant perceptual orientations In a Hierarchical Value Map (HVM), all linkages that passed the cut-off level are graphically presented in a tree diagram of structural, hierarchical nature (REYNOLDS & GUTMAN 2001). Every pathway from attributes to values within a HVM represents one perceptual orientation, i.e. MEC. Since a HVM often consists of numerous perceptual orientations with different importance, the most dominant perceptual orientations or MECs within a HVM are of interest. According to the fundamentals of MEC theory, these can be identified by looking for the strongest relations between elements on different levels of abstraction (DE FERRAN & GRUNERT, 2007). In Schauerte (2006), the following argumentation served as a starting point for analysis. An attribute is seen as important, if it leads to an important consequence. Consequences are important, if they are perceived to satisfy personal values. Finally, the relative importance of values can be determined by their ‘in-degree’ (PIETERS, ET AL., 1995), compare chapter 5.3.2. Yet, this procedure has to be adjusted. Using in-degrees to find the most important values seems to lack in credibility. The size of an indegree highly depends on whether or not the consequences in the matrixsurvey potentially can be linked to these values. That means that a value, which potentially could be linked to all consequences, will probably reach a relatively high in-degree, compared to the in-degree of a value that potentially just can be linked to one consequence. However, this does not reveal whether the latter one is more important to the respondent than the first one. 62
Thus, in this study, the most dominant MECs will be identified by first determining the strongest relationships between consequences and values according to the applied motivational view, as discussed in chapter 2.4.2, followed by the strongest incoming linkage to the respective consequence from another consequence or from an attribute. The resulting MEC is then to be read beginning at the attribute level moving upwards the hierarchy. Only complete MEC are considered (PHILLIPS & REYNOLDS, 2009), which means that if one element of the MEC can not be further linked to another element above cut-off level, the MEC is incomplete and does not represent a perceptual orientation from attributes to values. In such a case, the next most dominating linkage has to be taken for completing the MEC. Further, if an element has two outgoing linkages that are equally important, the most important incoming linkage to that element determines the development of the most dominant MEC. Investigating in the most dominant MECs in each pre-defined group of respondents implies at the same time disregarding other chains that are not of dominant character. Even if these are not mentioned in the text, it does not mean that they do not matter to the respondents. In contrast, they passed the cut-off level and are included in the HVMs, which are attached in appendix 5 and 6. However, there might exist linkages between the most dominant MECs, i.e. inter-chain relationships, implying that these MECs are not separated or isolated from each other. Instead, the elements of these MECs can be regarded as important cornerstones in consumer’s minds, constituting ‘central perceptual frames of MECs’ (SCHAUERTE, 2006). Therefore, these linkages are included in this study as well. All percentages shown in the HVMs and most dominant MECs are derived as the relative number of respondents that perceived a certain linkage, in relation to all respondents in the respective group. This is not to be confused with the percentages presented in the SIMs in appendix 4, where the explanatory power of a linkage in a certain row was the base for calculations. The strength of the presented arrows in the HVMs and MECs is related to the relative number of respondents perceiving that respective linkage.
63
5.3.5 Matrix-survey results Germany In this chapter, the three most dominant perceptual orientations, or most dominant MECs, of the different age-groups, income classes and regions are presented. These can be found by proceeding as previously explained in chapter 5.3.4. For the first age-group, ‘younger than 35 years’, the above described process is shown more in detail. To start with, the HVM for this age-group is presented in figure 10, so that the reader can comprehend and reconstruct the task. Further, the most dominant MEC is shown in figure 6, followed by the second and the third most dominant MEC in figures 7 and 8. Finally, these three MECs are aggregated in ‘central perceptual frames of MECs’, see figure 9, and include inter-chain linkages, displayed as dotted arrows, between the three most dominant MECs. For the remaining age-groups, income-classes and regions, only the ‘central perceptual frames of MECs’ are illustrated and the respective HVMs enclosed in appendix 5. 5.3.5.1 Different age-groups in Germany
ATTRIBUTE
CONSEQUENCE
VALUE
Age-group ‘younger than 35 years’ Concern about the environment 90 % Positive for the environment
73 % Energy saving
As can be seen in the HVM in figure 10 below, the most dominant linkage between a consequence and a value is ‘positive for the environment’ to ‘concern about the environment’, which 90 % of the respondents perceive in the case of wooden multistory houses. Further, the most dominant linkage leading to the consequence ‘positive for the environment’ is the attribute ‘energy saving’, named by 73 %.
FIGURE 6: MOST DOMINANT MEC OF GERMAN AGE-GROUP ‘YOUNGER THAN 35 YEARS’
As MECs should be read starting from the attribute level, this most dominant MEC is to be read as follows. In the case of wooden multistory houses, 73 % of the German respondents being ‘younger than 35 years’ think that ‘energy saving’ is ‘positive for the environment’, which 90 %
64
ATTRIBUTE
CONSEQUENCE
VALUE
perceive as matching their personal value ‘concern about the environment’. Good health 85 %
Healthy living
71 % Healthy interior
The second most dominant MEC is to be found by seeking for the second most dominant linkage between a consequence and a value. Here, 85 % perceive a connection between ‘healthy living’ and ‘good health’. Looking for the most dominant incoming linkage to ‘healthy living’ completes this MEC; in this case, 71 % of the respondents identified ‘healthy interior’ as an attribute of wooden multistory houses leading to ‘healthy living’.
FIGURE 7: SECOND MOST DOMINANT MEC OF GERMAN AGE-GROUP ‘YOUNGER THAN 35 YEARS’
CONSEQUENCES
VALUE
This second most dominant MEC is to be read thus: ‘healthy interior’ is perceived by 71 % of the respondents in this age group as leading to ‘healthy living’, which in turn 85 % regard as leading to ‘good health’. Feeling comfortable
82 % Pleasant & comfortable housing
ATTRIBUTES
80 %
Warm interior atmosphere
80 %
Healthy living
71 %
Accordingly, the third most dominant MEC comprises the third most dominant linkage between a consequence, here ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ and a value, here ‘feeling comfortable’, named by 82 % of the respondents. Looking for the most dominant incoming linkage to this consequence, two linkages are equally important and perceived by 80 % of the respondents.
Healthy interior
The first one is another consequence, ’healthy living’, with ‘healthy interior’ as the most dominant attribute, FIGURE 8: SECOND MOST DOMINANT MEC OF perceived by 71 %. The second one is GERMAN AGE-GROUP ‘YOUNGER THAN 35 YEARS’ the attribute ‘warm interior atmosphere’.
65
The third most dominant MEC thus comprises following information. ‘Healthy interior’ is by 71 % of the respondents in this age-group perceived as leading to ‘healthy living’, which in turn 80 % consider as leading to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’. At the same time, 80 % regard ‘warm interior atmosphere’ as leading to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’. Finally this consequence is perceived by 82 % to lead to the personal value ‘feeling comfortable’.
ATTRIBUTES
CONSEQUENCES
VALUES
Combining the three most dominant MECs, including inter-chain linkages, results in the ‘central perceptual frame of MECs’ as depicted in figure 9. As can be seen, the most dominant MEC of this age-group is isolated from the second and third one. However, the latter ones are connected to each other. The attribute ‘healthy interior’ and the consequence ‘healthy living’ are included in both of them and additionally, ‘healthy living’ is not only perceived to lead to the value ‘good health’, but to ‘feeling comfortable’ as well (67 %). Additionally, a reciprocal relationship exists between the two consequences ‘healthy living’ and ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’. Concern about the environment 90 % Positive for the environment
73 % Energy saving
Good health
85 % Healthy living 71 % Healthy interior
Feeling comfortable 67 % 80 % 51 %
82 % Pleasant & comfortable housing 80 % Warm interior atmosphere
FIGURE 9: CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAME OF MECS OF GERMAN AGE-GROUP ‘YOUNGER THAN 35 YEARS’
In accordance to the prior described motivational view of Means-End theory, these MECs can be regarded as the most dominant underlying preference motives for German consumers in the age group ‘younger than 35 years’ in the case of wooden multistory houses. Within the scope of this study, the term ‘potential preference motives’ should be adopted, since respondents have not been in any real choice situation at the time of answering the survey.
66
VALUES
Good health
Feeling comfortable
85
CONSEQUENCES CONSEQUENCES ATTRIBUTES
Self realization
38
67
62
Healthy living
90
75
42
44
51
Healthy living
Healthy interior
Individual housing
Natural material
37
54
Individual architecture
38 42
35
46
Less reparations ---------------Too many reparations
Good image & reputation
High self esteem
46
60
65
79 38
53 Financial advantages ---------------Finacial disadvantages
Individual housing
Financial advantages
Unlimited freedom of action -------------Limited freedom of action
Secure housing --------------Housing as a factor of insecurity
43 47
Inspires & wakes up creativity
80 39
43
49
42 35
Good image & reputation
43
39 62
Warm interior atmosphere
46
39
High quality & safety standards
68
46 66
Inspires & wakes up creativity
56
Pleasant & comfortable housing
57
61
High quality & safety standards
Pleasant & comfortable housing
58
Concern about the environment
Need of security
48 58
53 44 70
82 58
Positive for the environment
80
71
High quality of life
Having fun
Positive for the environment
Financial advantages
73
Limited freedom of action
43
48 47
37
67 53
82
Finacial disadvantages
Housing as a factor of insecurity
77
78
57
Too many reparations
51 54
35
Not common housing
Innovative & modern
Energy saving
Lower costs
Higher costs
High construction & material risks
Numbers = Percentage of observations with N=79. FIGURE 10: HIERARCHICAL VALUE MAP OF GERMAN AGE-GROUP ‘YOUNGER THAN 35 YEARS’.
67
Age-group ’35 – 49 years’ Figure 11 shows the most dominant perceptual frame of MECs for the German age-group ’35 – 49 years’ and comprises the following information. ‘Warm interior atmosphere’ is regarded as leading to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (81 %), which in turn contributes to achieving the personal value ‘feeling comfortable’ (83 %).
ATTRIBUTES
CONSEQUENCES
VALUES
Further, ‘healthy living’ is seen as a consequence of ‘natural material’ (70 %) and perceived as a condition for ‘good health’ (81 %). The third most dominant MEC starts with the attribute ‘energy saving’ being ‘positive for the environment’ (79 %), which is linked to the personal value ‘concern about the environment’ by 77 % of the respondents in this age-group. Concern about the environment 77 % Positive for the environment
79 % Energy saving
Good health 34 %
49 % 49 %
81 % Healthy living 70 % Natural material
Feeling comfortable 60 %
83 %
68 % 36 % 74 %
Pleasant & comfortable housing 81 % Warm interior atmosphere
FIGURE 11: CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAME OF MECS OF GERMAN AGE-GROUP ’35 – 49 YEARS’
Beyond the three described most dominant MECs, inter-chain relations between the elements can be observed. ‘Natural material’ is associated with all consequences in the central perceptual frame, and a reciprocal relationship exists between the consequences ‘healthy living’ and ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’. Further, ‘healthy living’ leads to the value ‘feeling comfortable’ and to the consequence ‘positive for the environment’, which in turn is perceived contributing to achieve ‘good health’.
68
Age-group ’50 – 64 years’
ATTRIBUTES
CONSEQUENCES
VALUES
The three most dominant MECs for the German age-group ’50 – 64 years’ are depicted in figure 12. ‘Warm interior atmosphere’ is perceived to lead to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (73 %), which 81 % of the respondents in this age-group associate with ‘feeling comfortable’. The consequence ‘healthy living’ is seen by 69 % as resulting from the attribute ‘natural material’ and regarded by 81% as a premise for ‘good health’. Moreover, 66 % regard ‘energy saving’ as ‘positive for the environment’, which in turn helps to achieve the personal value ‘concern about the environment’ (81 %). Concern about the environment
Good health
76 % Positive for the environment
66 % Energy saving
81 % 36 %
Healthy living 69 % Natural material
Feeling comfortable 58 % 57 % 36 % 46 %
81 % Pleasant & comfortable housing 73 % Warm interior atmosphere
FIGURE 12: CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAME OF MECS OF GERMAN AGE-GROUP ‘50 – 64 YEARS’
The two most important MECs in this central perceptual frame of MECs are interrelated with four linkages. The attribute ‘natural material’ is lonked by 46 % of the respondents in this age-group to the consequence ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’, which in turn is seen as related to the value ‘good health’ (58 %) and furthermore has a reciprocal relationship with the consequence ‘healthy living’ (57 % and 36 %). The third most important MEC, in contrast, only has one interrelated linkage, ‘positive for the environment’, which 36 % perceive to lead to ‘healthy living’.
69
Age-group ’65 years and older’
ATTRIBUTES
CONSEQUENCES
VALUES
In the most dominant MEC of the German age-group ’65 years and older’, 57 % of the respondents perceive ‘energy saving’ as being ‘positive for the environment’, which 80 % link to ‘concern about the environment’. The second most dominant MEC includes the attribute ‘natural material’ that is seen as related to ‘healthy living’ (60 %), which in turn is regarded as being connected to ‘good health’ (67 %). ‘Healthy interior’ is the attribute in the third most dominant MEC that 53 % associate with the consequence ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’, which leads to ‘feeling comfortable’ (60 %). Concern about the environment 80 % Positive for the environment
57 % Energy saving
Good health
67 % Healthy living 60 % Natural material
Feeling comfortable 43 % 40 % 47 % 37 %
60 % Pleasant & comfortable housing 53 % Healthy interior
FIGURE 13: CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAME OF MECS OF GERMAN AGE-GROUP ’65 YEARS AND OLDER’
As can be seen in figure 13, the most dominant MEC is isolated from the two other MECs, which means that no linkage between their elements passed the cut-off level. The second and third most dominant MECs on the other hand are interrelated by four linkages. ‘Healthy interior’ is perceived to lead to ‘healthy living’ (37 %), which is reciprocally connected to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (40 % and 47 %) and additionally is regarded as leading to ‘feeling comfortable’ (43 %).
70
5.3.5.2 Different income-classes in Germany Income-class ‘less than 10.000 € per year’
ATTRIBUTES
CONSEQUENCES
VALUES
The three most dominant MECs for this Germany income-class are as follows. First, ‘energy saving’ is seen by 56 % of the respondents seen as ‘positive for the environment’, which contributes to ‘concern about the environment’ (84 %). The second and third most dominant MECs both comprise the attribute ‘healthy interior’, which is associated with ‘healthy living’ (63 %). Not until this point do they differ in the way that ‘healthy living’ is seen as a premise for the personal value ‘good health’ (81 %) and for the consequence ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (69 %). The latter in turn is regarded in connection with ‘feeling comfortable’ (78 %). Concern about the environment
Good health
84 % Positive for the environment
56 % Energy saving
81 % 44 %
Healthy living 63 %
Feeling comfortable 59 %
78 %
69 % 53 %
Pleasant & comfortable housing
38 %
Healthy interior
FIGURE 14: CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAME OF MECS OF GERMAN INCOME-CLASS ‘LESS THAN 10.000 € PER YEAR’
Inter-chain relationships exist mainly between the second and third most important MECs. ‘Healthy interior’, through ‘healthy living’ indirectly linked with ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’, holds as well a direct relationship with the latter one (38 %). The two consequences ‘healthy living’ and ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ do not only have a one way connection within the third most dominant MEC (69 %), but are related reciprocally (53 %).
71
Further, ‘healthy living’ is also regarded as leading to ‘feeling comfortable’ (59 %), and is the element having an incoming linkage from ‘positive for the environment’, an element from the most dominant MEC. Income-class ’10.000 – 19.999 € per year’ The most dominant MEC for this income-class includes the linkages ‘warm interior atmosphere’ leading to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (74 %) further leading to ‘feeling comfortable’ (85 %). Next, ‘energy saving’ is seen as being ‘positive for the environment’ (76 %), which is linked to ‘concern about the environment’ (80 %). Within the third most dominant MEC, ‘healthy interior’ is associated by 60 % of the respondents with ‘healthy living’. This consequence is further seen as leading to ‘good health’ (78 %).
ATTRIBUTES
CONSEQUENCES
VALUES
Among the three most dominant MECs, inter-chain relationships can be observed primarily between the first and third most dominant MECs. ‘Healthy interior’ leads to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (65 %), which in turn is reciprocally linked to ‘healthy living’ (59 % and 39 %). The latter consequence is also associated with the value ‘feeling comfortable’ (43 %) and receiver of the only linkage departing from an element of the second most dominant MEC, i.e. ‘positive for the environment’ (39 %). Concern about the environment
Good health
80 % Positive for the environment
76 % Energy saving
78 % 39 %
Healthy living 60 % Healthy interior
Feeling comfortable 43 %
85 %
59 % 39 % 65 %
Pleasant & comfortable housing 74 % Warm interior atmosphere
FIGURE 15: CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAME OF MECS OF GERMAN INCOME-CLASS ’10.000 – 19.999 € PER YEAR’
72
Income-class ’20.000 – 29.999 € per year’ For the German income-class ’20.000 – 29.999 € per year’, the following three most dominant MECs can be observed. First, ‘energy saving’ is perceived to be ‘positive for the environment’ (74 %). That consequence is further linked to the value ‘concern about the environment’ by 85 % of the respondents. Second, ‘natural material’ is named by 68 % as leading to ‘healthy living’, which in turn 76 % regard as being linked with ‘good health’. Finally, ‘warm interior atmosphere’ and ‘natural material’ are perceived as equally important with ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (66 %), which further leads to ‘feeling comfortable’ (68 %).
ATTRIBUTES
CONSEQUENCES
VALUES
Within the frame in figure 16, five inter-chain relationships can be seen. ‘Natural material’ is not only directly incorporated into the second and third most dominant MECs, but is also perceived as being ‘positive for the environment’ (49 %). That consequence in the most dominant MEC is further linked to ‘healthy living’ (40 %), which in turn has a reciprocal relationship with ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (64 % and 45 %). Further, ‘healthy living’ does not only lead to ‘good health’, but as well to ‘feeling comfortable’, as indicated by 60 % of the respondents. Concern about the environment
Good health
85 % Positive for the environment
74 % Energy saving
76 % 40 %
49 %
Healthy living 68 % Natural material
Feeling comfortable 60 %
68 %
64 % 45 % 66 %
Pleasant & comfortable housing 66 % Warm interior atmosphere
FIGURE 16: CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAMES OF MECS OF GERMAN INCOME-CLASS ’20.000 – 29.999 € PER YEAR’
73
Income-class ’30.000 – 49.999 € per year’ As can be seen in figure 17, the most dominant MEC for this income-class has two equally important attributes, ‘natural material’ and ‘healthy interior’, which 63 % of the respondents regard as leading to ‘healthy living’. This consequence is further linked to ‘good health’ (91 %). In the second most dominant MEC, ‘warm interior atmosphere’ is connected to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (76 %). This in turn is associated with ‘feeling comfortable’ (89 %). At least, 61 % think that ‘energy saving’ is ‘positive for the environment’ and 83 % regard this consequence as being connected to ‘concern about the environment’.
ATTRIBUTES
CONSEQUENCES
VALUES
Concerning inter-chain linkages, the attribute ‘natural material’ is not only part of the most dominant MEC, but also linked to the other ones. 37 % perceive it to be ‘good for the environment’, whilst 44 % relate it to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’. The latter one has as well an incoming linkage from the second attribute of the most dominant MEC, i.e. ‘healthy interior’ (56 %) and a reciprocal relationship with the consequence ‘healthy living’ (65 % and 37 %). Additionally, ‘healthy living’ is seen as a consequence of ‘positive for the environment’ (37 %) and as a premise for ‘feeling comfortable’ (54 %). Concern about the environment
Good health
83 % Positive for the environment
61 % Energy saving
54 %
91 % 37 %
Healthy living
37 %
63 %
Feeling comfortable
65 % 37 %
63 %
44 % Natural material
56 % Healthy interior
89 % Pleasant & comfortable housing 76 % Warm interior atmosphere
FIGURE 17: CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAME OF MECS OF GERMAN INCOME-CLASS ’30.000 – 49.999 € PER YEAR’
74
Income-class ’50.000 € and more per year’ For the group of respondents with the highest income per year, the three most dominant MECs are as follows. First, 81 % recognize ‘energy saving’ as being ‘positive for the environment’, which further leads to ‘concern about the environment’ (75 %). Secondly, a ‘warm interior atmosphere’ is linked by 88 % to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’, which in turn 72 % connect to ‘feeling comfortable’. Thirdly, ‘healthy interior’ leads to ‘healthy living’ (75 %), which in turn is seen as being linked with ‘good health’ (72 %).
ATTRIBUTES
CONSEQUENCES
VALUES
The central perceptual frame of MECs, as shown in figure 18, is completed by several inter-chain linkages. The consequence ‘positive for the environment’ in the most dominant MEC is linked to the consequence ‘healthy living’ (38 %) and the personal value ‘good health’ (34 %). The attribute ‘healthy interior’ is connected to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (41 %), which in turn is reciprocally connected to the consequence ‘healthy living’ (69 % and 34 %). This consequence is additionally perceived to lead to ‘feeling comfortable’ as 63 % of the respondents in this income-class mention. Concern about the environment 75 % Positive for the environment
81 % Energy saving
Good health 34 % 38 %
72 % Healthy living 75 % Healthy interior
Feeling comfortable 63 %
72 %
69 % 34 % 41 %
Pleasant & comfortable housing 88 % Warm interior atmosphere
FIGURE 18: CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAME OF MECS OF GERMAN INCOME-CLASS ’50.000 € AND MORE PER YEAR’
75
5.3.5.3 Different regions in Germany Region ‘North/West’ In North/West Germany, 78 % of the respondents perceive ‘energy saving’ as ‘positive for the environment’. Further, 88 % associate the latter with ‘concern about the environment’, which constitutes the most dominant MEC of this region. The second most dominant MEC has ‘warm interior atmosphere’ as an attribute leading to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (87 %), which is further connected to ‘feeling comfortable’ (85 %). In the third most dominant MEC, ‘healthy interior’ is by 80 % regarded as having ‘healthy living’ as a consequence, which is a premise for ‘good health’ (84 %).
ATTRIBUTES
CONSEQUENCES
VALUES
Five inter-chain relationships can be observed. ‘Healthy interior’ is regarded as causing ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (54 %), which in turn has a reciprocal connection with ‘healthy living’ (71 % and 36 %). This element is further regarded as a consequence of ‘positive for the environment’ (39 %) and additionally leading to ‘feeling comfortable’ (63 %). Concern about the environment
Good health
88 % Positive for the environment
78 % Energy saving
84 % 39 %
Healthy living 80 % Healthy interior
Feeling comfortable 63 %
85 %
71 % 36 % 54 %
Pleasant & comfortable housing 87 % Warm interior atmosphere
FIGURE 19: CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAME OF MECS OF GERMAN REGION ‘NORTH/WEST’
76
Region ‘South/West’ For the respondents in South/West Germany, the most dominant MEC includes the attribute ‘natural material’, which 60 % connect to ‘healthy living’. This consequence is perceived by 78 % to lead to ‘good health’. ‘Energy saving’ belongs to the second most dominant MEC and is, according to 60 % of the respondents, ‘positive for the environment’ and leading to ‘concern about the environment’ (74 %). In the third most dominant MEC, ‘warm interior atmosphere’ is linked to the consequence ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (65 %). This consequence is perceived by 71 % as leading to ‘feeling comfortable’.
ATTRIBUTES
CONSEQUENCES
VALUES
Figure 20 shows the most dominant MECs described above, as well as all inter-chain linkages. ‘Natural material’, belonging to the most dominant MEC, is additionally linked to the consequences in the other two dominant MECs. These are ‘positive for the environment’ (42 %) and ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (37 %). Further, ‘positive for the environment’ is perceived as leading to ‘healthy living’ (49 %), which is seen as causing ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (59 %) and being related to the value ‘feeling comfortable’ (71 %). Concern about the environment
Good health
74 % Positive for the environment
60 % Energy saving
78 % 49 %
42 %
Feeling comfortable 54 % 59 %
Healthy living
71 % Pleasant & comfortable housing
60 % 37 % Natural material
53 %
65 %
Warm interior atmosphere
FIGURE 20: CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAME OF MECS OF GERMAN REGION ‘SOUTH/WEST’
77
Region ‘East’ In East Germany, the three most dominant MECs are as follows. First, 77 % think that ‘energy saving’ is ‘positive for the environment’, which in turn 88 % connect to ‘concern about the environment’. The second and the third MEC are equally important. To start with, ‘natural material’ is regarded as causing ‘healthy living’ (71 %), which contributes to ‘good health’ (85 %). Further, ‘warm interior atmosphere’ is connected to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (71 %), leading to ‘feeling comfortable’ (85 %).
ATTRIBUTES
CONSEQUENCES
VALUES
Regarding inter-chain relationships, ‘natural material’ is connected to both ‘positive for the environment’ (44 %) and ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (54 %). The latter has a reciprocal relationship with ‘healthy living’ (69 % and 40 %), which in turn is regarded as contributing to ‘feeling comfortable’ (67 %). Concern about the environment
Good health
88 %
85 %
Positive for the environment
77 % Energy saving
Healthy living
44 %
71 % Natural material
Feeling comfortable 67 %
85 %
69 % 40 % 54 %
Pleasant & comfortable housing 71 % Warm interior atmosphere
FIGURE 21: CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAME OF MECS OF GERMAN REGION ‘EAST’
78
5.3.5.4 Accumulated results for Germany
VALUES
Regarding German respondents without considering differences in age, income or regional affiliation, figure 22 reveals the three most dominant MECs in the order as described below.28 ‘Energy saving’ is perceived by 70 % as being ‘positive for the environment’, which is associated with ‘concern about the environment’ (82 %). ‘Natural material’ is seen as causing ‘healthy living’ (67 %), which in turn 80 % of the respondents connect to ‘good health’. Finally, 71 % comprehend that ‘warm interior atmosphere’ leads to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’, being one premise for ‘feeling comfortable’ (79 %). Concern about the environment
CONSEQUENCES
82 %
Positive for the environment
ATTRIBUTES
70 %
Good health 17 %
25 %
39 % 23 %
45 %
Feeling comfortable
80 %
65 %
Healthy living
Pleasant & comfortable housing
42 %
67 %
71 % 17 %
Energy saving
79 %
60 %
49 %
Natural material
Warm interior atmosphere
FIGURE 22: CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAME OF MECS OF GERMANY
These three MECs are connected by several inter-chain relationships. The attribute ‘natural material’ is additionally linked to the consequences ‘positive for the environment’ (45 %) and ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (17 %). ‘Healthy living’ has reciprocal relationships with the two other two consequences, ‘positive for the environment’ (39 % and 23 %)
Here, the third cut-off criterion was not adjusted as has been the case for the various agegroups, income-classes and regions. That means that at a minimum, 10 respondents had to perceive a certain linkage to pass the third criteria. 28
79
and ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (65 % and 42 %) and leads additionally to the value ‘feeling comfortable’ (60 %). Moreover, 49 % of the respondents perceive ‘warm interior atmosphere’ as a cause for ‘healthy living’. Finally, ‘positive for the environment’ is considered as being connected to ‘good health’ (25 %) and ‘feeling comfortable’ (17 %). 5.3.6 Matrix survey results Sweden In the following sub-chapter, empirical results of Swedish respondents are presented distinguished by age, income and lands. As was done with the German data, central perceptual frames with the three most dominant MECs and inter-chain relations are presented. To understand and retrace the MECs and other depicted linkages, the reader can go back to the beginning of chapter 5.3.5, where a detailed description of how to derive the three most dominant MECs from the corresponding HVM from the German study is presented. 5.3.6.1 Different age-groups in Sweden Age-group ‘younger than 35 years’ For the Swedish age-group ‘younger than 35 years’, the most dominant MEC starts with the attribute ‘more expensive to run’, which 59 % of the respondents perceive to lead to ‘financial disadvantages’, which in turn 44 % perceive to lead to ‘insecure housing’. This is an undesired consequence and respondents regard ‘secure housing’ (79 %) instead as matching their personal value ‘need of security’. ‘Healthy interior’, as the attribute in the second most dominant MEC, is regarded as leading to ‘healthy living’ (63 %), which in turn 70 % connect to ‘good health’. Further, ‘warm interior atmosphere’ is considered causing ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’, which, according to 63 % of the respondents, is a premise for ‘feeling comfortable’. As figure 23 displays, inter-chain relationships connect the described most dominant MECs. ‘Healthy interior’ is related to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (39 %), which moreover has a reciprocal relation with ‘healthy living’ (46 % and 42 %) and is perceived as being connected to ‘need of
80
security’ (45 %). ‘Warm interior atmosphere’ is seen as contributing to ‘healthy living (29 %) and ‘more expensive to run’ is regarded as resulting in ‘insecure housing’ (20 %).
ATTRIBUTES
CONSEQUENCES
VALUES
The personal value ‘feeling comfortable’ is connected to all three most dominant MECs, as 51 % regard ‘healthy living’ and 61 % ‘secure housing’ as contributors. Good health
Feeling comfortable
Need of security
51 %
70 %
42 %
Healthy living
46 %
62 % 45 % Pleasant & comfortable housing
63 % 39 %
29 %
79 % Secure housing
63 %
PERCEPTUAL FRAME OF
Insecure housing
44 %
Financial disadvantages
20 %
Warm interior atmosphere
Healthy interior
FIGURE 23: CENTRAL YEARS’
61 %
59 %
More expensive to run
MECS
OF
SWEDISH
AGE-GROUP ‘YOUNGER THAN
35
Age-group ’35 – 49’ For this age-group, ‘higher construction costs’ is the main reason (66 %) for ‘financial disadvantages’, which are considered to cause ‘insecure housing’ (46 %). The latter is an undesired consequence; instead ‘secure housing’ is desired and associated to ‘need of security’ (77 %). The second most dominant MEC incorporates ‘healthy interior’ as an attribute leading to ‘healthy living’ (65 %), which is seen as contributing to ‘good health’ (69 %). Further, in the third most dominant MEC, ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ is perceived as being caused by ‘warm interior atmosphere’ (62 %) and leading to ‘feeling comfortable’ (62 %).
81
ATTRIBUTES
CONSEQUENCES
VALUES
Some inter-chain connections exist between the most dominant MECs in figure 24. ‘Healthy interior’ is perceived to lead to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (29 %), which in turn is seen as contributing to satisfying the ‘need of security’ (45 %), and furthermore has a reciprocal relationship with the consequence ‘healthy living’ (40 % and 45 %). Moreover, the value ‘feeling comfortable’ receives linkages from the consequences ‘healthy living’ (58 %) and ‘secure housing’ (55 %). Good health
Feeling comfortable 47 %
69 %
59 %
45 % Pleasant & comfortable housing
45 %
Healthy living
40 %
65 %
55 %
77 %
Secure housing
Insecure housing
46 %
Financial disadvantages
62 %
29 % Healthy interior
Need of security
Warm interior atmosphere
66 % Higher construction costs
FIGURE 24: CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAME OF MECS OF SWEDISH AGE-GROUP ’35 – 49 YEARS’
Age-group ’50 – 64 years The most dominant MEC of this age-group includes the linkage between ‘more expensive to run’ and ‘financial disadvantages’, perceived by 46 % of the respondents. The latter is further seen as causing ‘insecure housing’ (41 %) as an undesired consequence. To contribute to the ‘need of security’, 76 % regard ‘secure housing’ as relevant. The second and third most dominant MECs include the values ‘good health’ and ‘high quality of life’, which both are perceived to be achieved by ‘healthy living’ (68 % and 55 % respectively), which in turn is seen as a consequence of ‘healthy interior’ (61 %).
82
ATTRIBUTES
CONSEQUENCES
VALUES
One inter-chain relationship can be observed between the most and the third most important MEC, as ‘secure housing’ is regarded as leading to ‘high quality of life’, according to 48% of the respondents in this agegroup. Further, ‘insecure housing’ is also perceived to be connected with ‘financial disadvantages’ (36%). Thus, a reciprocal relationship exists between these two consequences, compare figure 25.
Good health
High quality of life
68 %
55 %
48 %
Healthy living 61 % Healthy interior
Need of security
76 % Secure housing
Insecure housing
36 % 41 %
Financial disadvantages
46 % More expensive to run
FIGURE 25: CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAME OF MECS OF SWEDISH AGE-GROUP ’50 – 64 YEARS’
Age-group ’65 years and older’ For the oldest group of Swedish respondents, the three most dominant MECs are presented in figure 26. In the most dominant MEC, ‘high construction & material risk’ is perceived as resulting in ‘insecure housing’ (28 %). This is an undesired consequence; instead, 65 % of the oldest respondents associate ‘secure housiung’ with ‘need of security’. Further, ‘healthy interior’ leads to ‘healthy living’ (43 %), which is further connected to ‘good health’ (55 %), which constitutes the second most dominant MEC. Finally, ‘warm interior atmosphere’ is regarded as causing ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (45 %), which in turn contributes to ‘feeling comfortable’ (45 %).
83
Several inter-chain linkages can be found between these three most dominant MECs. ‘Healthy interior’ is seen as causing ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (25 %), which in turn is perceived to lead to ‘need of security’ (25 %). ‘
ATTRIBUTES
CONSEQUENCES
VALUES
Warm interior atmosphere’ contributes to ‘healthy living’ according to 24 % of the respondents in this age-group, which moreover has a mutual relationship with ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (30 % and 24 %). Furthermore, ‘healthy living’ is perceived to lead to ‘feeling comfortable’ (24 %).
Good health
55 %
Feeling comfortable
24 %
Healthy living
43 % Healthy interior
45 % 30 % 24 %
25 % Pleasant & comfortable housing
45 % 25 %
24 % Warm interior atmosphere
Need of security
65 % Secure housing
Insecure housing 28 %
High construction & material risk
FIGURE 26: CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAME OF MECS OF SWEDISH AGE-GROUP ’65 YEARS AND OLDER’
5.3.6.2 Different income-classes in Sweden Income-class ‘less than 10.000 € per year’ The most dominant MEC for this income-class accentuates ‘high construction & material risk’ as leading to the undesired consequence ‘insecure housing’ (36 %). Yet, ‘secure housing’ is associated instead with ‘need of security’ by 78 %. Secondly, ‘healthy interior’ causes ‘healthy living’, according to 56 % of the respondents, which in turn contributes to ‘good health’ (60 %).
84
Thirdly, a ‘warm interior atmosphere’ is seen as leading to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (47 %), whereby this consequence is connected to ‘feeling comfortable’ by 42 %.
ATTRIBUTES
CONSEQUENCES
VALUES
Inter-chain connections are perceived to exist as follows. ‘Warm interior atmosphere’ leads to ‘healthy living’ (20 %), which further is related to ‘feeling comfortable’ (29 %). ‘Healthy interior’ is seen as causing ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (22 %). The latter is moreover connected to ‘need of security’ (29 %) and has a reciprocal relationship with ‘healthy living’ (29 % and 33 %). Good health
60 %
Feeling comfortable
29 %
Healthy living
56 % Healthy interior
42 % 33 % 29 %
22 %
29 % Pleasant & comfortable housing
20 %
Need of security
40 %
47 %
Warm interior atmosphere
78 % Secure housing
Insecure housing
36 % High construction & material risk
FIGURE 27: CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAME OF MECS OF SWEDISH INCOME-CLASS ‘LESS THAN 10.000 € PER YEAR’
Income-class ’10.000 – 19.999 € per year’ ‘High construction & material risk’ is perceived by 37 % as leading to ‘insecure housing’. However, ‘secure housing’ is seen as contributing to satisfying the ‘need of security’ (67 %). This constitutes the most dominant MEC for this income-class, as can be seen in figure 28. In the second most dominant MEC, ‘healthy interior’ is perceived to lead to ‘healthy living’ (51 %), which is further regarded as leading to ‘good health’ (63 %). Further, in the third most dominant MEC, ‘warm interior
85
atmosphere’ has ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ as a consequence (40 %), which in turn is seen as contributing to ‘feeling comfortable (51 %).
ATTRIBUTES
CONSEQUENCES
VALUES
Inter-chain relations between these three most dominant MECs are perceived as follows. ‘Healthy interior’ leads to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (31 %), which in turn leads to ‘need of security’ (26 %). ‘Warm interior atmosphere’ contributes to ‘healthy living’ (25 %), which further is regarded as leading to ‘feeling comfortable’ (32 %) and shows a mutual connection to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (31 % and 29 %). Finally, ‘secure housing’ is seen as leading to ‘feeling comfortable’ (45 %). Good health
63 %
Feeling comfortable
32 %
Healthy living
51 % 31 % 29 %
26 % Pleasant & comfortable housing
51 %
40 % 31 %
Healthy interior
25 % Warm interior atmosphere
Need of security
67 %
45 % Secure housing
Insecure housing
37 % High construction & material risk
FIGURE 28: CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAME OF MECS OF SWEDISH INCOME-CLASS ’10.000 – 19.999 € PER YEAR’
Income-class ’20.000 – 29.999 € per year’ According to 34 % of the respondents in this income-class, ‘high construction & material risk’ leads to ‘insecure housing’, which is an undesired consequence. Contributing to ‘need of security’, ‘secure housing’ is instead regarded as crucial by 73 %. These connections constitute the most dominant MEC for these respondents. Further, ‘healthy interior’ is seen as causing ‘healthy living’ (60 %), whereby this consequence contributes to ‘good health’, as 66 % indicate.
86
The third most dominant MEC included the attribute ‘warm interior atmosphere’, leading to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (60 %), which in turn 56 % perceive as a premise for ‘feeling comfortable’. Among the described most dominant MECs, inter-chain relationships exist. ‘Healthy interior’ is connected to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (55 %), which further is linked to the value ‘need of security’ (42 %), and has a reciprocal relationship with ‘healthy living’ (38 % and 43 %).
ATTRIBUTES
CONSEQUENCES
VALUES
Moreover, 49 % regard ‘secure housing’ and 42 % ‘healthy living’ as contributing to ‘feeling comfortable’. Finally, ‘warm interior atmosphere’ is perceived as leading to ‘healthy living’ (30 %). Good health
Feeling comfortable
66 %
56 % 42 %
Healthy living
43 % 38 %
55 %
73 %
42 % Pleasant & comfortable housing
60 %
Healthy interior
Need of security
30 %
49 %
60 %
Warm interior atmosphere
Secure housing
Insecure housing 34 %
High construction & material risk
FIGURE 29: CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAME OF MECS OF SWEDISH INCOME-CLASS ’20.000 – 29.999 € PER YEAR’
Income-class ’30.000 € and more per year’ The three most dominant MECs of this income-class are as follows. First, ‘high construction & material risk’ is considered by 36 % as causing ‘insecure housing’ as an undesired consequence. Yet, ‘secure housing’ is instead seen as being connected to ‘need of security’ (79 %). Further, ‘healthy interior’ leads to ‘healthy living’ according to 58 % of the respondents. This connection is part of the second and third most dominant MEC. ‘Healthy living’ is perceived to contribute to ‘good
87
health’ in the second most dominant MEC (66 %) as well as to a ‘high quality of life’ (62 %) in the third most dominant MEC.
ATTRIBUTES
CONSEQUENCES
VALUES
One inter-chain relationship connects two of these most dominant MECs. The consequence ‘secure housing’ is connected to the personal value ‘high quality of life’, which 51% of the respondents indicate. Good health
66 %
High quality of life
62 %
51 %
Healthy living 58 % Healthy interior
Need of security
79 % Secure housing
Insecure housing
36 % High construction & material risk
FIGURE 30: CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAME OF MECS OF SWEDISH INCOME-CLASS ’30.000 € AND MORE PER YEAR’
5.3.6.3 Different lands in Sweden ‘Götaland’ In ‘Götaland’, 51 % of the respondents think that a wooden multistory house is ‘more expensive to run’, which causes ‘financial disadvantages’. That consequence is further linked to ‘insecure housing’ (34 %), which constitutes an undesired consequence, since ‘secure housing’ is preferred. This described constellation of elements is the basis for all three most dominant MECs in this Swedish land. In the order of dominance, ‘secure housing’ is further perceived to lead to ‘feeling comfortable’ (76 %), ‘high quality of life’ (66 %) and ‘need of security’ (64 %).
88
Feeling comfortable
ATTRIBUTES
CONSEQUENCES
VALUES
One inter-chain relation passed the cut-off level, as a reciproce connection between ‘insecure housing’ and ‘financial disadvantages’ can be observed, compare figure 31.
66 %
High quality of life 64 % Secure housing
Need of security
76 % Insecure housing
34 % 40 %
Financial disadvantages
51 % More expensive to run
FIGURE 31: CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAME OF MECS OF SWEDISH LAND ‘GÖTALAND’
‘Svealand’ The three most dominant MECs in ‘Svealand’ are as described below. First, ‘higher construction costs’ are connected to ‘financial disadvantages’ (49 %), which is further perceived to lead to the undesired consequence ‘insecure housing’ (38 %). Yet, ‘secure housing’ as the desired consequence is seen to contribute to ‘need of security’ (73 %). Secondly, ‘healthy interior’ is regarded to add to ‘healthy living’ (57 %), which in turn leads to ‘good health’ (69 %). Thirdly, 50 % of the respondents think that a ‘warm interior atmosphere’ causes ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’, whereby this consequence is further connected to ‘feeling comfortable’ (51 %). Between these most dominant MECs, several inter-chain connections can be observed. ‘Secure housing’ is perceived to contribute to ‘feeling comfortable’ (38 %), and 34 % see a connection between ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ and ‘need of security’.
89
ATTRIBUTES
CONSEQUENCES
VALUES
Moreover, ‘insecure housing’ and ‘financial disadvantages’ are regarded as being reciprocally connected. ‘Healthy interior’ is connected to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (25 %), which is perceived to lead to ‘need of security’ (34 %) and has a reciprocal connection with ‘healthy living’ (33 % and 38 %). The latter is also regarded as contributing to ‘feeling comfortable’, as 27 % of the respondents indicate. Good health
69 %
Feeling comfortable 27 %
51 %
38 %
Healthy living
Pleasant & comfortable housing
33 %
57 % 25 % Healthy interior
30 %
Need of security
34 %
32 %
73 % Secure housing
Insecure housing
30 % 38 %
50 % Warm interior atmosphere
Financial disadvantages
49 % Higher construction costs
FIGURE 32: CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAME OF MECS OF SWEDISH LAND ‘SVEALAND’
‘Norrland’ In ’Norrland’, 59 % of the respondents think that ‘higher construction costs’ lead to ‘financial disadvantages’. This negative consequence is further linked to another undesired consequence, i.e. ‘insecure housing’ (39 %), and replaced by the desired consequence ‘secure housing’, which 71 % regard as being connected to ‘need of security’. In the second most dominant MEC, ‘healthy interior’ leads to ‘healthy living’, according to 60 %, which in turn is seen to contribute to ‘good health’ (65 %). Finally, 51 % of the respondents connect a ‘warm interior atmosphere’ to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’, and 61 % associate this consequence with the personal value ‘feeling comfortable’.
90
Among the elements of the three most dominant MECs, inter-chain relationships are perceived by the respondents to exist. ‘Healthy living’ is perceived to contribute to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (50 %). This consequence has a mutual connection with ‘healthy living’ (47 % and 50 %) and is also regarded as leading to ‘good health’ (35 %).
VALUES
Further, ‘secure housing’ is seen as leading to ‘feeling comfortable’ by 36 %, and a reciprocal relationship is perceived to exist between ‘insecure housing’ and ‘financial disadvantages’. Finally, ‘warm interior atmosphere’ is perceived as adding to ‘healthy living’ (29 %), which in turn leads to ‘feeling comfortable’, according to 44 % of the respondents in this land. Good health
Feeling comfortable
ATTRIBUTES
CONSEQUENCES
35 % 65 %
61 %
44 % 50 %
Healthy living
36 %
Pleasant & comfortable housing
47 %
60 %
71 % Secure housing
Insecure housing
44 % 39 %
51 % 29 %
Healthy interior
Need of security
29 % Warm interior atmosphere
Financial disadvantages
59 % Higher construction costs
FIGURE 33: CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAME OF MECS OF SWEDISH LAND ‘NORRLAND’
5.3.6.4 Accumulated results Sweden Investigating all the Swedish respondents without differentiating by age, income and lands, the following three most dominant MECs can be found, compare figure 34.29
As done with the German data, no adjustment of the third cut-off criterion was carried out for the accumulated Swedish data. Thus, 10 respondents were sufficient to pass the cut-off level. 29
91
First, ‘higher construction costs’ are seen as causing ‘financial disadvantages’ (51 %). This again leads to ‘insecure housing’, as an undesired consequence, whereby ‘secure housing’ instead is associated with ‘need of security’ by 74 % of the Swedish respondents.
CONSEQUENCES
VALUES
Secondly, ‘healthy interior’ is by 57 % linked to ‘healthy living’, which 65 % in turn regard as contributing to ‘good health’. Thirdly, ‘warm interior atmosphere’ is seen as adding to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’, which is further linked to ‘feeling comfortable’ (54 %). Good health
Feeling comfortable
39 %
65 %
42 %
Healthy living
37 %
54 %
ATTRIBUTES
74 %
35 % Pleasant & comfortable housing
57 %
47 % Secure housing
53 % 32 %
Healthy interior
Need of security
29 % Warm interior atmosphere
36 %
Insecure housing
38 %
12 %
Financial disadvantages
51 %
Higher construction costs
FIGURE 34: CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAME OF MECS OF SWEDEN
Here, several inter-chain relationships can be observed as follows. ‘Higher construction costs’ are perceived to lead to ‘insecure housing’ (12 %), which in turn is connected to ‘financial disadvantages’ (36 %). Moreover, ‘warm interior atmosphere’ is linked to ‘healthy living’ (29 %), and ‘healthy interior’ to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (32 %). While the latter shows a reciprocal relationship with ‘healthy living’ (37 % and 42 %), the value ‘feeling comfortable’ is regarded to be achieved by means of ‘secure housing’ (47 %) and ‘healthy living’ (39 %). Finally, ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ is also associated with the ‘need of security’ by 35 % of the respondents.
92
6 Discussion of results and hypotheses testing In this chapter, the extension of the Association Pattern Technique with a CC-matrix will be evaluated by investigating whether or not the additional data gathered reveals important information to understand consumers’ perceptions of durable products. Moreover, the four stated hypotheses and the corresponding working model are tested. This will be accomplished by comparing perceptions of consumers in different countries, age-groups, income-classes and regions/lands. 6.1
Evaluating and discussing the Association Pattern Technique
extension
of
the
As described in chapter 4.4.4, Ter Hofstede et al. (1998) used attributeconsequence (AC) and consequence-value (CV) matrices in their original work introducing the Association Pattern Technique. They questioned the usefulness of additional attribute-attribute (AA), consequenceconsequence (CC) and value-value (VV) matrices due to the increased burden for the respondents, which might result in lower response rates (TER HOFSTEDE ET AL., 1998). In 2006, Schauerte showed the usefulness of an additional CC matrix, as it revealed linkages included in the most dominant perceptual orientations. A negative impact on the response rate in that study could not be traced back to the additional CC-matrix (SCHAUERTE, 2006). However, data analysis in the present study had to be adjusted compared to Schauerte (2006), which might affect the findings as well. This means that the usefulness of the additional CC-matrices has to be evaluated again. Looking at the empirical results, one can see that there are several cases where CC-linkages appear in the three most dominant MECs of the subgroups in the German and Swedish data-sets. The second most dominant MEC of German respondents of ‘younger than 35 years’ contain a linkage between the consequences ‘healthy living’ and ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’. This linkage also appears in the second most dominant MEC of the German income-class ‘less than 10.000 € per year’.
93
Furthermore, all 13 presented central perceptual frames of MECs of German respondents show CC-linkages as inter-chain connections, being connectors of the most important cornerstones of these MECs. Here, ‘positive for the environment’ and ‘healthy living’ are perceived to be connected for respondents belonging to the groups ‘35 – 49 years’, ‘50 – 64 years’, all income-classes and the regions ‘North/West’ and ‘South/West’. A mutual relationship between the two named consequences is shown in figure 22, which depicts the central perceptual frame of MECs of Germany on the accumulated level. Another mutual connection revealed is the one between ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ and ‘healthy living’, which appears in all German age-groups, income-classes and the regions ‘North/West’ and ‘East’. Studying the Swedish data, dominant CC-linkages can be found as well. The connection between the consequences ‘financial disadvantages’ and ‘insecure housing’ is part of the most dominant MEC of the respondents in all age-groups except for ‘65 years and older’, all three lands in Sweden, and on accumulated level for all Swedish respondents. A mutual relationship between these two consequences above cut-off level could be found for the age-group ‘50 – 64 years’, in all lands, and on the accumulated level. In addition to that, several inter-chain linkages in central perceptual frames of MECs of Swedish respondents are constituted by CCrelationships. ‘Healthy living’ and ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ have a mutual connection, according to all age-groups, and a one-way linkage between these elements can be observed for the lands ‘Svealand’ and ‘Norrland’ and in all income-classes except for ‘30.000 € and more per year’. Finally, a mutual CC-linkage between ‘financial disadvantages’ and ‘insecure housing’ is perceived by age-group ‘50 – 64 years’. All in all, 419 CC-linkages passed the cut-off criteria, 225 in the Swedish and 194 in the German data-set. Among these, 68 linkages are included in the central perceptual frame of MECs, 36 in the German and 32 in the Swedish data-set. These linkages would not have been revealed without the additional CC-matrix as an extension of the Association Pattern Technique. Since every single MEC is to be regarded as one possible perceptual orientation of the respective respondents, the additional data can be regarded as rather valuable.
94
Nevertheless, Ter Hofstede et al. (1998) called attention to a higher burden for the respondents with an extra matrix to be filled in. The response rate for the German inquiry is 7.9 % and 13.2 % for the Swedish. The CCmatrix could possibly have had a negative effect on the number of answers received. Yet, as described in chapter 5.3.1, there was no possibility to send out reminders and follow-up surveys, which potentially would have raised the response rate. Further, no information exists about those who did not answer the matrix-survey, nor why. In addition to that, no comparable data is at hand which could explain systematic differences between studies applying the Association Pattern Technique and using two respectively three matrices. Therefore it is hard to evaluate whether or not the additional CC-matrix had an effect on the response rate in the present study. However, no evidence for a negative impact exists and thus it cannot be concluded that the application of an additional CC-matrix had a determining role. In several previous studies, which were not based on matrix-surveys but laddering interviews, CC-linkages were found when investigating other product categories other than durables (a.o. GENGLER ET AL., 1995; DIBLEY AND BAKER, 2001; LEPPARD ET AL., 2004; SKYTTE AND BOVE, 2004; WOODSIDE, 2004; VAN REKOM ET AL., 2006; HENNEBERG ET AL., 2009). This might be less surprising, since consequences are usually distinguished into functional and psychological consequences, according to Phillips and Reynolds (2009). Often, functional consequences are perceived to lead to other functional consequences as well as to psychological consequences, as many of the above named studies indicate. In addition to that, it is even stated that the overriding principle of MEC theory is its focus on consequences, since these are the link between the product and the consumer (OLSON & REYNOLDS, 2001). However, the Association Pattern Technique as presented by Ter Hofstede et al. (1998) cannot detect such perceived linkages. Even the present study does not consider a separation of different kinds of consequences. Nevertheless, the Extended Association Pattern Technique allows for these linkages to be revealed, since the list of all available consequences in the CC-matrix is constituted by functional and psychological consequences, although these are not labelled as such.
95
Thus, the Extended Association Pattern Technique allows for the same kind of data to be gathered as laddering interviews, when considering the structural content of Means-End Chains. To sum up, extending the Association Pattern Technique with a CC-matrix beyond the proposed AC- and CV-matrices allowed for additional data to be gathered. This data can be regarded as important, since it appeared in the most dominant perceptual orientations of respondents and their central perceptual frames of chains in both Germany and Sweden. In addition to that, a negative effect on the response rate could not be assessed. Thus, the use of a CC-matrix for extending the Asoociation Pattern Technique can be seen as validated for the case of durable products. Therefore, and to further validate its usefullness, it is suggested that CCmatrices should be applied to any kind of product category when it is planned to collect data by means of the Association Pattern Technique. 6.2
Comparing perceptions with regard to hypotheses and the theoretical model
In chapter 3, a theoretical model suggests that age, income, within-country and national habitation might affect the perception of durable products. Therefore, the empirical results of different groups of age, income, withincountry and national habitation presented in chapters 5.3.5 and 5.3.6 are discussed to evaluate that model. Figures 35 to 40 compare the central perceptual frames of MECs for the different age-groups, income-classes and regions (for Germany) or lands (for Sweden). Here, solid marked arrows are used to depict linkages being part of most dominant MECs, regardless of whether or not the respective linkage is among the most important ones in all groups. This means that even though a linkage is included in the most dominant MEC in only one group of respondents, e.g. those ‘younger than 35 years’, and not in the other age-groups, it is drawn solid. The same is true for dotted marked arrows that represent inter-chain linkages. The numbers along the lines represent the number of respondents in %, perceiving that very linkage. In case a connection did not pass the cut-off level in a group, the percentage figure is shown in brackets.
96
6.2.1 Comparison of age-groups in Germany Contrasting the four different age-groups, table 9 shows the linkages that passed the cut-off level. It can be observed that the number decreases with rising age. As an extreme, linkages mentioned by the age-group ‘65 years and older’ amount to just half of the linkages given by respondents of ‘50 – 64 years’. Age-group
Younger than 34 years
35–49 years
50-64 years
65 years and older
Linkages above the cut-off level
64
56
52
26
TABLE 8: COMPARISON OF LINKAGES ABOVE THE CUT-OFF LEVEL AMONG GERMAN AGE-GROUPS
Younger consumers thus regard wooden multistory buildings as more complex and perceive more linkages to be important. They are concerned about certain linkages, and emphasize the significance of several relationships that were diminished and not mentioned by the oldest agegroup. Looking at the MECs and specific linkages in figure 35, similarities and differences appear. The MEC ‘energy saving’, leading to ‘positive for the environment’ and further to ‘concern about the environment’, is one of the three most dominant MECs in all age-groups. ‘Positive for the environment’, as one element within this MEC, is furthermore connected to the consequence ‘healthy living’ by all age-groups except the ‘65 years and older’ group. In that group, only 14 % of the respondents established a connection, which was not enough to pass the cut-off level. Another linkage that did not pass the cut-off level of the age-group ‘65 years and older’ is ‘natural material’ to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’. Here, only 17 % of the respondents perceive this inter-chain connection. Moreover, ‘warm interior atmosphere’ is perceived by all age-groups except ’65 years and older’ to be the attribute contributing most to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’. The latter age-group instead thinks that ‘healthy interior’ adds most to that consequence, while all other agegroups regard ‘healthy interior’ as contributing more to ‘healthy living’ than to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’.
97
The importance of the following linkages is declining with rising age. -
‘warm interior atmosphere’ to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’,
-
‘healthy interior’ to ‘healthy living’
-
‘energy saving’ to ‘positive for the environment’,
-
‘healthy living’ to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’,
-
‘healthy living’ to ‘feeling comfortable’ and
-
‘healthy living’ to ‘good health’
ATTRIBUTES
CONSEQUENCES
VALUES
These are 6 out of 13 linkages and show e.g. that for the age-group ‘65 years and older’, ‘healthy living’ does not possess an equally important role when it comes to wooden multistory houses, compared to other elements and other age-groups. For all age-groups, a reciprocal relation can be seen between the consequences ‘healthy living’ and ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’. Concern about the environment
Good health
90
85
77
81
76
81
80
67
Positive for the 39 49 36 (14) environment
Feeling comfortable 67 43
Healthy living
79
66
73
70
66
69
57
60
71
68
58
83 81 60
80
66
57
40
51
36
36
47
66
37
(17)
Natural material
74
46
53 Energy saving
82
60
Healthy interior
Pleasant & comfortable housing 46 80 81
54
49
57
73 37
Warm interior atmosphere
Comment: numbers are presented in ascending order, with the youngest age-group at the top of each vertical arrow, or from left to right along the horizontal arrows. FIGURE 35: COMPARISON OF CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAMES OF MECS AMONG GERMAN AGE-GROUPS
98
Moreover, it can be discovered that except for the linkage ‘energy saving’ leading to ‘positive for the environment’, all linkages in the central perceptual frame of MECs, including inter-chain connections, are relatively more important to respondents of ‘younger than 35 years’ than to those of ‘65 years and older’. Even age-group ‘50 – 64 years’ perceives all linkages as more important than the age-group ‘65 years and older’ does, except for the connections ‘positive for the environment’ to ‘concern about the environment’ and ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ to ‘healthy living’. In addition to the similarities and differences exposed above, a statistical test of significance was applied as suggested by Aczel (1992) to find out whether or not significant perceptual differences occur between different age-groups, see formula 2.
z=
Formula 2:
p1 − p2
p1 (1 − p1 ) p2 (1 − p2 ) + n1 n2
with
p1 =
x1 n1
and
p2 =
x2 , n2
n1= total number of respondents in the 1st group to be investigated, n2= total number of respondents in the 2nd group to be investigated, x1= observed number of responses from the 1st group in the specific matrix-cell. x2= observed number of responses from the 2nd group in the specific matrix-cell n ⋅ p > 5 and
n ⋅ (1 − p ) > 5
Linkages belonging to the most dominant MECs were tested, since these are the ones of primary interest. Here, significant differences on level
99
α=0.05 (critical value: z=1.96) and α=0.01 (critical value: z=2.576) were found as shown in table 10.
Number of significant linkages
α=0.05
α=0.01
13/54
7/54
Comment: The numbers are to be read as follows: 13 out of 54 possible linkages are significant at α=0.05 level (critical value: z=1.96), 7 out of 54 possible linkages are significant at α=0.01 level (critical value: z= 2.576). All significant linkages at α=0.01 level also included in the number of significant linkages at α=0.05 level. TABLE 10: NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT LINKAGES BELONGING TO GERMAN AGE-GROUPS’ MOST DOMINANT MECS.
The 7 significant linkages at α=0.01 level are the following: -
‘Healthy interior’ to ‘healthy living’: between age-groups ‘younger than 35 years’ (z=2.87) and ’35 – 49 years’ (z=2.752), compared to age-group ’65 years and older’.
-
‘Warm interior atmosphere’ to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’: between ‘younger than 35 years’ (z=4.335), ’35 – 49 years’ (z=4.312) and ’50 – 64 years’ (z=3.529), compared to ’65 years and older’.
-
‘Healthy living’ to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’: between ’65 years and older’ (z=3.961) and ’49 – 64 years’ (z=3.043), compared to ‘younger than 35 years’.
In chapter 2.4, a dinstinction was made between the content and the structure of consumer knowledge. Whilst content is related to the elements ‘attributes’, ‘consequences’ and ‘values’ in MECs, structure refers to the importance of the linkages between these elements (TER HOFSTEDE ET AL., 1998). It was also argued that the linkages are of primary concern, since an element is not important by itself but gains importance when connected to another element (WALKER & OLSSON, 1991). Therefore, the structure of consumer knowledge is regarded as more crucial, relative to the content of consumer knowledge. Considering the data comparison above, one can say that only marginal differences exist between German age-groups concerning what elements that are included in the respective central perceptual frame of MECs, i.e.
100
the structure of consumer knowledge. However, significant differences occur in how important the linkages between these elements are perceived, i.e. the structure of consumer knowledge. Thus, it can be argued that the factor ‘age’ has an impact on how consumers in Germany perceive wooden multistory houses. 6.2.2 Comparison of income-classes in Germany
Comparing linkages that passed the cut-off level, the class with the lowest income has most, while those consumers earning most have the fewest number of linkages above the cut-off level. This connotes that the issue of living in a multistory house is perceived less complex by those earning most, whereas consumers earning ‘less than 10.000 € per year’ see more cause and effect relationships being involved in reaching their personal values. However, it cannot be said that the perceived complexity of this issue decreases with rising income, as table 11 illustrates. Income-classes
Less than 10.000 €
Linkages above the cut-off level
60
10.000-19.999 € 20.000-29.999 € 30.000-49.999 € 58
55
57
50.000 € and more 52
TABLE 9: COMPARISON OF LINKAGES ABOVE THE CUT-OFF LEVEL AMONG GERMAN INCOME-CLASSES
In figure 36, central perceptual frames of MECs of all income-classes are compared graphically. It can be seen that the three most dominant MECs are relatively similar among all income-classes, with some exceptions concerning two of the attributes. However, the MEC ‘energy saving’ leading to ‘positive for the environment’ leading to ‘concern about the environment’ contains the same elements on all levels of abstraction for all income-classes. So too does the MEC ‘warm interior atmosphere’ leading to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ further leading to ‘feeling comfortable’, except for the income-class ‘less than 10.000 € per year’. For that income-class, ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ is mainly seen as caused by ‘healthy living’, which in turn is a consequence of the attribute ‘healthy interior’. Respondents in the income-class ‘20.000 – 29.999 € per year’ moreover perceive the attribute ‘natural material’ as being equally as important as ‘warm interior atmosphere’ in contributing to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’.
101
VALUES
The personal value ‘good health’ is perceived by all income-classes as mainly being caused by ‘healthy living’. However, perceptions diverge regarding the attribute contributing most to this consequence. Incomeclasses ‘less than 10.000 € per year’, ‘10.000 – 19.999 € per year’ and ‘more than 50.000 € per year’ think that ‘healthy interior’ is most important for ‘healthy living’, while respondents earning ‘30.000 – 49.999 € per year’ consider ‘natural material’ as being equally as important as ‘healthy living’. ‘Natural material’ finally is considered as being most important for ‘healthy living’, according to income-class ‘20.000 – 29.999 € per year’. This linkage was also established by all other income-classes, yet not as the most dominant one except for income-class ‘10.000 -19.999 € per year’. These respondents could not establish this connection above the cut-off level, and it must therefore be regarded as being of minor importance for them. Concern about the environment
Good health
84 80
CONSEQUENCES
85 83
34
(22)
(17)
(28) (26)
59
78 91
63
72
Positive for the 44 39 40 37 38 environment 41
76 74 ATTRIBUTES
81 76
75
56
61 81 Energy saving
37
(26) 68 44
54
Healthy living 53
56 49
Feeling comfortable
63 65 59 63
63 66 Natural material
78
65
60
85 68 89 72
69 59 64 65 69
Pleasant & comfortable housing
53 39 45 37 34
75
38
44
66
48
41
57 56 41 Healthy interior
59 38 65
74 66 76 88
Warm interior atmosphere
Comment: numbers are presented in ascending order, beginning with the lowest incomeclass at the top of each vertical arrow, or from left to right along the horizontal arrows. FIGURE 36: COMPARISON CLASSES
102
OF CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAMES OF
MECS
AMONG
GERMAN
INCOME-
Moreover, several inter-chain relations are considered as relevant by all income-classes. First, ‘positive for the environment’ contributes to ‘healthy living’, which in turn has a reciprocal connection with ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’. Further, ‘healthy living’ is considered by all income-classes as leading to ‘feeling comfortable’. Even though the linkage between the attribute ‘healthy interior’ and the consequence ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ is not present in the central perceptual frames of MECs of all income-classes, it passed the cut-off level for all classes. The same is true for the linkage ‘natural material’ leading to ‘positive for the environment’. The only connection that is just apparent above cut-off level to one income-class is ‘positive for the environment’ leading to ‘good health’. However, only 34 % of respondents earning ’50.000 € and more’ perceive this linkage, which connotes that is not of major importance. The most dominant MECs were tested on statistically significant perceptual differences by means of the test as described by formula 2 above. Results show significant differences at level α=0.05 (critical value: 1.96) and α=0.01 (critical value: z=2.576), see table 12.
Number of significant linkages
α=0.05
α=0.01
15/90
6/90
TABLE 12: NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT LINKAGES BELONGING TO DOMINANT MECS.
GERMAN
INCOME-CLASSES’ MOST
In the following, the 6 linkages being significant at α=0.01 level are presented. -
‘Natural material’ to ‘healthy living’: between income-classes ‘20.000 – 29.999 € per year’ (z=4.796), ‘30.000 – 49.999 € per year’ (z=4.173) and ‘50.000 € and more per year’ (z=3.84), all compared to ‘10.000 – 19.999 € per year’.
-
‘Natural material’ to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’: between income-classes ’20.000 – 29.999 € per year’ and ‘50.000 € and more per year’ (z=2.655).
103
-
‘Warm interior atmosphere’ to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’: between ‘20.000 – 29.999 € per year’ and ‘50.000 € and more per year’ (z=2.687).
-
‘Pleasant & comfortable housing’ to ‘feeling comfortable’: between ’20.000 – 29.999 € per year’ and ’30.000 – 49.999 € per year’ (z=2.725).
Thus, it can be argued that the present study indicates that the factor ‘income’ has an effect on how consumers in Germany perceive wooden multistory houses. This applies especially for the structure of consumer knowledge, i.e. the linkages between the elements in MECs. 6.2.3 Comparison of regions in Germany
Concerning linkages that passed the cut-off level for the three German regions, table 13 shows that while respondents in regions ‘North/West’ and ‘East’ have about the same number of linkages above the cut-off level, respondents in the region ’South/West’ established remarkably fewer linkages of importance. These respondents do not perceive the issue of living in a multistory house as complex as the other respondents do, since they do not regard several cause and effect relationships as being important, or do not consider them at all. Regions
North-west
South-west
East
Linkages above the cut-off level
63
37
64
TABLE 13: COMPARISON OF LINKAGES ABOVE THE CUT-OFF LEVEL AMONG GERMAN REGIONS
Investigating the central perceptual frames of MECs among regions, it becomes obvious that all most dominant MECs are identical, except in one case. Whilst regions ‘South/West’ and ‘East’ perceive the attribute ‘natural material’ as being most crucial for ‘healthy living’, the respondents in region ‘North/West’ regard ‘healthy interior’ as most important for ‘healthy living’. Nevertheless, respondents in all three regions perceive a connection above cut-off level for both linkages. When observing inter-chain relationships between the most dominant MECs, one can see that respondents in all regions established a causal relationship between the attribute ‘natural material’ and the two
104
CONSEQUENCES
VALUES
consequences ‘positive for the environment’ and ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’. The latter one is also seen by all regions as a consequence of ‘healthy interior’ and ‘healthy living’, which furthermore is regarded as contributing to the personal value ‘feeling comfortable’. Concern about the environment 88
84
74
78
88
81
Positive for the environment
78 60 77 ATTRIBUTES
Good health
Energy saving
39 49 (25)
Feeling comfortable
67
42
85 71 85 Pleasant & comfortable housing
36 (29) 40
73 44
63
71 59 69
Healthy living 80
51
54
60
53 56
54
37
71
Natural material
57
51 54
Healthy interior
87 54
65 71
Warm interior atmosphere
Comment: numbers are presented in the following order, beginning on top at vertically, respectively on the left side at horizontally placed arrows: ‘North/West’, ‘South/West’, ‘East’ FIGURE 37: COMPARISON OF CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAMES OF MECS AMONG GERMAN REGIONS
A reciprocal relationship between ‘healthy living’ and ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ could be established by regions ‘North/West’ and ‘East’, but not by region ‘South/West’. On the other hand, the connection between ‘positive for the environment’ and ‘healthy living’ is perceived above cut-off level by the respondents in regions ‘North/West’ and ‘South/West’, whilst only 25% of the respondents in ‘East’ Germany associate these elements as being linked. Furthermore, all linkages but one in the central perceptual frame of MECs, including inter-chain relations, are perceived as more important for respondents in the regions ‘North/West’ and ‘East’ compared with region 105
‘South/West’. Only the connection between ‘natural material’ to ‘positive for the environment’ is perceived as least important by region ‘East’. To find statistical significant differences between the perceptions in different regions, formula 2 was applied on most dominant MECs, as suggested in chapter 6.2.1. The number of linkages with significant perceptual differences at α=0.05 (critical value: 1.96) and α=0.01 level (critical value: z=2.576) are presented in table 14.
Number of significant linkages
TABLE 14: NUMBER MECS.
α=0.05
α=0.01
9/27
4/27
OF SIGNIFICANT LINKAGES BELONGING TO
GERMAN
REGIONS’ MOST DOMINANT
The three following linkages are significant at α=0.01 level: -
‘Energy saving’ to ‘positive for the environment’: between regions ‘North/West’ and ‘South/West’ (z=2.582).
-
‘Healthy interior’ to ‘healthy living’: between regions ‘South/West’ (z=3.947) and ‘East’ (z=2.878), compared to region ‘North/West’.
-
‘Warm interior atmosphere’ to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’: between regions ‘North/West’ and ‘South/West’ (z=3.575).
Thus, comparing the perception of consumers with different withincountry habitation indicates that there exist significant differences in terms of the structure of consumer knowledge. Therefore the factor ‘withincountry habitation’ is shown to have an effect on how consumers in Germany perceive wooden multistory houses. 6.2.4 Comparison of age-groups in Sweden
Table 15 shows all linkages that passed the cut-off level for each Swedish age-group. It can be observed that the youngest respondents established most connections, while the oldest respondents established the fewest. The two age-groups in between perceived an equivalent number of relationships above cut-off level.
106
Remarkably, the oldest respondents perceived about one-third fewer linkages above cut-off level compared with the youngest respondents. It can be observed that the number of linkages above cut-off level diminishes with the increasing age of the respondents. This means that younger people regard the product wooden multistory house as being more complex, compared with older people. Age-group
Younger than 34 years
35–49 years
50-64 years
65 years and older
Linkages above the cut-off level
73
67
65
50
TABLE 15: COMPARISON OF LINKAGES ABOVE THE CUT-OFF LEVEL AMONG SWEDISH AGE-GROUPS
Comparing the central perceptual frames of MECs of all age-groups, one can see that the three most dominant MECs among the two youngest agegroups are structurally almost identical. Even their order of importance is the same. The only difference can be found on the attribute level, where respondents being ‘younger than 35 years’ perceive a wooden multistory house as being ‘more expensive to run’, which leads to ‘financial disadvantages’. Instead, ‘higher construction costs’ are the main reason for ‘financial disadvantages’ according to the age-group’35 – 49 years’. Further, the most dominant MEC of all age-groups include negative, i.e. undesired consequences. Here, the respondents in the three first agegroups are concerned about either ‘higher construction costs’ or ‘more expensive to run’ causing ‘financial disadvantages’, which in turn cause ‘insecure housing’. The oldest respondents instead regard ‘high construction & material risk’ as directly causing ‘insecure housing’. All age-groups have in common that they associate ‘healthy interior’ with wooden multistory houses, which causes ‘healthy living’, contributing to ‘good health’. This MEC is among the most three dominant MECs of all groups. Additionally, all age-groups perceive ‘warm interior atmosphere’ as leading to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’, except the group ’50 - 64 years’. Respondents in this group could not establish linkages including ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ in their central perceptual frame of MECs.
107
VALUES
Good health
70 69 68 55
High quality of life
54 58 55 38
47
Feeling comfortable
CONSEQUENCES ATTRIBUTES
Healthy interior
40
50 47 55 43
51
62 53 59 62 49 45 53 45 45 29 32 25 42 45 52 30 Pleasant & Healthy comfortable living housing 46 40 42 24 39 29 29 34 63 63 28 25 65 62 32 61 48 24 43 45 24
Need of security
Warm interior atmosphere
61 50 49 55 43 48 38 38
79 77 76 65
25
25
25
19
30
(10) 21
(8)
49 51 36 22 Financial Financial Secure Insecure disadvan- advantahousing housing tages ges 44 46 41 27
43 37 29 28
20 (18) (18) (10)
High construction & material risk
56 66 44 43
59 63 46 39
More expensive to run
Higher construction costs
Comment: numbers are presented in ascending order, beginning with the youngest agegroup on top of each vertically arrow, or from left to right along the horizontal arrows. FIGURE 38: COMPARISON OF CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAMES OF MECS AMONG SWEDISH AGE-GROUPS
Comparing age-groups in figure 38, more aspects can be observed. The linkage from the consequence ‘healthy living’ to the value ‘good health’ is perceived to be more important than to the value ‘high quality of life’. This is true for all age-groups. Further, the importance of several linkages is declining with increasing age of the respondents. These linkages are: -
‘healthy living’ to ‘good health’,
-
‘healthy living’ to ‘feeling comfortable’,
-
‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ to ‘feeling comfortable’,
108
-
‘pleasant & comfortable housing to ‘need of security’,
-
‘secure housing’ to feeling comfortable’,
-
‘secure housing’ to ‘need of security’,
-
‘warm interior atmosphere’ to ‘healthy living’,
-
‘warm interior atmosphere’ to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’,
-
‘healthy interior’ to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’,
-
‘high construction & material risk’ to ‘insecure housing’,
-
‘financial advantages’ to feeling comfortable’ and
-
‘more expensive to run’ to ‘insecure housing’.
This means that regarding the central perceptual frames of MECs of all age-groups, the importance of 12 out of 24 linkages is dimininshing with rising age. Moreover, regarding linkages belonging to the three most dominant MECs, all linkages are least important to respondents being ’65 years and older’. Investigating in significant distinctions as suggested in chapter 6.2.1, differences can be found with all age-groups involved. Table 16 shows the number of significant linkages included in the most dominant MECs at α=0.05 (critical value: 1.96) and α=0.01 level (critical value: 2.576)30.
Number of significant linkages
α=0.05
α=0.01
31/66
17/66
TABLE 16: NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT LINKAGES BELONGING TO SWEDISH AGE-GROUPS’ MOST DOMINANT MECS.
The following 17 linkages are significant at α=0.01 level: -
‘Healthy interior’ to ‘healthy living’: between age-groups ‘younger than 35 years’ (z=3.294), ’35 – 49 years’ (z=3.495) and ’50 – 64 years’ (3.122), all in comparison to age-group ’65 years and older’.
As in the German study, intra-chain linkages and other linkages that do not directly belong to the most dominant MECs are not considered, since the most dominant MECs are of primary interest. 30
109
-
‘Warm interior atmosphere’ to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’: between age-groups ‘younger than 35 years’ (z=2.995) and ’35 – 49 years’ (z=2.647), compared to ’65 years and older’.
-
‘High construction & material risk’ to ‘insecure housing’: between age-groups ‘younger than 35 years’ and ’65 years and older’ (z=2.659).
-
‘More expensive to run’ to ‘financial disadvantages’: between agegroups ‘younger than 35 years’ (z=3.267) and ’35 – 49 years’ (z=3.84), compared to ’65 years and older’. Further between ’35 – 49 years’ and ’50 – 64 years’ (z=2.71).
-
‘Higher construction costs’ to ‘financial disadvantages’: between ’65 years and older’ (z=3.674) and ’50 – 64 years’ (z=3.45), compared to ’35 – 49 years’.
-
‘Financial disadvantages’ to ‘insecure housing’: between ‘younger than 35 years’ (z=2.921) and ’35 – 49 years’ (z=3.114) compared to ’65 years and older’.
-
‘Healthy living’ to ‘high quality of life’: between ‘younger than 35 years’ (z=2.671), ’35 – 49 years’ (z=3.078) and ’50 – 64 years’ (z=2.867), compared to ’65 years and older’.
-
‘Pleasant & comfortable housing’ to ‘feeling comfortable’: between ’younger than 35 years’ and ’65 years and older’ (z=2.799).
These findings indicate that the factor ‘age’ has an effect on the structure of consumer knowledge and thus on consumers’ perceptions of wooden multistory houses. 6.2.5 Comparison of income-classes in Sweden
In table 17, the numbers of linkages that passed the cut-off level is presented for all income-classes. It can be observed that the class with the highest income has most linkages, around 20 % more compared to consumers earning ’10.000 – 19.999 € per year’ who have least linkages above cut-off level. However, the numbers of linkages of the other income-classes are relatively close to each other and it can not be resumed that they increase with rising income.
110
This connotes that the issue of living in a multistory house is perceived to be similarly complex by all income-classes, with income-class ’10.000 – 19.999 € per year’ perceiving it as a little less complex. Income-classes
Less than 10.000 €
Linkages above the cut-off level
63
10.000-19.999 € 20.000-29.999 € 55
65
30.000 € and more 68
TABLE 17: COMPARISON OF LINKAGES ABOVE THE CUT-OFF LEVEL AMONG SWEDISH INCOME-CLASSES
In figure 39, the central perceptual frames of MECs among income-classes are graphically compared. All income-classes perceive the MEC ‘warm interior atmosphere’ leading to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ resulting in ‘feeling comfortable’ as one of the three most dominant ones, except income-class ‘more than 30.000 € per year’. Respondents in this class perceive these linkages as well; however, they regard others as more important. The connections from attribute ‘healthy interior’ to the consequence ‘healthy living’ and further to the value ‘good health’ is the second most dominant MEC of all income-classes. Yet, respondents in income-class ’30.000 € and more per year’ establish as well a linkage from the mentioned consequence to the value ‘high quality of life’, belonging to one of their most dominant MECs. The importance of the following linkages increases with rising income: -
‘healthy living’ to ‘good health’,
-
‘healthy living’ to ‘high quality of life’,
-
‘healthy living’ to ‘feeling comfortable’,
-
‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ to ‘feeling comfortable’,
-
‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ to ‘healthy living’,
-
‘secure housing’ to ‘feeling comfortable’ and
-
‘warm interior atmosphere’ to ‘healthy living’.
Here, 7 out of 16 linkages are affected. Income seems to have an impact especially on the consequence ‘healthy living’, since it is involved in 5 out of these 7 linkages.
111
VALUES
Good health
CONSEQUENCES
60 63 66 66
High quality of life
29 45 52 62
Healthy living
56 51 60 58 ATTRIBUTES
42
47
32
32
29
Feeling comfortable
40 35 53 57
42 29 51 40 26 56 45 42 61 49 38 49
35
33
31
43
53
29
29
38
47
35 31
Need of security
20
22
Healthy interior
40
Pleasant & comfortable housing
25
30 32
52
78 67 73 79
51 Secure housing
47 40 60 59
Insecure housing
36 37 34 36 High construction & material risk
Warm interior atmosphere
Comment: numbers are presented in ascending order, beginning with the lowest incomeclass at the top of each vertical arrow, or from left to right along the horizontal arrows. FIGURE 39: COMPARISON
OF CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAMES OF
CLASSES
MECS
AMONG
SWEDISH
INCOME-
Statistically significant differences between Swedish income-classes occur at α=0.05 (critical value: z=1.96) and α=0.01 level (critical value: z=2.576). Formula 2 in chapter 6.2.1 was applied and results are summarized in table 18.
Number of significant linkages
α=0.05
α=0.01
7/42
5/42
TABLE 18: NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT LINKAGES BELONGING TO DOMINANT MECS.
SWEDISH
The affected linkages at α=0.01 level are the following:
112
INCOME-CLASSES’ MOST
-
‘Warm interior atmosphere’ to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’: between income-classes ‘20.000 – 29.999 € per year’ (z=3.513) and ‘30.000 € and more per year’ (z=3.161), compared to incomeclass ‘10.000 – 19.999 € per year’.
-
‘Healthy living’ to ‘good health’: between income-classes ‘less than 10.000 € per year’ (z=4.38) and ’10.000 – 19.999 € per year’ (z=2.748), compared to income-class ’30.000 € and more per year’. Further, between income-classes ‘less than 10.000 € per year’ and ’20.000 – 29.999 € per year’ (z=2.783).
Hence, the data in the present study shows that consumers in Sweden have a different structure of consumer knowledge, depending on their income. Therefore it can be stated that income has an effect on how they perceive wooden multistory houses. 6.2.6 Comparison of lands in Sweden
Looking at the linkages that respondents from the three different lands of Sweden established above cut-off level, it can be noticed that ‘Svealand’ has least linkages. However, compared to ‘Götaland’ and ‘Norrland’, no big differences exist. This indicates that respondents in all three lands perceive wooden multistory houses as relatively alike complex. Lands
Götaland
Svealand
Norrland
Linkages above the cut-off level
68
59
65
TABLE 19: COMPARISON OF LINKAGES ABOVE THE CUT-OFF LEVEL AMONG THE LANDS OF SWEDEN
Figure 40 displays the cental perceptual frames of MECs for the three lands of Sweden. While respondents from ‘Götaland’ perceive the attribute ‘more expensive to run’ as the main factor causing ‘financial disadvantages’, respondents in ‘Svealand’ and ‘Norrland’ think of ‘higher construction costs’ as the most dominating factor. These constellations are the starting point for all lands’ most dominant MECs, which then continue with the same structure. Here, ‘financial disadvantages’ cause ‘insecure housing’, which is regarded as undesired, since ‘secure housing’ is perceived as contributing to achieving the personal value ‘need of security’.
113
For respondents in ‘Götaland’, even the values ‘feeling comfortable’ and ‘high quality of life’ are seen as being connected to the consequence ‘secure housing’. Thus, all three most dominant MECs of ‘Götaland’ are built by negative or undesired consequences that can be retraced to the attribute ‘more expensive to run’. This indicates a rather negative attitude of respondents in ‘Götaland’ toward wooden mulitstory houses and a difference in the structure of consumer knowledge, compared to the other lands..
VALUES
Further, while being part of the most dominant MEC of ‘Götaland’, the linkages from ‘secure housing’ to ‘feeling comfortable’ and ‘high quality of life’ are regarded considerably less important by respondents in the other lands. Good health
CONSEQUENCES
62 69 65
Feeling comfortable
64 28 42 45 27 44
Healthy living 28
ATTRIBUTES
54 57 60 29 Healthy interior
High quality of life
35 24 35
51 51 61
66
32 36
39 38 50
Pleasant & comfortable housing 34 33 47
30
29
25
38
57 50 51
Warm interior atmosphere
Need of security
34 33
Secure housing
39 76 73 71
Insecure housing
40 30 44 34 38 39
59
Higher construction costs
49
Financial disadvantages
46
51 45 54
More expensive to run
Comment: numbers are presented in the following order, beginning on top of vertical arrows, respectively from left to right along horizontal arrows: ‘Götaland’, ‘Svealand’, ‘Norrland’. FIGURE 40: COMPARISON OF CENTRAL PERCEPTUAL FRAMES OF MECS AMONG SWEDISH LANDS
114
Positive or desired elements can be found in the second and third most dominant MECs of ‘Svealand’ and ‘Norrland’. These are ‘healthy interior’ leading to ‘healthy living’ leading to ‘good health’ and ‘warm interior atmosphere’ leading to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ leading to ‘feeling comfortable’. Respondents in ‘Götaland’ perceive these linkages as well, but consider others as more important, as described above. For the lands ‘Svealand’ and ‘Norrland’, the described MECs consist of the same elements and linkages, except for the one from ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ to ‘good health’, which could not be established above cut-off level by respondents from ‘Svealand’. Regarding the three lands ‘Götaland’, ‘Svealand’ and ‘Norrland’ as being geographically positioned from southern to northern Sweden, it can be concluded that the importance of the following linkage increases northwards: -
‘healthy interior’ to ‘healthy living’,
-
‘higher construction costs’ to ‘financial disadvantages’,
-
‘financial disadvantages to ‘insecure housing’,
-
‘secure housing’ to ‘need of security’,
-
‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ to ‘need of security’ and
-
‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ to ‘feeling comfortable’.
That means that 6 out of 18 linkages are affected. On the other hand, the connection between ‘secure housing’ and ‘need of security’ gets more dominant southwards. Applying formula 2 as presented in chapter 6.2.1, significant differences at α=0.05 (critical value: z=1.96) and α=0.01 level (critical value: z=2.576) can be observed as presented in table 20.
Number of significant linkages
α=0.05
α=0.01
6/30
4/30
TABLE 20: NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT LINKAGES BELONGING TO SWEDISH LANDS’ MOST DOMINANT MECS.
In the following, linkages that are perceived significantly different at α=0.01 level are described:
115
-
‘Secure housing’ to ‘feeling comfortable’: between lands ‘Svealand’ (z=6.92) and ‘Norrland’ (z=5.834), all compared to ‘Götaland’.
-
‘Secure housing’ to ‘high quality of life’: between lands ‘Svealand’ (z=7.233) and ‘Norrland’ (z=4.078), compared to ‘Götaland’.
It becomes obvious that the consequence ‘secure housing’ holds a significantly different position in the mind of respondents from different Swedish lands when it comes to contributing to achieving personal values such as ‘feeling comfortable’ and ‘high quality of life’ regarding wooden multistory houses. Therefore it can be resumed that the structure of consumer knowledge of Swedish respondents differs and that their perceptions of wooden multistory houses depend on their within-country habitation. 6.2.7 Comparison of Germany and Sweden on accumulated level
In this chapter, the accumulated results from the German and Swedish survey studies are compared. However, it has to be remembered that the content of the matrix-surveys differed for both countries, since some summary content codes for attributes, consequences and values included in the German survey were not part of the Swedish survey, and vice versa, see chapter 5.2.5. Considering each attribute-consequence, consequence-consequence and consequence-value alternative in the survey-matrices as one single question, respondents in both countries answered on different questions. In other words, the elements of the MECs, i.e. the content of consumer knowledge, differ between consumers from Germany and Sweden. Thus, it becomes obvious that this comparison cannot be performed as have the ones among the different age-groups, income-classes or regions/lands, as has been the case in the previous chapters. Nevertheless, some matters can be compared as follows. First, it can be noted that German respondents produced more linkages above the cut-off level than did the Swedish respondents, see table 21. Even though the difference is not significant, it indicates that Germans
116
perceive wooden multistory houses somewhat more complex, compared to Swedes. Lands
Germany
Sweden
Linkages above the cut-off level
90
82
TABLE 21: COMPARISON OF LINKAGES ABOVE THE CUT-OFF LEVEL IN GERMANY AND SWEDEN
Concerning the respective central perceptual frames of MECs, it can be observed that the second and third most dominant MEC among German and Swedish respondents comprises the same elements, except one attribute. Since the included attributes were part of the German and Swedish matrix-survey, it allows for a comparison as graphically presented in figure 41. Here, numbers in boxes indicate that the affected linkages are not part of the central perceptual frame of MECs for that country’s respondents. For example, ‘natural material’ leading to ‘healthy living’ is part of the central perceptual frame of MECs, and thus even of the most dominant MECs among Swedes, but not among Germans. The MEC from ‘warm interior atmosphere’ to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ and further to ‘feeling comfortable’ is the third most dominant MEC for both German and Swedish respondents. Inter-chain relationships between the second and third most dominant MEC indicate that their elements are tightly connected. In particular, the reciprocal connection between ‘healthy living’ and ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ can be detected in both the German and Swedish data-set and should therefore be regarded as rather important as well. Remarkably, German respondents perceive all the depicted linkages as more important than Swedish respondents do. This is even true for connections that are not included in the central perceptual frame of MECs of the German samples, and shows that German respondents have a more firm conviction about certain circumstances surrounding wooden multistory houses, compared to Swedish respondents.
117
VALUES
Good health
Feeling comfortable
60
80 39
65 CONSEQUENCES
79
Healthy living
54 65
42
42
40
Pleasant & comfortable housing 54
67
17
64
73
57 ATTRIBUTES
45
49
53
32 Natural material
Healthy interior
Warm interior atmosphere
Comment: numbers are presented in the following order, beginning on top of vertical arrows, respectively from left to right along horizontal arrows: ‘Germany’, ‘Sweden’. FIGURE 41: COMPARISON SWEDES
OF THE SECOND AND THIRD MOST DOMINANT
MECS
AMONG
GERMANS
AND
When applying formula 2 as suggested in chapter 6.2.1, significant perceptual differences occur at α=0.01 level31 (critical value: z=2.576) as presented in table 22. α=0,01 Number of significant linkages
4/5
TABLE 22: NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT LINKAGES BELONGING TO GERMANS’ AND SWEDISH’ SECOND AND THIRD MOST DOMINANT MECS ON ACCUMULATED LEVEL.
All found significant differences are at α=0.01 level; no additional differences exist at α=0.05 level. 31
118
The affected four linkages are: -
‘natural material’ to ‘healthy living’ (z=5.674),
-
‘warm interior atmosphere’ to ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ (z=5.2)
-
‘healthy living’ to ‘good health’ (z=4.596) and
-
‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ to ‘feeling comfortable’ (z=7.1).
Investigating in the most dominant MECs for German and Swedish respondents, it turns out that these differ completely. While German respondents perceive ‘energy saving’ as being ‘positive for the environment’, which in turn is associated with ‘concern about the environment’, Swedish respondents regard ‘higher construction costs’ as generating ‘financial disadvantages’ and further ‘insecure housing’. The latter is considered undesired, since ‘secure housing’ is perceived as being linked to the ‘need of security’. As mentioned in chapter 5.2.5, the attribute ‘higher costs’ was not further specified in the German study but was separated into, amongst others, ‘higher construction costs’ in the Swedish study. Thus, an accurate comparison of these elements cannot be performed at this stage. However, since MECs are to be developed from the value level downwards, attributes are the last elements to be ascertained. Hence, if the German respondents had perceived those connections among elements on higher levels of abstraction, as can be seen in the most dominant Swedish MEC, ‘higher costs’ would similarly have appeared on the attribute level and been included in the German MEC instead. Yet this is not the case. This signifies that, regarding most dominant MECs and central perceptual frames of MECs, no negative attributes and consequences dominate the German respondents’ perceptions of wooden multistory houses, while this does appear to be the case for the Swedish respondents. Further, Germans accentuate the importance of environmental issues related to wooden multistory houses. The attribute ‘energy saving’ is seen as being the most important one leading to ‘positive for the environment’. This attribute could not be elicited from the Swedish laddering interviews. As an alternative, ‘positive for the environment’ was content coded as an attribute, potentially causing the consequence ‘active environmentalism’ and further ‘concern about the environment’ at the value level, see chapter
119
ATTRIBUTES
CONSEQUENCES
VALUES
5.2.5. This could probably have been the comparable MEC of the Swedish respondents, in case they had considered it as important. Yet, since the Swedish data-set revealed other results, it can be concluded that environmental issues do not play such an important role in the Swedish respondents’ perceptions of wooden multistory houses, while this is most dominant for German respondents. Concern about the environment 82 Positive for the environment
70
Energy saving
Need of security
74 Secure housing
Insecure housing
36 38
12
Financial disadvantages
51 Higher construction costs
Comment: most dominant MEC of German respondents on the left side, most dominant MEC of Swedish respondents on the right side of the figure. FIGURE 41: COMPARISON OF THE MOST DOMINANT MEC OF GERMAN AND SWEDISH RESPONDENTS
Summing up, two kinds of differences can be found between Germans and Swedes in how they perceive wooden multistory houses. First, there exists a fundamental difference when it comes to the content of consumer structure. This is related to what attributes, consequences and values are associated with wooden multistory houses. While environmental aspects dominate among Germans, negative, cost related issues associated with insecure housing are considered as most important among Swedes. The second kind of difference can be observed when investigating into linkages between elements that are seen as important for both nations’ respondents, i.e. the structure of consumer knowledge. Here, significant perceptual differences of how important certain likages are occur. This demonstrates that consumers perceive wooden multistory houses differently, depending on their national habitation. 120
6.2.8 Test of hypotheses
In chapter 3, four hypotheses were suggested. In the following, these are tested against the empirical data as discussed in the previous subchapters. Hypothesis 1: The perception of durable products differs among consumers with different national habitation.
As shown in chapter 6.2.7, differences exist among German and Swedish consumers in how they perceive wooden multistory houses. Although only marginal differences can be observed in terms of elements that are included in the second and third most dominant MECs, the importance of linkages between these attributes, consequences and values are statistically significant at α=0.01 level. For example, the perception of the importance of the link between ‘warm interior atmosphere’ and ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ reveals a difference of z=5.2 (critical value: z=2.576) and a difference of z=7.1 exists concerning the perceived importance of the connection between ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ and ‘feeling comfortable’. In addition to that, the most dominant MEC of both nations’ respondents differs completely. While Germans associate wooden multistory houses with environmental aspects like ‘energy saving’, ‘positive for the environment’ and ‘concern about the environment’, Swedish respondents do not establish environment-related elements or linkages among the most dominant MECs at all. Instead, they focus on two undesired aspects, ‘financial disadvantages’ and ‘insecure housing’, that are perceived as negative aspects and are not seen as contributing to their ‘need of security’. Germans do not perceive such negative and undesired aspects as dominating their views on wooden multistory houses. These findings show a difference in both content and structure of consumer knowledge. Thus it can be stated that the perception of durable products is affected by different national habitation, and hypothesis 1 can be seen as supported. Hypothesis 2: The perception of durable products differs among consumers with different age.
121
In the German data-set, several differences can be detected in how consumers perceive wooden multistory houses. First, respondents of ‘65 years and older’ only established half as many linkages, or fewer, above the cut-off level compared with all the other age-groups. This indicates that a wooden multistory house is perceived by consumers in this agegroup as being less complex. Further, the importance of several linkages between elements on different levels of abstraction are perceived significantly different at α=0.01 level (critical value: z=2.576) among agegroups, see chapter 6.2.1. For example, the linkage ‘healthy interior’ to ‘healthy living’ differs in importance between age-groups ‘younger than 35 years’ (z=3.338), ‘35 – 49 years’ (z=2.87) and ‘50 – 64 years’ (z=2.752) compared with the age-group ‘65 years and older’. Therefore it was concluded that the factor ‘age’ has an impact on the structure of consumer knowledge and hence on how consumers in Germany perceive wooden multistory houses. Similar results could be detected when investigating the Swedish data-set. Consumers aged ’65 years and older’ established less than 40 % of the linkages above cut-off level compared with all other age-groups, which implies that they regard wooden multistory houses as less complex, compared with the other age-groups. Again, several statistically significant differences at α=0.01 level exist concerning the structure of consumer knowledge, i.e. how important linkages between elements in the central perceptual frame of MECs are perceived, see chapter 6.2.4. As one example, the importance of ‘higher construction costs’ leading to ‘financial disadvantages’ differs between age-groups ‘50 – 64 years’ (z=3.45; critical value: z=2.576) and ‘65 years and older’ (z=3-674) when compared with the age group ‘35 – 49 years’. Since the structure of consumer knowledge among German and Swedish respondents depends on their age, it can be said that the factor ‘age’ does affect the perception of wooden multistory houses. Therefore, hypothesis 2 stating that the perception of durable products differs among consumers with different ages can be regarded as supported. 2 can be regarded as supported and it can be stated that the perception of durables with an extra long lifetime differs among consumers with different age.
122
Hypothesis 3: The perception of durable products differs among consumers with different income.
As discussed in chapter 6.2.2, differences exist in how German consumers perceive wooden multistory houses, depending on their income-class. While the linkage ‘natural material’ to ‘healthy living’ is part of one of the most dominant MECs for members of some income-classes, it is not established above cut-off-level by respondents earning ’10.000 – 19.999 € per year’. Concerning this linkage, a statistically significant difference exist at α=0.01 level (critical value: z=2.576) for income-classes ‘20.000 – 29.999 € per year’ (z=4.797), ‘30.000 – 49.999 € per year’ (z=4.185) and ‘50.000 € and more per year’ (z=3.839), all compared with the incomeclass ‘10.000 – 19.999 € per year’. Other significant differences exist on the same level, as can be referred to in chapter 6.2.2. In Sweden, the central perceptual frame of MECs of different incomeclasses shows significant differences as well. Some linkages are inherent in some of the most dominant MECs of certain income-classes, whilst not even established above cut-off level by respondents of other incomeclasses. As an example, the linkage from ‘healthy living’ to ‘high quality of life’ can be mentioned. Additionally, this linkage shows a statistically significant difference on α=0.01 level (critical value: z=2.576) in how important it is perceived to be. Involved income-classes in this case are ’20.000 – 29.999 € per year’ (z=2.783) and ’30.000 € and more per year’ (z=4.38), both in comparison with income-class ‘less than 10.000 € per year’. Thus, in both data-sets differences were found concerning the structure of consumer knowledge. In line with these results it can be said that both German and Swedish consumers perceive wooden multistory houses differently, depending on their income. Thus the findings of this study confirm that the perception of durable products differs among consumers with different income. Consequently, hypothesis 3 is supported.
123
Hypothesis 4: The perception of durable products differs among consumers with different within-country habitation.
Testing this hypothesis, the outcome of comparing German regions shows that region ‘South/West’ generated about one-third fewer linkages above cut-off level than did the other regions. This implies that the product in question is considered less complex in this region. Among regions, statistically significant differences in perceiving the importance of various linkages exist at α=0.01 level. Such a difference can e.g. be detected between the regions ‘North/West’ and ‘East’ concerning the connection from ‘warm interior atmosphere’ to pleasant & comfortable housing’ (z=2.878, critical value: z=2.576). Another difference is between the regions ‘North/West’ and ‘South/West’. Here, the linkage from ‘healthy interior’ to ‘healthy living’ is affected (z=3.947), see also chapter 6.2.3. These results show that Germans perceive wooden multistory houses differently, since they have a different structure of consumer knowledge, depending on which region they live in. The results of comparing perceptions from respondents belonging to the three lands of Sweden show that differences exist regarding the structure and the content of consumer structure. First, respondents from ‘Svealand’ perceive wooden multistory houses to be less complex, compared with respondents from ‘Götaland’ and ‘Norrland’. Further, differences in elements involved in the most important MECs exist along with differences in how important certain linkages between these elements are perceived to be, see chapter 6.2.6. To name but one example, consumers from ‘Norrland’ and ‘Svealand’ perceive the connection between ‘secure housing’ and ‘feeling comfortable’ significantly differently at α=0.01 level (z=5.834 and z=6.92; critical value: z=2.576). Due to these findings it was resumed that the perception of wooden multistory houses differs among Swedish respondents depending on what Swedish land they live in. Summing up, it can be stated that there are differences in the structure of consumer knowledge in Germany, and differences in the content and structure of consumer knowledge in Sweden, that can be related to withincountry affiliation of respondents. Therefore it can be said that the perception of durable products differs among consumers with different within-country habitation, which supports hypothesis 4. 124
6.3
Discussion of empirical results
The support of all four hypotheses above is in line with the results of previous studies. As presented in chapter 3, various researchers found national habitation, income, age and within-country habitation as affecting consumers’ perceptions of different kinds of products and services, like snacks, oil, pork, fish, travel, golf, newspapers, health clubs and luxury trademarks to name but a few (a.o. MOGELONSKI, 1996; HERSHEY & WILSON, 1997; SIVADAS, 1997; THOMPSON, 2000; BRADLEY & LONGINO, 2001; DIBLEY & BAKER, 2001; KLAASSEN, 2001; FETTO, 2002; SKYTTE & BOVE, 2004; GRUNERT & BECHLARSEN, 2005; VERBEKE ET AL., 2005). However, none of the above can be considered as a durable product. The perception of a product entails consumers’ existing product knowledge, being composed of personal experiences and other information that is stored and organized in the human memory (GRUNERT & GRUNERT, 1995). This product knowledge can be distinguished by its content, i.e. the elements of MECs, and its structure, i.e. the importance of linkages between the elements (TER HOFSTEDE ET AL., 1998). Thus, it has to be concluded that in the case of the present German and Swedish respondents, consumers’ current product knowledge about wooden multistory houses differs significantly, especially regarding its structure. All investigated sub-groups reveal differences in how important they perceive linkages between elements in the respective most dominant MECs. In addition to that, differences related to the content of consumer knowledge could be detected for respondents with different national and within-country habitations. Consumers consider products as a set of utility components (HERRMANN ET 2000), which means that they assess products by evaluating their personal relevance (OLSON & REYNOLDS, 2001). The results of this study show therefore that wooden multistory houses have different personal relevance for consumers depending on their age, income, national and withincountry habitation.
AL.,
Personal experiences and values of different age-groups might, for example, explain their perception of the product in question. Kotler et al. (2001) call attention to the increasing diversity of consumers belonging to different age-groups. They state that younger generations care more about the environment and strive for more comfort. Findings of the present study 125
support these statements, since statistically significant differences were found between the youngest and the oldest age-group in both countries concerning the linkages where ‘feeling comfortable’ and ‘pleasant & comfortable housing’ are involved. Moreover, linkages with environmental issues are perceived as more important by the younger agegroup in the German sample. Regarding the factor income, consumers with the highest income in Germany regard ‘energy saving’ leading to ‘positive for the environment’ more personally relevant than do consumers within the lowest incomeclass. Regarding Swedish respondents with respect to their income it can be said that the relation between ‘healthy living’ and ‘high quality of life’ gains personal relevance with increasing income. Looking at the prominence of wood as a construction material on the German and the Swedish market, it becomes obvious that Swedish consumers should have more personal experience and other information available. This is due to the fact that wood dominates the market for small houses in Sweden, and has a much greater market share in the segment of multistory houses. This might explain the differences detected in the content of German and Swedish respondents’ product knowledge. Interestingly, negative issues like ‘high construction & material risk’, ‘insecure housing’, ‘higher construction costs’ and ‘more expensive to run’ are among the most dominant perceptual orientations of Swedish respondents. This indicates that the market has probably struggled, or maybe is still struggling, with certain negative experiences that have reached the mind of Swedish consumers, contributing to their present content of product knowledge. Summing up, it can be said that the present study shows that the perception of durable products is affected by a consumer’s affiliation to a certain country, income-class, age-group and region within a country. Therefore, the relationships between the elements in the theoretical model as presented in figure 2, chapter 3, can be regarded as confirmed and its assumed substance supported. This is reflected in figure 42.
126
Income
National habitation
Perceptions of durables with an extra long lifetime
Within country habitation
Age
FIGURE 42: SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS INFLUENCING THE PERCEPTION OF DURABLES WITH AN EXTRA LONG LIFETIME
127
7 Concluding remarks In this final chapter, the results of the study are used to answer the research question. Moreover, the practical and theoretical implications of the results are presented, as well as suggestions for further research. This study investigates consumers’ perceptions of durable products and potential factors affecting these perceptions. This was accomplished within the contextual frame of German and Swedish respondents and their perceptions on the subject of wooden multistory houses. Thus, other researchers have to decide, whether these findings can be transferred to other contexts or not. In addition to that, no conclusions should be drawn concerning the actual purchase of the product in question, since this was not object of the investigation. Other actors on the market might have diverging perceptions as the ones studied in this inquiry, but these are not taken into consideration. The present results have therefore to be regarded with a measure of respect to this. 7.1
Conclusions and contributions
The research question of this study was formulated as follows: How do consumers perceive durable products and what affects the perceptions?
This research question was formulated to serve the purpose of this inquiry, i.e. to contribute to the understanding of how consumers perceive durable products. To achieve this, an existing quantitative data collection technique, the so-called Association Pattern Technique, was further developed to find linkages that uncover a more holistic view of consumers’ existing product knowledge. Applying the Extended Association Pattern Technique, exploratory personal laddering interviews were performed among German and Swedish consumers to uncover attributes, consequences and values affiliated to wooden multistory houses. These formed the base for the following matrix-survey study, which was applied in both countries.
128
The presented results show that consumers perceive durable products by their attributes, which bear consequences that in turn lead to the achievement of the consumers’ personal values. In case the perceived consequence is negative and not preferred, the positive and preferred consequence is expected by the consumers to lead to their personal values. This constellation, with linkages between attributes, consequences and values, was already investigated in earlier Means-End Chain studies. However, while Ter Hofstede et al. (1998) proposed a two-matrix survey with an attribute/consequence- (AC-) and a consequence/value-matrix (CV-), an additional consequence/consequence-matrix (CC-matrix) is suggested in this study. The results illustrate that the additional data from the CC-matrix uncovered useful information, since CC-linkages are included in consumers’ most dominant perceptual orientation, as well as in their central frames of chains. Thus the application of the CC-matrix beyond AC- and CV-matrices can be seen as validated with respect to the present product category, and is even suggested to be applied in all studies with the Association Pattern Technique as the method for data collection. In addition to this, a model was developed and validated, whereby four different social-demographic factors were found as affecting the perception of durable products. These are national habitation, age, income and within-country habitation. In line with this, the following four hypotheseses were tested and their content validated regarding the contextual boundaries of this study. Hypothesis 1: The perception of durable products differs among consumers with different national habitation.
Hypothesis 2: The perception of durable products differs among consumers with different age.
Hypothesis 3: The perception of durable products differs among consumers with different income.
129
Hypothesis 4: The perception of durable products differs among consumers with different within-country habitation. 7.2
Practical and theoretical implications
Since the application of an additional CC-matrix could be validated in this study, such a matrix can be recommended to be applied in other investigations where the Association Pattern Technique is planned to be used. This extension of an existing method can contribute to finding improved ways of gathering data of this kind from larger samples. It reveals useful information that can be central in the perception of a product. In addition to this, the empirical results of this study can be used to better understand the perceptions of consumers in Germany and Sweden regardnig wooden multistory houses. This can make a valuable input when developing marketing campaigns, where different target groups of potential consumers can be addressed. Since the perception of wooden multistory houses is expected to vary with different national habitations, ages, income and within-country habitation, different sets of attributes and consequences should be communicated towards the respective groups or defined market segments. Existing negative perceptions, like e.g. the ones among Swedish consumers, could be revised by informing about the actual consequences of existing product attributes, which do not necessarily have to correspond with the ones perceived. Proceding in this manner, possible mismatches between actual product attributes and their consequences, and those ones perceived by consumers, could be overcome. Thus, marketers can find much useful information about how different consumers in Germany and Sweden perceive wooden multistory houses, if further positioning strategies of this product are planned or existing strategies are thought to be revised and adjusted. 7.3
Suggestions for further research
In the present study, the application of a CC-matrix within the APT matrix-survey uncovered useful information. To further validate the
130
usefulness of such a matrix, and to further contribute to the ability to generalize in an analytical way, such a matrix should be tested in other contexts, i.e. with other people, other times and/or other places, as Trochim (2000) suggests. The same is true for the four hypotheses tested and validated in this study, to further contribute to the understanding of consumers’ perceptions. In addition to the four socio-demographic factors investigated in this study, which are expected to influence the perception of durable products, other factors might exist which have an impact on consumers’ perceptions. To name but a few, consumers could be distinguished according to e.g. gender, urban versus rural habitation, condominium flats versus rentable flats, and whether or not consumers already use the product in question. These should be investigated to better understand the preference motives of certain consumer groups regarding wooden multistory houses. Some of these suggested variables will possibly be studied by the author in research projects to come. As described in chapter 5.3.3, there is no statistical or theoretically proven cut-off level to create Hierarchical Value Maps. Thus, criteria were developed to create an appropriate cut-off level for the purpose of this study. Yet, would the results of this study have been different had another cut-off level been applied? And could the applied cut-off level also be used for other product categories? Future studies could compare results concerning between-method convergence validity and contribute to the development and validation of a cut-off level with strong theoretical substance. A limitation of this study was that the role of e.g. architects and/or other actors on the market was disregarded. Further research could investigate in what role e.g. architects play when it comes to wooden multistory houses on the German and Swedish construction market, and how architects perceive this product in relation to conventional multistory houses. Finally, to contribute to the predictive power and the theoretical substance of the applied Means-End Chain Theory, consumers’ perceptions of wooden multistory houses should be contrasted with their actual behaviour in a decision making process.
131
References Aaker, D.A. (1998). Strategic Market Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Aaker, J.L. and Meheswaran, D. (1997). The Effect of Cultural Orientation on Persuasion. Journal of Counsumer Research, Vol. 24, December, pp. 315-328. Aczel, A.D. (1993). Complete Business Statistics. Boston: Irwin Inc. Albaum, G., Strandskov, J. and Duerr, E. (2002). International Marketing and Export Management. Harlow, Essex: Prentice Hall. Alvesson, M. and Sköldberg, K. (1994). Tolkning och reflektion – Vetenskapsfilosofi och kvalitativ metod. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Anders, S. and Moeser, A. (2008). Assessing the demand for value-based organic meats in Canada: a combined retail and household scanner-data approach. International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 32, pp. 457469. ARGEBAU (2002). Musterbauordnung – MBO, Nov. 2002, Berlin: Selbstverlag. www.bauordnungen.de/html/mbo.html version current as of 2009-01-20. Aurifeille, J.M. and Valette-Florence, P. (1995). Determination of the dominant means-end chains: A constrained clustering approach. International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 12, pp.267-278. Axelsson, B. and Agndal, H. (2005). Professionell marknadsföring. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Bagozzi, R.P., Bergami, M. and Leone, L. (2003). Hierarchical representation of motives in goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, No. 5, pp. 915-943. Bagozzi, R.P. and Dholakia, U. (1999). Goal Setting and Goal Striving in Consumer Behavior. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, pp. 19-32. Baker, T.L. (1999). Doing Social Research. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.
132
Baldwin, R.F. (2000). Maximizing Forest Product Resources for the 21st Century – New Processes, Products, and Strategies for a Changing World. San Francisco: Miller Freeman Books. Barrena Figueroa, R. and Sanchez Garcia, M. (2008). Abstraction and Product Categories as Explanatory Variables for Food Consumption. Proceeding at the 12th EAAE Congress ‘People, Food and Environments: Global Trends and European Strategies’, Gent/Belgium, 26-29 August 2008. Baumgartner, H. and Steenkamp, J.-B. (2001). Response styles in marketing research: A cross-national investigation. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38, pp. 143-156. Bayus, B.L. (1991). The Consumer Durable Replacement Buyer. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55, pp. 42-51. Bayus, B.L. and Gupta, S. (1992). An Empirical Analysis of Consumer Durable Replacement Intentions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 9, pp. 257-267. Bayus, B.L., Hong, S. and Labe Jr, R.P. (1989). Developing and Using Forecasting Models of Consumer Durables – The case of Colour Television. Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 6, pp. 5-19. Becker, G.S. (1996). Accounting for the Tastes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Beyer, G., Defays, M., Fischer, M., Fletcher, J., de Munck E., de Jaeger, F., Van Riet, C., Vandeweghe, K., Wijnendaele, K. (2007). Tackla klimatförändringen: Använd trä. CEI-Bois. Blattberg, R.C. and Wisniewski, K.J. (1989). Price-Induced Patterns of Competition. Marketing Science, Vol. 8 (Fall), pp. 291-309. Botschen, G. and Thelen, E.M. (1998). Hard versus Soft laddering: Implications for appropriate use. In Balderjahn, I., Mennicken, C. and Vernette, E. (Eds.). New developments and approaches in consumer behaviour research, pp. 322-339, Stuttgart, Houndmills and London: Schäffer-Poeschel and MacMillan Press Ltd. Botschen, G., Thelen, E.M. and Pieters, R. (1999). Using means-end structures for benefit segmentation: an application for services. European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33, No. 1-2, pp. 38-58.
133
Boudon, R. (1998). Limitations of Rational Choice Theory, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 104, pp. 817-828. Boudon, R. (2003). Beyond Rational Choice Theory, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 29, pp. 1-21. Bourier, G. (1999). Beschreibende Statistik: Praxisorientierte Einführung mit Aufgaben und Lösungen. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag. Boverket (2003). Regelsamling konstruktionsregler BKR, Byggnadsverksförordningen.
för konstruktion, Boverkets Byggnadsverkslagen och
Bradley, D.E. and Longino, C.F. Jr. (2001). How Older People Think About Images of Aging in Advertising and the Media. Generations, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 17-21. Brinkmann, G. (1989). Analytische Wissenschaftstheorie. München: Oldenbourg Verlag. Brunsø, K., Scholderer, J. and Grunert, K.G. (2004). Closing the gap between values and behavior – a means-end theory of lifestyle. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57, pp. 665-670. Bryk, A.S., Lee, V.E. and Holland, P.B. (1993). Catholic Schools and the Common Good. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard University Press. Butt, T. (1995). Ordinal relations between constructs. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, Vol. 8, pp. 227-236. Chaker, A.M. (1999). Thanksgiving: Thanksgiving Is More Than Turkey. Wall Street Journal, November 10, S4. Chasseigne, G., Mullet, E. and Stewart, T.R. (1997). Aging and multiple cue probability learning: The case of inverse relationships. Acta Psychologica, Vol. 97, pp. 235-252. Chaudhuri, H.R. and Haldar, A.K. (2005). Understanding the Interrelationship Between Regional Differences and Material Aspiration in the Context of Indian Diversity: Results of an Exploratory Study. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 3-14. Chen, H-Y. and Chang, Y-M. (2009). Extraction of product form features critical to determining consumers’ perceptions of product image using a
134
numerical definition-based systematic approach. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. Vol. 39, pp. 133-145. Chen, C., Lee, S. and Stevenson, H.W. (1995). Response style and cross cultural comparisons of rating scales among East Asian and North American students. Psychological Science, Vol. 6, pp. 170-175. Chick, S.; Olsen, T.L.; Sethuraman, K.; Stecke, K.E. and White, III, C.C. (2000). A descriptive multi-attribute model for reconfigurable machining system selection examining buyer-supplier relationships. International Journal of Agile Management Systems, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 33-48. Claeys, C., Swinnen, A. and Abeele, P.V. (1995). Consumers’ means-end chains for ‘think’ and ‘feel’ products. International Journal in Marketing, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 193-208. Clark, J. (1996). James Coleman, London: Falmer Press. Cohen, J.B. (1979). The structure of brand attributes: defining attribute dimensions for planning and evaluation. In Shocker, A.D. (Ed.) Analytical Approaches to Brand and Marketing Planning, pp. 54-86, Cambridge: Prentice-Hall. Cohen, J.B. and Warlop, L. (2001). A motivational perspective on meansend chains. In Reynolds, T.J. and Olson, J.C. (eds.), Understanding consumer decision making: the means-end approach to marketing and advertising strategy, pp. 267-322, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cole, C., Laurent, G., Drolet, A., Ebert, J., Gutchess, A., LambertPandraud, R., Mullet, E., Norton, M.J. and Peters, E. (2008). Decision making and brand choice by older consumers. Market Lett, Vol. 19, pp. 355-365. Coleman, J.S. (1961). The Adolescent Society. New York: The Free Press. Coleman, J.S. (1974). Power and the Structure of Society. New York: Norton & Company. Coleman, J.S. (1996). A Vision for Sociology. In Clerk, J. (ed.) James Coleman, pp. 343-349, London: Falmer Press. Coleman, J.S., Katz, E. and Menzel, H. (1957). The Diffusion of an Innovation among Physicians, Sociometry. Vol. 20, pp. 253-270.
135
Coolen, H. and Hoekstra, J. (2001). Values as determinants of preferences for housing attributes. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, Vol. 16, pp. 285-306. Costa, A.I.A., Dekker, M. and Jongen, W.M.F. (2004). An overview of means-end theory: potential application in consumer oriented food product design. Trends in Food Science & Technology, Vol. 15, pp. 403-415. Curey, A.R. and Ward, S. (1998). Big Mac Capital of the USA. USA Today, September 1998, 1B. Czellar, S. (2003). Consumer attitude toward brand extensions: an integrative model and research propositions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 20, pp. 97-115. Dawidowska, K. (2002). Caffeine Overload. American Demographics, Vol. 24, p. 16. Deaton, A. and Muellbauer, J. (1980). Economics and Consumer Behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. De Barros, A. (2000). Boundaries of Taste Shape Entertainment. USA Today, April 3, 1A. De Ferran, F. and Grunert, K.G. (2007). French fair trade coffee buyers’ purchasing motives: An exploratory study using means-end chain analysis. Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 18, pp. 218-229. Deutscher Städte- und Gemeindebund (2002). Neue Muster-Bauordnung verabschiedet, Kommunalrapport Berlin. http://www.dstgb.de/homepage/kommunalreport/archiv2002/newsitem005 31/index.html version current as of 2009-01-30. Dibley, A. and Baker, S. (2001). Uncovering the links between brand choice and personal values among young British and Spanish girls. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 77-93. Downey, E.H. (1987). The Futility of Marginal Utility. In R. Albelda, C., Gunn, and W. Waller (Ed.), Alternatives to Economic Orthodoxy. Armonk, pp. 48-59, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Dubois, B. and Duquesne, P. (1993). The market for luxury goods: Income versus culture. European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 35-44.
136
Engel, J., Blackwell, R. and Miniard, P. (1995). Consumer Behavior, Orlando/Florida: Dryden Press. Fabricant, F. (1996). The Geography of Taste. New York Times Magazine, March 10, pp. 40-41. Fennell, G. (1978). Consumers’ perceptions of the product-use situation. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 (April), pp. 38-47. Fetto, J. (2002). Cyber Tigers, American Demographics, Vol. 3, pp. 9-10. Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Fleiss, J.L. (1981). Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Foote, D. and Lamb, K. (2002). Eliciting information about the values of HRM practioners using laddering interviews. Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 244-252. Fotopoulos, C., Krystallis, A. and Ness, M. (2003). Wine produced by organic grapes in Greece: using means-end chains analysis to reveal organic buyers’ purchasing motives in comparison to the non-buyers. Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 14, pp. 549-566. Garfield, B. (2001). Disney’s Quest for Boomers Shows a Bit of Imagineering. Advertising Age, August 13, p. 29. Gengler, C.E., Klenosky, D.B. and Mulvey, M.S. (1995). Improving the graphic representation of means-end results. International Journal of Reseach in Marketing, Vol. 12, pp. 245-256. Gengler, C.E. and Reynolds, T.J. (1995). Consumer understanding and advertising strategy: analysis and strategic translation of laddering data. Journal of Advertising Research, July/August 1995, pp. 19-32. Gengler, C.E. and Reynolds, T.J. (2001). Consumer understanding and advertising strategy: analysis and strategic translation of laddering data. In Reynolds, T.J. and Olson, J.C. (eds.), Understanding consumer decision making: the means-end approach to marketing and advertising strategy, pp. 119-141. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
137
Gentry, J.W., Tansuhaj, P., Manzer, L.L. and John, J. (1988). Do Geographic Subcultures Vary Culturally? Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 411-417. Gillham, B. (2000). Case study research methods. London: Continuum. Gould, R.V. (2001). The Rational Choice Controversy in Historical Sociology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gowdy, J.M. and Mayumi, K. (2001). Reformulating the foundations of consumer choice theory and environmental valuation. Ecological Economics, Vol. 39, pp. 223-237. Graumann, C-F. and Willig, R. (1983). Wert, Wertung, Werthaltung. In Thomae, H. (Ed.), Enzyklopädie der Psychologie, Bd.1, Theorien und Formen der Motivation, pp. 313-396, Göttingen: Springer. Grimm, S.D. and Church, A.T. (1999). A cross-cultural study of response biases in personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 33, pp. 415-441. Grunert, K.G. (1990). Kognitive Strukturen in der Konsumforschung. Heidelberg: Physica. Grunert, K.G. and Bech-Larsen, T. (2005). Explaining choice option attractiveness by beliefs elicited by the laddering method. Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 26, pp. 223-241. Grunert, K.G., Beckmann, S.C. and Sørensen, E. (2001). Means-End Chains and Laddering: An Inventory of Problems and an Agenda for Research. In Reynolds, T.J. and Olson, J.C. (eds.), Understanding consumer decision making: the means-end approach to marketing and advertising strategy, pp. 63-90, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Grunert, K.G. and Grunert, S.C. (1995). Measuring subjective meaning structures by the laddering method: Theoretical considerations and methodological problems. International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 12, pp. 209-225. Grunert, K.G. and Valli, C. (2001). Designer-made meat and dairy products: consumer-led product development. Livestock Production Science, Vol. 72, pp. 83-98.
138
Gummesson, E. (2000). Qualitative Methods in Management Research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Gutman, J. (1982). A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 60-72. Gutman, J. (1991). Exploring the nature of linkages between consequences and values. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 143-149. Gutman, J. (1997). Means-End Chains as Goal Hierarchies. Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 545-560. Hair, J.F. Jr., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Hanemann, M.W. (1994). Valuing the environment through contingent valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 8, pp. 19-43. Hauser, J.R., Roberts, J.H. and Urban, G.L. (1983). Forecasting Sales of a New Consumer Durable. In Zufryden, F.S. (Ed.) Advances and Practices of Marketing Science, pp. 115-128, University of Southern California. Hawkins, D.I., Roupe, D. and Coney, K.A. (1980). The Influence of Geographical Subcultures in the United States. In Monroe, K.B. (ed.) Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 7, pp. 713-717, Arlington, VA: Association for Consumer Research. Hebden, J.J. and Pickering, J.F. (1974). Patterns of acquisition of consumer durables, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 58, pp. 67-94. Henneberg, S.C., Gruber, T., Reppel, A., Ashnai, B. and Naudé, P. (2009). Complaint management expectations: An online laddering analysis of small versus large firms. Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 38, pp. 584-598. Herrmann, A. and Huber, F. (2000). Value-oriented brand positioning, International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 95-112. Hershey, D.A. and Wilson, J.A. (1997). Age differences in performance awareness on a complex financial decision-making task. Experimental Aging Research, Vol. 23, pp. 257-273.
139
Holzabsatzfonds (2009). 14,5 Prozent – Holzbau legt in Deutschland weiter zu, Medieninformation Nr. 02/2009. http://www.infoholz.de/html/f_page.phtml?p1=1233482137a552127964& p3=44079 version current as of 2009-01-23. Hougaard, S. and Bjerre M. (2003). Strategic Relationship Marketing. Fredriksberg: Samfundslitteratur Press. Howard, J.A. (1977). Consumer Behavior: Application and Theory. New York: Prentice-Hall. Hsiao, S.W. and Huang, H.C. (2002). A neural network based approach for product form design. Design studies, Vol. 23, No. 5, pp. 67-84. Hsu, S.H., Chuang, M.C. and Chang, C.C. (2000). A semantic differential study of designers’ and users’ product form perception. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 25, pp. 375-391. Hudlicka, E. (1996). Requirements Elicitation with Indirect Knowledge Elicitation Techniques: Comparison of Three Models, Requirements Engineering 1996, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on ICRE, pp. 4-11. Informationsdienst Holz (2008). Baustoff Holz: nachhaltig. In aktuell, Dezember 2008, p.7, Bonn: Holzabsatzfonds. Ishihara, S., Ishihara, K., Nagamachi, M. and Matsubara, Y. (1997). An analysis of Kansei structure on shoes using self-organizing neural network. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 93-104. Jindo, T. and Shimizu, Y. (1995). Development of a design support system for office chairs using 3-D graphics. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 49-62. Johnson, M.D. (1984). Consumer choice strategies for comparing noncomparable alternatives. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 741-753. Kaden, T. (2007). Vertical wood construction: seven-storey residential building in Berlin. In: Hochschule für Architektur, Bau und Holz – HSB (eds.) (2007). 13. Internationales Holzbau-Forum, Holzbau aus der Praxis – für die Praxis, 2. Bde., Biel: Frauenhofer IRB Verlag.
140
Kahle, L.R. (1986). The Nine Nations of North America and the Value Basis of Geographical Segmentation. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50, pp. 37-47. Katz, A.J. (1983). Valuing the services of consumer durables, Review of Income and Wealth. Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 405-428. Keller, K.L. (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp.1-22. Kiser, E. and Hechter, M. (1998). The Debate on Historical Sociology: Rational Choice Theory and its Critics’. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 104, pp. 785-816. Klaassen, A. (2001). St. Joseph: From Babies to Boomers. Advertising Age, July 9, pp. 1, 38. Klein, N. (2001). NO LOGO. Märkena, Marknaden, Motståndet. Stockholm: Ordfront förlag. Kosaka, Y. and Shiizuka, H. (2009). A method for creating buying behavior of customer by kansei information design. Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 19-27. Kotler, P. (2000). Marketing Management, Millennium Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Kotler, P. (2003). A Framework for Marketing Management, International Edition, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Saunders, J. and Wong, V. (2001). Principles of Marketing. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Kroebel-Riel, W. (1992). Konsumentenverhalten. München: Vahlen. Lancaster, K.J. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory, Journal of Political Economy. Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 132-157. Lavoie, M. (1994). A Post Keynesian approach to consumer choice. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 539-562. Lee, J.A., Soutar, G.N. and Louviere, J. (2007). Measuring Values Using Best-Worst Scaling: The LOV Example. Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 24, No. 12, pp. 1043-1058.
141
Lee, L.F. and Pitt, M.M. (1987). Microeconomic Models of Rationing, Imperfect Markets, and Non-negativity Constraints. Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 36, pp. 89-110. Lee, S., Harada, A. and Stappers, P.J. (2002). Design based on Kansei. In Green, W.S. and Jordan, P.W. (Eds.). Pleasures with products: Beyond usability, pp. 219-230, London: Taylor & Francis. Leitner, L.M. (1995). Dispositional assessment techniques in experimental personal construct psychology. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, Vol. 8, pp. 53-74. Leppard, P., Russel, C.G. and Cox, D.N. (2004). Improving means-end chain studies by using a ranking method to construct hierarchical value maps. Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 15, pp. 489-497. MacKay, D.B. and Easley, R.F. (1995). International differences in product perception: a product map analysis. International Marketing Review, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 54-62. MacMillan, I.C. and McGrath, R.G. (1996). Discover Your Product’s Hidden Potential, Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp. 58-73. Mantau, U. (2004). The Structure of the Construction market – with a special focus on Northern Germany. Universität Hamburg. Marell Molander, A. (1998). The Household Decision Making Process in Replacement of Durable Goods. Umeå University. Marsden, D. and Littler, D. (2000). Exploring consumer product construct systems with the repertory grid technique, Quality Market Research, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 127-143. Matsubara, Y. and Nagamachi, M. (1997). Hybrid Kansei Engineering System and design support. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 19, pp. 81-92. McAlister, L. (1982). A dynamic attribute satiation model of variety seeking behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9, pp. 141-150. McDonagh, D., Bruseberg, A. and Haslam, C. (2002). Visual product evaluation: exploring users’ emotional relationships with products, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 33, pp. 231-240.
142
Meyer, R.J. and Sathi, A. (1985). A Multiattribute Model of Consumer Choice during Product Learning. Marketing Science, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 4161. Miljödepartementet (2008). Delegationen för hållbara städer, Uppdrag 2008-09-05, Regeringskansliet. http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/10905/a/110855 version current as of 200902-01. Miller, N.H. (2006). Notes on Microeconomic Theory. Harvard University; http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/nhm/notes_download_2006.htm E-book; publisher: Miller, N.H. Mogelonsky, M. (1996). America’s Demographics, Jan 1996, pp. 20-31.
Hottest
Market.
American
Morton, L. (1999). Segmenting Publics by Life Development Stages. Public Relation Quarterly, Spring 1999, p. 46. Mossberg, L. (2003). Att skapa upplevelser – från OK till WOW! Lund: Studentlitteratur. Mucci, A. and Hough, G. (2003). Perceptions of genetically modified food by consumers in Argentina. Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 15, pp. 4351. Munson, J.M. and Spivey, W.A. (1981). Product and brand-user stereotypes among social classes: Implications for advertising strategy. Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 21, pp. 37-45. Musiélak, C., Chasseigne, G. and Mullet, E. (2006). The learning of linear and nonlinear functions in younger and older adults. Experimental Aging Research, Vol. 32, pp. 317-339. Myers, J.H. and Shocker, A.D. (1980). The Nature of Brand Related Attributes. Chicago: Free Press. Nagamachi, M. (1995). Kansei engineering: a new ergonomic consumeroriented technology for product development. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 15, pp. 3-11. Nagamachi, M. (1997). Kansei engineering and comfort. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 19, pp. 79-80.
143
Nagamachi, M. (2002). Kansei engineering as a powerful consumeroriented technology for product development. Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp.289-294. Näringsdepartementet (2004). Mer trä i byggandet – underlag för en nationell strategi att främja användningar av trä i byggandet, Ds 2004:1, Regeringskansliet. Neuborn, E. (1999). Pepsi’s Aim Is True. Business Week E. Biz, January 1999, EB 52. Noble, S. M. and Noble, C.H. (2000). Getting to Know Y: The Consumption Behaviors of a New Cohort. In Workman J.P. and Perreault, W.D. (eds.). 2000 AMA Winter Educators’ Conference, Vol. 11, pp. 293303. Chicago: American Marketing Association. NTC, (1998). Marknadsstudie – Flervånings trähus i Tyskland och Japan, del 1-3. Nielsen, N.A., Bech-Larsen, T. and Grunert, K.G. (1998). Consumer purchase motives and product perceptions: a laddering study on vegetable oil in three countries. Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 455-466. Niemeyer, R.A., Anderson, A. and Stockton, L. (2001). Snakes versus ladders: A validation of laddering technique as a measure of hierarchical structure. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, Vol. 14, pp. 85-105. Olson, J.C. (1988). Theoretical foundations of means-end chains. Working paper, Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Olson, J.C. and Reynolds, T.J. (1983). Understanding consumers’ cognitive structures: Implications for marketing strategy. In Percy, L. and Woodside, A.G. (eds.), Advertising and consumer psychology, pp. 77-90, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Olson , J.C. and Reynolds, T.J. (2001). The Means-End Approach to Understanding Consumer Decision Making. In Reynolds, T.J. Olson, J.C. and (eds.). Understanding consumer decision making: the means-end approach to marketing and advertising strategy, pp. 3-20, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
144
Orsingher, C. and Marzocchi, G.L. (2003). Hierarchical representation of satisfactory consumer service experience. International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 200-216. Osborn, T.W. (1987). Analytic techniques for opportunity marketing. Marketing Communications, September 1987, pp. 49-63. Overby, J.W., Woodruff, R.B. and Gardial S.F. (2005). The influence of culture upon consumers’ desired value perceptions: A research agenda. Marketing Theory, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 139-163. Paas, L.J. (1998). Mokken scaling characteristics sets and acquisition patterns of durable- and financial products. Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 353-376. Pankhania, A. and Lee, N. (2007). Within-country ethnic differences and product positioning: a comparison of the perceptions of two British subcultures. Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 15, pp. 121-138. Paternoster, R. and Pogarsky, G. (2009). Rational Choice, Agency and Thoughtfully Reflective Decision Making: The Short and Long-Term Consequences of Making Good Decisions. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 25, pp. 103-127. Paulhus, D.L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In Robinson, J.P., Shaver, P.R. and Wrightsman, L.S. (eds.) (1991). Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes, pp. 17-59. New York: Academic Press. Peter, J.P. and Olson, J.C. (1990). Consumer Behavior. Homewood: Addison-Wesley. Phillips, J.M. and Reynolds, T.J. (2009). A hard look at hard laddering – A comparison of studies examining the hierarchical structure of means-end theory. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 83-99. Pieters, R., Baumgartner, H. and Allen, D. (1995). A means-end chain approach to consumer goal structures. International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 12, pp. 227-244. Pläcking, J. (1990). Marketing-Kommunikation im Automobilmarkt Europa. Stuttgart: Motor-Presse.
145
Pliske, R.M. and Mutter, S.A. (1996). Age differences in the accuracy of confidence judgements. Experimental Aging Research, Vol. 22, pp. 199216. Poindexter, P.M. and Lasorsa, D.L. (1999). Generation X: Is Its Meaning Understood? Newspaper Research Journal, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 28-36. Punch, K.F. (2000). Developing effective research proposals. London: Sage Publications. Putnam, R.D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York: Simon & Schuster. Reynolds, T.J. (1985). Implications for Value Research: A Marco Vs Micro Perspective. Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 297-305. Reynolds, T.J. and Craddock, A.B. (1988). The application of the MECCAS model to the development and assessment of advertising strategy. Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 28, pp. 43-54. Reynolds, T.J. (2006). Methodological and Strategy Development Implications of Decision Segmentation. Journal of Advertising Research, December 2006, pp. 445-461. Reynolds, T.J., Dethloff, C. and Westberg, S.J. (2001). Advancements in Laddering. In Reynolds, T.J. and Olson, J.C. (eds.), Understanding consumer decision making: the means-end approach to marketing and advertising strategy, pp. 91-118, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Reynolds, T.J., Gengler, C.E. and Howard, D.J. (1995). A means-end analysis of brand persuasion through advertising. International Journal of Research in Marketing. Vol. 12, pp. 257-266. Reynolds, T.J. and Gutman, J. (1988). Laddering Theory, Method, Analysis and Interpretation. Journal of Advertising Research, February/March, pp. 11-31. Reynolds. T.J. and Gutman, J. (2001a). Laddering Theory, Method, Analysis and Interpretation. In Reynolds, T.J. and Olson, J.C. (eds.), Understanding consumer decision making: the means-end approach to marketing and advertising strategy, pp. 25-62, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Reynolds. T.J. and Gutman, J. (2001b). Advertising Is Image Management. In Reynolds, T.J. and Olson, J.C. (eds.), Understanding
146
consumer decision making: the means-end approach to marketing and advertising strategy, pp. 145-162, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Reynolds, T.J. and Olson, J.C. (eds.) (2001). Understanding consumer decision making: the means-end approach to marketing and advertising strategy, pp. 145-162, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Rich, S.U. and Jain, S.C. (1968). Social class and life-cycle as predictors of shopping behaviour. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 5, pp. 41-49. Ries, A. and Trout, J. (1981) Positioning, The battle for your mind, New York: Warner Books - McGraw-Hill Inc. Roininen, K., Arvola, A. and Lähteenmäki, L. (2006). Exploring consumers’ perceptions of local food with two different qualitative techniques: Laddering and word association. Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 17, pp. 20-30. Roininen, K., Fillion, L., Kilcast, D. and Lähteenmäki, L. (2004). Exploring difficult textural properties of fruit and vegetables for the elderly in Finland and the United Kingdom. Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 15, pp. 517-530. Rugg, G., Eva, M., Mahmood, A., Rehman, N., Andrews, S. and Davies S. (2002). Eliciting information about organizational culture via laddering, Information Systems Journal. Vol. 12, pp. 215-229. Russell, C.G., Busson, A., Flight, I., Bryan, J., van Lawick van Pabst, J.A. and Cox, D.N. (2004). A comparison of three laddering techniques applied to an example of a complex food choice. Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 15, pp. 569-583. Russell, C.G., Flight, I., Leppard, P., van Lawick van Pabst, J.A., Syrette, J.A. and Cox, D.N. (2004). A comparison of paper-and-pencil and computerised methods of “hard” laddering. Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 15, pp. 279-291. Russell, C.G. and Cox, D.N. (2004). Understanding middle-aged consumers’ perceptions of meat using repertory grid methodology. Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 15, pp.317-329. Schapira, M.M.; Gilligan, M.A.; McAuliffe, T.L. and Nattinger, A.B. (2004). Menopausal hormone therapy decisions: insights from a multiattribute model. Patient Education and Counseling, Vol. 52, pp. 89-95.
147
Schauerte, T. (2004). Germany – a prospective market for wooden multifamily houses? Prestudy, Växjö University. Schauerte, T. (2006). Perceptions of Wooden Multifamily Houses in Germany – Applying an Extended Association Pattern Technique. Licentiate Thesis, Report No. 34, School of Technology and Design, Växjö University. Schauerte, T. (2007). Schaufenster in eine bessere Zukunft – Holzbau und mehr für eine ganzheitliche und nachhaltige Stadtentwicklung. In: Hochschule für Architektur, Bau und Holz – HSB (eds.) (2007). 13. Internationales Holzbau-Forum, Holzbau aus der Praxis – für die Praxis, No. 2, Biel: Frauenhofer IRB Verlag. Schauerte, T. (2008). Önskat och upplevt kundvärde – är Limnologens slutanvändare nöjda? In: Serrano, E. (ed.) (2008). Uppföljnings- och dokumentationsprojektet Limnologen – översikt och delprojektrapporter i sammanfattning, pp. 57 – 62, Växjö University, School of Technology and Design, Report No. 47. Schiffman, L.G. and Kanuk, L.L. (2004). Consumer Behavior. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Scholderer, J., Brunsø, K. and Grunert, K.G. (2002). Means-End Theory of Lifestyle – A Replication in the UK. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 29, pp. 551-557. Schumann, J., Meyer, U. and Ströbele, W.J. (2007). Grundzüge der mikroökonimischen Theorie. Berlin: Springer-Verlag GmbH. Schwartz, S.H. and bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, Vol 32, pp. 268-290. Schwartz, S.H., Verkasalo, M. Antonovski, A. and Sagiv, L. (1997). Value priorities and social desirability: Much substance, some style. British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 36, pp. 3-18. Serrano, E. (2008). Inledning och bakgrund, p. 1 – 10 in: Serrano, E. (eds.) (2008). Uppföljnings- och dokumentationsprojektet Limnologen – översikt och delprojektrapporter i sammanfattning. Växjö University, School of Technology and Design, Report No. 47.
148
Shen, Q. and Spedding, A. (1998). Priority setting in planned maintenance – practical issues in using the multi attribute approach. Building Research & Information, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 169-180. Silberberg, E. (1978). The Structure of economics: A Mathematical Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill. Sipari, P. (2007). Sound Insulation in Timber Buildings: The Finnish Experiment. Building Acoustics, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 133-142. Sivadas, E., Mathew, G. and Curry, D.J. (1997). A Priliminary Examination of the Continued Significance of Social Class to Marketing: A Geodemographic Replication. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 14, No. 6, p. 469. Skytte, H. and Bove, K. (2004). The Concept of Retailer Value: A MeansEnd Chain Analysis. Agribusiness, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 323-345. Smelser, N.J. (1998). The Rational and the Ambivalent in the Social Sciences. American Sociological Review, Vol. 63, pp. 1-16. Smith, P.B. and Schwartz, S.H. (1997). Values. In Berry, J.W., Segall, M.H. and Kagitcibasi, C. (eds.) (1997). Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, Vol. 3, pp. 77-118, Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Smizin, I. and Carrigan, M. (2001). Leisure and Tourism Services and the Older Innovator. The Service Industrial Journal, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 113129. Spiggle, S. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21, pp. 491-503. Srinivasan, T.C. and Winer, R.S. (1994). Using Neoclassical ConsumerChoice Theory to Produce a Market Map From Purchasing Data. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 1-9. Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland (2004). www.destatis.de/presse/deutsch version current as of 2004-01-09. Stehn, L.; Rask, L.-O.; Nygren, I. and Östman, B. (2008). Byggandet av flervåningshus i trä – Erfarenheter efter tre års observationer av träbyggandets utveckling, Luleå tekniska universitetet, teknisk rapport 2008:18.
149
Sultan, F. and Winer, R.S. (1993). Time Preferences for Products and Attributes and the Adoption of Technology-driven Consumer Durable Innovations. Journal of Economic Psychology, No. 14, pp 587-614. Svensk författningssamling (1874). Kongliga Byggnadsstadga för rikets städer. Sfs No. 25.
Majestäts
nådiga
Svensson, N. (2008). Trähusbyggande på hög nivå – Nyheter om industriellt trähusbyggande. Träbyggnadskansliet, sep. 2008. Svensson, N. (2009). Modernt träbyggande - ett nytt sätt att bygga, http://trabyggnadskansliet.se version current as of 2009-01-23. Takada, H. and Jain, D. (1991). Cross-national analysis of diffusion of consumer durable goods in Pacific Rim Countries, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 48-54. Tanoue, C, Ishizaka, K. and Nagamachi, M. (1997). Kansei engineering: a study on perceptions of vehicle interior image. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 115-128. Ter Hofstede, F., Audenaert, A., Steenkamp, J-B.E.M. and Wedel, M. (1998). An investigation into the association pattern technique as a quantitative approach to measuring means-end chains. International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 15, pp. 37-50. Ter Hofstede, F., Steenkamp, J-B.E.M. and Wedel, M. (1999). International Market Segmentation Based on Consumer-Product Relations. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36, February, pp. 1-17. Thompson, S. (2000). Minute Maid Line Takers Coeler Tack to Attract Teens. Advertising Age, February, p. 43. TMF (2008). TMF i siffror – Statistik om den svenska trä- och möbelindustrin, Nr. 2, Oktober 2008. TMF (2009). TMF i siffror – Statistik om den svenska trä- och möbelindustrin, Nr. 2, Oktober 2009. Trochim, W. (2000). The Research Methods Knowledge Base, Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog Publishing. Tversky, A. and Hemenway, K. (1984). Objects, parts, and categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 169-193.
150
Usunier, J.-C. and Lee, J.A. (2005). Marketing across cultures. Essex, UK: Pearson Education. Valette-Florence, P. and Rapacchi, B. (1991). Improving means-end chains analysis using graph theory and correspondence analysis. Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp.30-45. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. and Munda, G. (2000). Alternative models of individual behaviour and implications for environmental policy. Ecological Economics, Vol. 32, pp. 43-62. van Rekom, J., van Riel, C.B.M. and Wierenga, B. (2006). A Methodology for Assessing Organizational Core Values. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp.175-201. van Rekom, J. and Wierenga, B. (2007). On the hierarchical nature of Means-End relationships in laddering data. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60, pp. 401-410. Veludo-de-Oliveira, T.M., Ikeda, A.A. and Campomar, M.C. (2006). Laddering in the practice of market research: barriers and solutions. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 297-306. Vriens, M. and Ter Hofstede, F. (2000). Linking Attributes, Benefits and Consumer Values, Market Research, Fall, pp. 5-10. Wagner, T. (2007). Shopping motivation revised: a means-end chain analytic perspective. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 35, No. 7, pp. 569-582. Walker, B.A. and Olsson, J.C. (1991). Means-End chains: connecting people with self. Journal of Business Research, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 111119. Wansink, B. (2000). New techniques to generate key marketing insights. Marketing Research, Summer, pp.28-36. Wilkie, W.L. and Pessemier, E.A. (1973). Issues in Marketing’s Use of Multi-Attribute Models. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. X, pp. 428441.
151
Woodside, A.G. (2004). Advancing Means-End Chains by Incorporating Heider’s Balance Theory and Fournier’s Consumer Brand Relationship Typology. Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 279-294. Yair, G. (2008) Insecurity, conformity and Community – James Coleman’s Latent Theoretical Model of Action, European Journal of Social Theory, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 51-70. Yan, H-B., Huynh, V-N. Murai, T and Nakamori, Y. (2008). Kansei evaluation based on prioritized multi-attribute fuzzy target-oriented decision analysis. Information Sciences, pp. 4080-4093. Yin, R.K. (2003). Case study research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Zeleny, M. (1976). The Attribute-Dynamic Attitude Model (Adam). Management Science, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 12-26. Zhai, L-Y, Khoo, L-P. and Zhong, Z-W. (2009). A dominance-based rough set approach to Kansei Engineering in product development. Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36, pp. 393-402. Zinkhan, G.M. and Braunsberger, K. (2004). The complexity of consumers’ cognitive structures and relevance to consumer behavior, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57, pp. 575-582.
152
1
Växjö, 8 juni 2005
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Mein Name ist Tobias Schauerte, ich bin Doktorand an der Universität Växjö in Schweden und habe Ihnen diesen Umschlag in den Briefkasten gelegt. Meine Doktorarbeit handelt um Mehrfamilienhäuser aus Holz in Deutschland und ist eine Kooperation mit der Universität Hamburg. Ich untersuche in jeweils 200 Haushalten pro Bundesland, welche Meinung die Menschen in Deutschland über Mehrfamilienhäuser aus Holz haben und dabei bitte ich Sie um Ihre Hilfe. Diesem Anschreiben habe ich noch einen Fragebogen, eine Anleitung zum Ausfüllen des Fragebogens, einen kleinen Adresszettel und ein bereits frankiertes Antwortkuvert beigefügt. Wenn Sie mir den ausgefüllten Fragebogen spätestens bis zum 15. juli 2005 zurückschicken, dann verspreche ich Ihnen, dass ich Ihnen für Ihre Mühen ein Rubbellos (Wert: 1€) zukommen lasse. Wenn Sie ein Rubbellos haben möchten, dann füllen Sie bitte den kleinen Adresszettel aus. Diesen können Sie dann zusammen mit dem Fragebogen an mich zurückschicken und ich garantiere Ihnen, dass ich Fragebogen und Adresszettel sofort trennen werde, sobald ich das Kuvert öffne. Damit bleibt die Anonymität Ihrer Antworten zu 100% gewahrt. Wenn Sie Fragen an mich haben, rufen Sie mich einfach an oder schreiben Sie mir eine mail. Ich stehe ich Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung! Ich bedanke mich schon jetzt für Ihre Mithilfe und wünsche Ihnen alles Gute und einen schönen Sommer! Mit freundlichen Grüssen,
Tobias Schauerte
Anleitung zum Ausfüllen des Fragebogens Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren! Der Ihnen vorliegende Fragebogen besteht aus vier Seiten. Auf der ersten Seite kreuzen Sie bitte einfach nur das für Sie zutreffende an. Wenn Ihnen eine Frage zu persönlich erscheint, so lassen Sie diese einfach offen. Anschliessend finden Sie drei Matritzen. Nehmen Sie sich nun bitte Matrix 1. Sie sehen Zeilen (1-10) und Spalten (11-22). Zwischen den Zeilen und den Spalten sollen Sie nun Ursache-Wirkung Zusammenhänge erkennen und in das entsprechende Feld ein Kreuz setzen. Denken Sie aber bitte daran, dass es sich um ein Mehrfamilienhaus aus Holz handelt (siehe Bild), d.h. die tragenden Elemente des Hauses sind aus Holz.
Ein Beispiel aus Matrix 1 (nur ein kleiner Ausschnitt): In einem Mehrfamilienhaus aus Holz führt natürliches Material (1.) zu gesundem Wohnen (11.). Individuelle Architektur (2.) eines Mehrfamilienhauses aus Holz führt zu individuellem Wohnen (14.). Gesundes Raumklima (3.) in einem Mehrfamilienhaus aus Holz führt zu angenehemen und gemütlichem Wohnen (12.) und zu zu vielen Reparaturen (15.).
Matrix 1
1. Natürliches Material
11. 12. Gesundes Angenehmes Wohnen u. gemütliches Wohnen
X
2. Individuelle Architektur 3. Gesundes Raumklima
13. 14. 15. Hohe Individuelles Zu viele Qualitäts- u. Wohnen Reparaturen Sicherheitsstandards
X X
X
Ob dies nun stimmt oder nicht sei dahingestellt. Wichtig ist, dass Sie ein Kreuz dorthin setzten, wo Sie einen Ursache-Wirkung Zusammenhang für Mehrfamilienhäuser aus Holz sehen! Füllen Sie bitte Matrix 2 und 3 nach dem gleichen Prinzip aus.
1. In welchem Bundesland wohnen Sie? : Schlesw- Hamburg Bremen Nieder- NRW Hessen Rheinl. Saarland Holstein sachsen Pfalz
BadenW-berg
Bayern
Thüringen
Sachsen
SachsenAnhalt
Brandenburg
Berlin
Mecklenburg-VP
2. Wie viele Einwohner hat Ihre Gemeinde? Weniger als 5.000
5.000–49.999 50.000-99.999
100.000-500.000 Mehr als 500.000
3. Wie alt sind Sie? jünger als 20
4. Geschlecht:
20 - 34
35 - 49
männlich
50 - 64
65 oder älter
weiblich
5. Welcher Einkommensklasse gehören Sie an (€ pro Jahr)? Weniger als 10.000
10.000-19.999
6. Ich wohne zur Miete
20.000-29.999
30.000-50.000
Mehr als 50.000
Ich wohne in einer Eigentumswohnung
10. Energiesparend
9. Hohe Kosten (laufende u. Kaufpreis)
8. Niedrige Kosten (laufende u. Kaufpreis)
7. Hohe Konstruktions- u. Materialrisiken
6. Innovativ & Modern
5. Ungewöhnliche Wohnform
4. Warme Innenraumatmosphäre
3. Gesundes Raumklima
2. Individuelle Architektur
1. Natürliches Material
Matrix 1
n
t
s
d ar
d an
sW
o
tss ei
t ei ih e fr he gs rh n lt ic che n u ü i dl n e en d le lt n em u. S ohn ture nen seh htei ile Han gen e e e g t w h n n . a e r c e s o u a o m nr /A oh kt ät es W epar W ge lle N ie U lle V rän ätsa W mes alit l s l a e R s e t r d h eh Qu idu ele de he s Im nzie für nzie esc tivi i v ic un gen he e a g v i a a s t t s e e n o n u u r u in in in nd . G 2. A 3. H 4. I 5. Z 6. U 7. G 8. F 9. G 0. F 1. E 2. K 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
e hn
Kreativitätsanregend
Eingeschränkte Handlungsfreiheit
Finanzielle Vorteile
Gut für die Umwelt
Finanzielle Nachteile
Gutes Image/Ansehen
Unsicheres Wohnen
Zu viele Reparaturen
Individuelles Wohnen
Hohe Qualitäts u. Sicherheisstandards
Angenehmes u. Gemütliches Wohnen
Gesundes Wohnen
Matrix 2
en
s
d ar
d an
e st ih s W eits re f e s h h ng lic her n lu c üt n e i e d n e h t e il nd em . S hn re en an n se te wel teil H ege ne u. G s- u Wo ratu ohn /An ach r e r h t o m t a n o es W N V es U nk es itä sa ep s W hm ual uell e R eres mag elle die elle hrä ität e e I d Q d h sc zi zi iv el ür vi un gen he vi nsic utes nan ut f nan nge reat di es n o u i i i n G A H I Z U G F G F E K
n oh it
Kreativitätsanregend
Uneingeschränkte Handlungsfreiheit
Finanzielle Vorteile
Gut für die Umwelt
Gutes Image/Ansehen
Sicheres Wohnen
Wenige Reparaturen
Individuelles Wohnen
Hohe Qualitäts u. Sicherheisstandards
Angenehmes u. Gemütliches Wohnen
Gesundes Wohnen
Matrix 3 ed
iss
fn ür
h lic
in se t s en t b us eb litä irk eits ew tung L a w n h tb ch le n im squ tver her el ta n be lfüh en w c s i e e m elbs b b lb s S L h a e e U o d h e L he S osse hes he S un h w ass c es oh o r o o i p G S S H H G H H
g un
Växjö, 26 juni 2008
Hej! Mitt namn är Tobias Schauerte, jag är doktorand vid Växjö universitet och har lagt denna enkät i din brevlåda. Jag vill be dig att delta i min undersökning för min doktorsavhandling. I min avhandling gör jag en internationell jämförelse mellan tyskars och svenskars attityder gentemot flervåningshus i trä. Enkäten lämnas ut till 200 hushåll i varje län och jag hoppas att du vill svara på den. Utöver detta brev har du fått en enkät, en beskrivning om hur du ska fylla i enkäten, en liten adresslapp och ett svarskuvert. Om du fyller i enkäten och skicka tillbaka den senast den 10 Augusti 2008, så kommer jag att skicka dig en Triss lott som tack för hjälpen. För att kunna skicka lotten till dig måste du skriva din adress på medföljande adresslapp. Adressen kommer jag att separera ifrån enkäten så fort jag öppnar kuvertet, på så sätt garanteras att dina svar kan behandlas anonymt till 100%! Ring gärna i fall du har frågor angående enkäten, du kan även skicka epost till mig eller kontakta min handledare Anders Baudin. Jag tackar så mycket för att du vill hjälpa till och svara på enkäten! Med en önskan om en trevlig sommar, med vänlig hälsning,
Tobias Schauerte
Beskrivning för att fylla i enkäten Hej! Denna enkät har fyra sidor. På första sidan fyller du i personlig bakgrundinformation. All information kommer att behandlas anonymt. Tycker du ändå att en fråga är för personlig så får du gärna gå vidare till nästa fråga. Därefter finner du tre matriser. Om du nu tittar på första matrisen, så ser du rad 1 till 10 och kolumn 11 till 20. Innehållet i dessa rader och kolumner är resultatet av 30 djupintervjuer över hela Sverige. Du ska nu sätta ett kryss i en ruta där du tycker att det finns ett orsak-verkan samband mellan det som står i en rad och i en kolumn. OBS! Orsak-verkan sambandet gäller flervåningshus i trä! På bilden till vänster ser du ett sådant hus, dvs. husets stomme är i trä.
Här följer några exempel från matris 1: Ett flervåningshus i trä är modernt & estetiskt (rad 1), vilket leder till gott anseende & renommé (kolumn 14). Ett flervåningshus i trä är bra för miljön (rad 3) och därför värt pengarna (kolumn 12). Eftersom ett flervåningshus i trä är bra för miljön (rad 3), så betyder det ett aktivt miljöarbete (kolumn 13).
Matris 1
11. 12. 13. Hälsosamt Värt Aktivt boende pengarna miljöarbete
1. Modern & estetiskt
14. Gott renommé & god image
15. Behagligt & trivsamt boende
X
2. Typiskt svenskt boende 3. Bra för miljön
X
X
Om ovanstående exempel stämmer eller ej kan kanske diskuteras. Det som är avgörande är att DU sätter ett kryss i de rutor, där DU ser ett orsak-verkan samband gällande flervåningshus i trä! Därefter fyller du i matris 2 och 3 efter samma princip.
1. Vilket län bor du i? Blekinge
Kalmar
Dalarna
Gotland
Gävleborg
Kronoberg Norrbotten
Värmland Västerbotten
Västernorrland
Skåne
Västmanland
Halland
Jämtland
Jönköping
Stockholm Södermanland
Uppsala
Västra Götaland
Östergötland
Örebro
2. Hur många invånare bor i din stad/ort/ditt samhälle? Mindre än 5 000
5 000 10 000
10 000 20 000
20 000 50 000
35 – 49 år
50 – 64 år
50 000 100 000
3. Hur gammal är du? Yngre än 20 år
20 – 34 år
4. Vilket kön har du? Man
Kvinna
65 år eller äldre
Mer än 100 000
5. Hur hög är din årsinkomst i SEK? Lägre än 100 000
100 000 200 000
200 000 300 000
6. Vilken typ av boende har du idag? Hyresrätt
Bostadsrätt
300 000 500 000
Högre än 500 000
10. Lägre byggkostnader
9. Högre byggkostnader
8. Dyrare i drift/underhåll
7. Hälsosam inomhusmiljö
6. Naturligt material
5. Varm/trivsam inomhusmiljö
4. Hög konstruktions- och materialrisk
3. Bra för miljön
2. Typiskt svenskt boende
1.Modernt & estetiskt
Matris 1
e de ag oen et im t b rih f r d s go sam dela de ling lar e de n et & v k n d e e de i b c é tr na oe rna öar bo han för end m b t j & l a t a a l o l m i ll e ll b o ad m eng gt sa t m ren agli nsie vidu räns nsie ert k tt sl o rt p tiv a i a ä ä k o sä eh eg in in nd . H 2. V 3. A 4. G 5. B 6. F 7. I 8. B 9. F 0. O 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
Osäkert boende
Finansiella fördelar
Begränsad handlingsfrihet
Individuellt boende
Finansiella nackdelar
Behagligt & trivsamt boende
Gott renommé & god image
Aktivt miljöarbete
Värt pengarna
Hälsosamt boende
Matris 2
e de ag oen et ih im t b r r f od m la gs r e e te & g vsa kde nd lin ela d e e n d b tri nac bo han förd nde oe rna öar mé b t e j & l a a a t m eng mil nom ligt iell uel sad iell rt bo a d n e s t s s so rt p tiv tt r hag nan divi grä nan äke äl ä k o s e e i i n H V A G B F I B F O
Säkert boende
Finansiella fördelar
Obegränsad handlingsfrihet
Individuellt boende
Behagligt & trivsamt boende
Gott renommé & god image
Aktivt miljöarbete
Värt pengarna
Hälsosamt boende
Matris 3 od G
l hä el
i kl
de
n ga
m r v ör sk örve het f v li lvf g ig s yg rol iv ä ög r r j S T T H O
sa
al
ité ilj
ön
2
German response rates per federal state and region inclusion
Number of handed out questionnaires
Number of received answers
Response rate
Schleswig Holstein
200
32
16 %
north-west
Hamburg
100
16
16 %
north-west
Niedersachsen
200
14
7%
north-west
Bremen
100
15
15 %
north-west
Nordrhein-Westfalen
200
19
9.5 %
north-west
= 800
= 96
= 12 %
Hessen
200
23
11.5 %
south-west
Rheinland-Pfalz
200
9
4.5 %
south-west
Saarland
200
11
5.5 %
south-west
Baden-Württemberg
200
9
4.5 %
south-west
Bayern
200
32
16 %
south-west
= 1000
= 84
= 8.4 %
Thüringen
200
7
3.5 %
east
Sachsen-Anhalt
200
9
4.5 %
east
Sachsen
200
11
5.5 %
east
Brandenburg
200
7
3.5 %
east
Berlin
100
9
9%
east
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
200
6
3%
east
= 1100
= 49
= 4.45 %
229
7.9 %
Federal state
Total
2900
Grouped in region
Swedish response rates per county and land inclusion County
Number of handed out questionnaires
Number of received answers
Response rate
Blekinge län
200
22
Gotlands län
0
0
-
Götaland
Hallands län
200
23
11.5 %
Götaland
Jönköpings län
200
20
10 %
Götaland
Kalmar län
200
28
14 %
Götaland
Kronobergs län
200
47
23.5 %
Götaland
Skåne län
200
23
11.5 %
Götaland
Västra Götalands län
200
20
10 %
Götaland
Östergötlands län
200
21
10.5 %
Götaland
= 1600
= 204
= 12.8 %
Dalarnas län
200
32
16 %
Svealand
Stockholms län
200
18
9%
Svealand
Södermanlands län
200
16
8%
Svealand
Uppsala län
200
25
12.5 %
Svealand
Värmlands län
200
22
11 %
Svealand
Västmanlands län
200
17
8.5 %
Svealand
Örebro län
200
22
11 %
Svealand
= 1400
= 152
= 10.9 %
Gävleborgs län
200
31
15.5 %
Norrland
Jämtlands län
0
0
-
Norrland
Norrbottens län
200
2
1%
Norrland
Västerbottens län
200
41
20.5 %
Norrland
Västernorrlands län
200
73
36.5 %
Norrland
= 800
= 147
18.4 %
Norrland
= 3800
= 503
13.2 %
Total
11 %
Grouped in land Götaland
3
Distribution of received responses and number of observations per linkage to pass the third cut-off criterion. Germany: Age-groups: age
Younger than 35
35 - 49
50 - 64
65 and older
observations
79
53
67
30
Number of obser-vations to pass cut-off
27
18
23
10
Income-classes (in € per year): income
Less than 10 000
10 000 – 19 999 20 000 – 29 999 30 000 – 49 999
50 000 and more
observations
32
54
53
54
32
Number of observations to pass cut-off criterion 3
11
18
18
18
11
Regions (compare Appendix 2): Region
north-west
south-west
east
observations
96
84
49
Number of observations to pass cutoff criterion 3
32
28
17
Germany accumulated observations
229
Number of observations to pass cutoff criterion 3
10
Sweden: Age-groups: age
Younger than 35
35 - 49
50 - 64
65 and older
observations
118
97
143
145
22
18
26
27
Number of observations to pass cut-off criterion 3
Income-classes (in € per year): income
Less than 10 000
10 000 – 19 999 20 000 – 29 999 30 000 and more
observations
55
127
185
133
Number of observations to pass cut-off criterion 3
10
24
34
25
Lands (compare Appendix 2): Region
Götaland
Svealand
Norrland
observations
204
152
147
Number of observations to pass cutoff criterion 3
38
28
27
Sweden accumulated observations
503
Number of observations to pass cutoff criterion 3
10
4
Energy Saving
Higher Costs
Lower Costs
High Construction- & Material-Risk
Innovative & Modern
Not Common Housing
Warm Interior Atmosphere
Healthy Interior
Individual Architecture
Natural Material
Matrix 1 AGE, younger than 35 years 79 responses, Germany
52 26.1 1 0.5 56 42.4 7 6.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 2.5 2 1.8 6 4.0
36 18.1 29 15.6 45 34.1 63 58.9 3 2.1 16 9.8 0 0.0 2 2.5 1 0.9 5 3.4
3 1.5 9 4.8 2 1.5 0 0.0 1 0.7 22 13.5 3 2.0 1 1.2 9 8.1 5 3.4
9 4.5 54 29.0 0 0.0 4 3.7 49 34.0 28 17.2 2 1.3 0 0.0 4 3.6 1 0.7
9 4 4.5 2.0 3 2 1.6 1.1 1 3 0.8 2.3 0 0 0.0 0.0 3 8 2.1 5.6 4 0 2.5 0.0 43 40 28.3 26.3 3 3 3.7 3.7 7 2 6.3 1.8 0 0 0.0 0.0
21 10.6 26 14.0 3 2.3 7 6.5 20 13.9 42 25.8 0 0.0 1 1.2 6 5.4 16 10.7
6 3.0 14 7.5 1 0.8 3 2.8 15 10.4 9 5.5 45 29.6 4 4.9 61 55.0 1 0.7
31 15.6 0 0.0 8 6.1 2 1.9 2 1.4 1 0.6 0 0.0 2 2.5 4 3.6 58 38.4
11 2 5.5 1.0 0 5 0.0 2.7 2 0 1.5 0.0 5 0 4.7 0.0 0 12 0.0 8.3 5 2 3.1 1.2 0 19 0.0 17.5 62 1 76.5 1.2 0 15 0.0 13.5 53 4 35.6 2.7
15 7.5 43 23.1 11 8.3 16 15.0 31 21.5 34 20.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
y g ds rit u ty is n dar nt vi ec i e s t n ou tan n m io rea H -S f I tion es ct on le y C s r O a t i A g b t n s r e p a f nv age U rta Saf ng tio cto epu ant O E o a s f e v R e m nt si ar Fa & ak & isad r Th dva edo ng Com tyou Rep A i e W s H v e i Li t & ual ual any g A mag ial D e Fo ial A Fr s & d y n I n d e nc nc ir ti v ite lth asa gh Q ivi o M usi od na osi ina im nsp d e o o i ea o i l n I L F F P H G I T H P H
Inspires & Wakes Up Creativity
Limited Freedom Of Action
Financial Advantages
Positive For The Environment
Financial Disadvantages
Good Image & Reputation
Housing As A Factor Of Insecurity
Too Many Reparations
Individual Housing
High Quality- & Safety-Standards
Pleasant & Comfortable Housing
Healthy Living
Matrix 2 AGE, younger than 35 years 79 responses, Germany
40 33.9 13 10.6 7 4.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 10 14.7 3 4.5 31 30.1 10 17.5 0 0.0 8 7.8 23 18.7 26 16.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 24 35.3 0 0.0 15 14.6 18 31.6 0 0.0 33 32.4
63 48.5
7 4.3 1 0.7 0 0.0 1 1.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.8 2 3.3 4 3.9
8 6.2 3 2.5
1 0.8 0 0.0 2 1.6 2 1.2
3 2.3 0 0.0 1 0.8 3 1.8 34 25.0
16 12.3 21 17.8 28 22.8 35 21.5 0 0.0 0 0.0
3 11 4 3 11 2.3 8.5 3.1 2.3 8.5 0 4 0 0 33 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 28.0 24 3 22 3 3 2.4 19.5 2.4 17.9 2.4 18 3 1 2 59 11.0 1.8 0.6 1.2 36.2 2 65 0 0 34 0 1.5 47.8 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 1 1 38 0 0 37 0 1.3 1.3 49.4 0.0 0.0 48.1 0.0 4 0 0 8 7 1 0 13 5.9 0.0 0.0 11.8 10.3 1.5 0.0 19.1 1 2 18 2 3 1 37 0 1.5 3.0 26.7 3.0 4.5 1.5 55.2 0.0 4 0 1 36 8 4 4 0 3.9 0.0 1.0 35.0 7.8 3.9 3.9 0.0 3 1 1 12 0 1 1 9 5.3 1.8 1.8 21.1 0.0 1.8 1.8 15.8 0 9 29 3 16 2 0 0 0.0 14.8 47.5 4.9 26.2 3.3 0.0 0.0 44 0 0 10 0 0 0 3 43.1 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9
7 5.4 17 14.4 1 0.8
s rd da
y rit u t ity c iv en se t n ou tan n a o I i nm on ct Cre e H -S s r Of tati ges iro s A bl fety n p v a a rt Sa ng atio cto epu ant En age Of s U t fo a r i e R dv he an om k F & us pa m g in Co ity- Ho Re s A e & isa r T dv eed Wa v & al Li al any g A mag ial D e Fo ial A Fr s & y ant Qu idu I n e v c c ed h s lt h div o M usi od nan siti nan mit spir a a g e o o i e i o o i i l n n T H G F P I F L I H P H g
sin
Inspires & Wakes Up Creativity
Unlimited Freedom Of Action
Financial Advantagaes
Positive For The Environment
Good Image & Reputation
Secure Housing
Less Reparations
Individual Housing
High Quality- & Safety-Standards
Pleasant & Comfortable Housing
Healthy Living
Matrix 3 AGE, younger than 35 years 79 responses, Germany
32.4
3.9
43.1
0.0
0.0
4.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.9
53 22.1 65 32.5 35 21.2 36 18.6 30 19.7 42 27.8 28 22.0 19 14.1 30 20.0 7 10.4 23 14.6
17 7.1 30 15.0 6 3.6 34 17.5 27 17.8 9 6.0 11 8.7 2 1.5 38 25.3 8 11.9 46 29.3
49 20.4 46 23.0 42 25.5 33 17.0 46 30.3 36 23.8 19 15.0 7 5.2 47 31.3 8 11.9 19 12.1
5 2.1 16 8.0 5 3.0 62 32.0 12 7.9 2 1.3 26 20.5 0 0.0 18 12.0 8 11.9 48 30.6
5 2.1 7 3.5 55 33.3 0 0.0 33 21.7 51 33.8 3 2.4 0 0.0 8 5.3 25 37.3 0 0.0
25 10.4 1 0.5 5 3.0 0 0.0 3 2.0 0 0.0 1 0.8 71 52.6 0 0.0 10 14.9 2 1.3
19 7.9 18 9.0 2 1.2 26 13.4 0 0.0 3 2.0 39 30.7 13 9.6 3 2.0 1 1.5 16 10.2
ro vi n e eE ife bl h L a T ty f rt em O tion uri out fo te y s c a t tl h om un b e E li iz C F ea ua eal Of S rn A elf H ng g S Q e R i d in gh el lf- eed onc igh oo av i H C N G Fe H H Se
67 27.9 17 8.5 15 9.1 3 1.5 1 0.7 8 5.3 0 0.0 23 17.0 6 4.0 0 0.0 3 1.9
7.8
nm
en
t
Energy Saving
Higher Costs
Lower Costs
High Construction- & Material-Risk
Innovative & Modern
Not Common Housing
Warm Interior Atmosphere
Healthy Interior
Individual Architecture
Natural Material
Matrix 1 AGE, 35-49 years 53 responses, Germany
37 27.0 1 1.1 36 41.4 8 11.0 0 0.0 1 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 4.3
39 28.5 13 13.7 26 29.9 43 58.9 1 1.2 2 2.7 0 0.0 3 4.9 0 0.0 2 2.2
4 2.9 1 1.1 5 5.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 9.5 1 1.1 0 0.0 5 7.5 5 5.4
4 2.9 40 42.1 1 1.1 2 2.7 31 37.8 10 13.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.5 0 0.0
2 2 1.5 1.5 1 1 1.1 1.1 3 0 3.4 0.0 1 0 1.4 0.0 1 1 1.2 1.2 6 1 8.1 1.4 22 26 23.2 27.4 3 2 4.9 3.3 1 8 1.5 11.9 0 0 0.0 0.0
6 4.4 13 13.7 3 3.4 2 2.7 7 8.5 19 25.7 2 2.1 2 3.3 1 1.5 6 6.5
3 2.2 8 8.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 8.5 4 5.4 28 29.5 1 1.6 42 62.7 0 0.0
26 19.0 0 0.0 6 6.9 2 2.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 8.2 0 0.0 42 45.6
4 0 2.9 0.0 0 2 0.0 2.1 3 0 3.4 0.0 6 0 8.2 0.0 0 6 0.0 7.3 1 0 1.4 0.0 0 16 0.0 16.8 43 1 70.5 1.6 0 9 0.0 13.4 30 3 32.6 3.3
10 7.3 15 15.8 4 4.6 9 12.3 28 34.1 23 31.1 0 0.0 1 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0
y g ds rit u ty is n dar nt vi ec i e s t n ou tan n m io rea H -S f I tion es ct on le y C s r O a t i A g b t n s r e p a f nv age U rta Saf ng tio cto epu ant O E o a s f e v R e m nt si ar Fa & ak & isad r Th dva edo ng Com tyou Rep A i e W s H v e i Li t & ual ual any g A mag ial D e Fo ial A Fr s & d y n I n d e nc nc ir ti v ite lth asa gh Q ivi o M usi od na osi ina im nsp d e o o i ea o i l n I L F F P H G I T H P H
Inspires & Wakes Up Creativity
Limited Freedom Of Action
Financial Advantages
Positive For The Environment
Financial Disadvantages
Good Image & Reputation
Housing As A Factor Of Insecurity
Too Many Reparations
Individual Housing
High Quality- & Safety-Standards
Pleasant & Comfortable Housing
Healthy Living
Matrix 2 AGE, 35-49 years 53 responses, Germany
19 29.2 10 14.1 2 2.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.1 26 43.3 1 3.3 0 0.0 8 11.6
35 9 2 0 40.9 10.2 2.3 0.0 6 10 0 9.2 15.4 0.0 10 0 2 14.1 0.0 2.8 11 1 1 13.4 1.2 1.2 0 0 2 0.0 0.0 2.3 0 0 0 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 9 2 3 0 24.3 5.4 8.1 0.0 0 0 2 1 0.0 0.0 4.2 2.1 5 1 3 0 8.3 1.7 5.0 0.0 4 1 4 1 13.3 3.3 13.3 3.3 0 3 0 5 0.0 7.3 0.0 12.2 24 2 24 1 34.8 2.9 34.8 1.4
0 7 3 19 2 2 8 0.0 8.0 3.4 21.6 2.3 2.3 9.1 0 8 0 1 0 0 21 0.0 12.3 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 32.3 2 17 13 5 9 0 3 4.2 2.8 23.9 18.3 7.0 12.7 0.0 1 11 11 0 0 3 41 1.2 13.4 13.4 0.0 0.0 3.7 50.0 20 0 47 0 0 17 0 23.3 0.0 54.7 0.0 0.0 19.8 0.0 0 20 0 0 24 0 0.0 41.7 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 0 7 1 3 2 10 0.0 18.9 2.7 8.1 5.4 27.0 12 3 4 0 23 2 25.0 6.3 8.3 0.0 47.9 4.2 0 13 6 4 1 1 0.0 21.7 10.0 6.7 1.7 1.7 4 7 0 0 2 6 13.3 23.3 0.0 0.0 6.7 20.0 23 0 7 0 2 1 56.1 0.0 17.1 0.0 4.9 2.4 0 16 0 0 4 0 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.0
s rd da
y rit u t ity c iv en se t n ou tan n a o I i nm on ct Cre e H -S s r Of tati ges iro s A bl fety n p v a a rt Sa ng atio cto epu ant En age Of s U t fo a r i e R dv he an om k F & us pa m g in Co ity- Ho Re s A e & isa r T dv eed Wa v & al Li al any g A mag ial D e Fo ial A Fr s & y ant Qu idu I n e v c c ed h s lt h div o M usi od nan siti nan mit spir a a g e o o i e i o o i i l n n T H G F P I F L I H P H g
sin
Inspires & Wakes Up Creativity
Unlimited Freedom Of Action
Financial Advantagaes
Positive For The Environment
Good Image & Reputation
Secure Housing
Less Reparations
Individual Housing
High Quality- & Safety-Standards
Pleasant & Comfortable Housing
Healthy Living
Matrix 3 AGE, 35-49 years 53 responses, Germany
43 29.7 13 10.7 7 7.9 3 3.0 1 1.3 4 4.8 0 0.0 18 21.4 5 6.8 0 0.0 3 2.8
32 22.1 44 36.4 16 18.0 17 17.2 16 21.3 21 25.0 12 17.1 8 9.5 12 11.2 3 6.4 21 19.8
11 7.6 23 19.0 4 4.5 18 18.2 10 13.3 3 3.6 7 10.0 3 3.6 23 31.3 4 8.5 28 26.4
29 20.0 28 23.1 20 22.5 18 18.2 24 32.0 16 19.0 13 18.6 8 9.5 22 29.7 6 12.8 15 14.2
5 3.4 5 4.1 3 3.4 34 34.4 2 2.7 1 1.1 13 18.6 1 1.2 5 6.8 4 8.5 26 24.5
0 0.0 0 0.0 31 34.8 0 0.0 19 25.3 33 39.3 3 4.3 0 0.0 5 6.8 20 42.6 0 0.0
14 9.7 0 0.0 4 4.5 0 0.0 3 4.0 0 0.0 3 4.3 41 48.8 0 0.0 10 21.3 1 0.9
11 7.6 8 6.6 4 4.5 9 9.1 0 0.0 6 7.1 19 27.1 5 6.0 2 2.7 0 0.0 12 11.3
ro vi n e eE ife bl h L a T ty f rt em O tion uri out fo te y s c a t tl h om un b e E li iz C F ea ua eal Of S rn A elf H ng g S Q e R i d in gh el lf- eed onc igh oo av i H C N G Fe H H Se
nm
en
t
Energy Saving
Higher Costs
Lower Costs
High Construction- & Material-Risk
Innovative & Modern
Not Common Housing
Warm Interior Atmosphere
Healthy Interior
Individual Architecture
Natural Material
Matrix 1 AGE, 50-64 years 67 responses, Germany
46 25.3 3 2.5 44 42.3 17 17.0 1 1.0 2 1.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.1 10 9.8
31 17.0 10 8.2 36 34.6 49 49.0 4 4.0 3 2.8 0 0.0 4 7.0 1 1.1 5 4.9
1 0.5 2 1.6 4 3.8 5 5.0 1 1.0 13 12.1 4 2.9 0 0.0 7 7.6 3 2.9
5 2.7 45 36.9 2 1.9 6 6.0 27 27.0 19 17.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 2.2 2 2.0
19 13 10.4 7.1 3 1 2.5 0.8 3 0 2.9 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 10 10 10.0 10.0 1 1 0.9 0.9 36 35 26.5 25.7 5 1 8.8 1.8 3 9 3.3 9.8 1 1 1.0 1.0
8 4.4 18 14.8 1 1,0 6 6.0 13 13.0 20 18.7 2 0.7 2 3.5 4 4.3 4 3.9
11 6.0 26 21.3 1 1,0 3 3.0 14 14.0 8 7.5 38 27.9 2 3.5 45 48.9 0 0.0
35 19.2 1 0.8 9 8.7 4 4.0 2 2.0 9 8.4 0 0.0 6 10.5 2 2.2 44 43.1
2 1 1.1 0.5 1 0 0.8 0.0 1 1 1.0 1.0 2 1 2.0 1.0 1 0 1.0 0.0 6 2 5.6 1.9 2 20 1.5 14.7 34 2 59.6 3.5 2 15 2.2 16.3 30 0 29.4 0.0
10 5.5 22 18.0 2 1.9 7 7.0 17 17.0 23 21.5 0 0.0 1 1.8 1 1.1 2 2.0
y g ds rit u ty is n dar nt vi ec i e s t n ou tan n m io rea H -S f I tion es ct on le y C s r O a t i A g b t n s r e p a f nv age U rta Saf ng tio cto epu ant O E o a s f e v R e m nt si ar Fa & ak & isad r Th dva edo ng Com tyou Rep A i e W s H v e i Li t & ual ual any g A mag ial D e Fo ial A Fr s & d y n I n d e nc nc ir ti v ite lth asa gh Q ivi o M usi od na osi ina im nsp d e o o i ea o i l n I L F F P H G I T H P H
Inspires & Wakes Up Creativity
Limited Freedom Of Action
Financial Advantages
Positive For The Environment
Financial Disadvantages
Good Image & Reputation
Housing As A Factor Of Insecurity
Too Many Reparations
Individual Housing
High Quality- & Safety-Standards
Pleasant & Comfortable Housing
Healthy Living
Matrix 2 AGE, 50-64 years 67 responses, Germany
24 33.3 4 6.1 4 4.0 0 0.0 2 3.0 3 6.1 2 3.8 24 38.7 2 8.3 0 0.0 10 15.9 6 9.1 21 21.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 15 30.6 0 0.0 5 8.1 6 25.0 0 0.0 23 33.8
38 38.0
5 5.1 2 2.0 0 0.0 2 4.1 0 0.0 1 1.6 0 0.0 2 3.8 2 2.9
9 9.0 3 4.2
0 0.0 2 3.0 4 8.2 1 1.9 3 4.8 4 16.7 0 0.0 18 26.5
8 8.0 14 19.4 4 6.1
1 1.5 0 0.0 1 1.9 1 1.6 1 4.2 4 7.7 0 0.0
0 0.0 0 0.0 2 3.0 1 1.0
10 10.0 11 15.3 24 36.4 22 22.2 0 0.0 0 0.0
7 13 3 0 9 7.0 13.0 3.0 0.0 9.0 0 0 0 0 20 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.8 9 4 8 1 4 13.6 6.1 12.1 1.5 6.1 11 0 0 3 33 11.1 0.0 0.0 3.7 33.3 49 1 2 18 0 49.0 1.0 2.0 18.0 0.0 25 0 1 35 0 37.9 0.0 1.5 53.0 0.0 0 2 7 3 0 13 0.0 4.1 14.3 6.1 0.0 26.5 16 1 1 0 31 0 30.2 1.9 1.9 0.0 58.5 0.0 0 17 4 2 2 3 0.0 27.4 6.5 3.2 3.2 4.8 0 6 0 1 1 3 0.0 25.0 0.0 4.2 4.2 12.5 31 2 11 0 1 1 59.6 3.8 21.2 0.0 1.9 1.9 0 9 1 0 3 2 0.0 13.2 1.6 0.0 4.4 2.9
3 3.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 2.0 28 28.0
s rd da
y rit u t ity c iv en se t n ou tan n a o I i nm on ct Cre e H -S s r Of tati ges iro s A bl fety n p v a a rt Sa ng atio cto epu ant En age Of s U t fo a r i e R dv he an om k F & us pa m g in Co ity- Ho Re s A e & isa r T dv eed Wa v & al Li al any g A mag ial D e Fo ial A Fr s & y ant Qu idu I n e v c c ed h s lt h div o M usi od nan siti nan mit spir a a g e o o i e i o o i i l n n T H G F P I F L I H P H g
sin
Inspires & Wakes Up Creativity
Unlimited Freedom Of Action
Financial Advantagaes
Positive For The Environment
Good Image & Reputation
Secure Housing
Less Reparations
Individual Housing
High Quality- & Safety-Standards
Pleasant & Comfortable Housing
Healthy Living
Matrix 3 AGE, 50-64 years 67 responses, Germany
2.9
26.5
0.0
0.0
13.2
1.6
0.0
4.4
2.9
54 27.3 8 5.9 4 3.4 4 3.3 3 2.8 1 0.8 1 1.2 11 11.3 2 1.7 1 1.7 7 7.3
39 19.7 54 39.7 28 24.1 16 13.0 23 21.3 23 19.2 16 19.3 10 10.3 18 15.3 6 10.3 17 17.7
14 7.1 26 19.1 6 5.2 22 17.9 17 15.7 17 14.2 7 8.4 3 3.1 23 19.5 14 24.1 24 25.0
37 18.7 30 22.1 25 21.6 26 21.1 27 25.0 26 21.7 16 19.3 13 13.4 35 29.7 13 22.4 16 16.7
11 5.6 8 5.9 7 6.0 35 28.5 4 3.7 7 5.8 12 14.5 3 3.1 16 13.6 4 6.9 29 19.8
8 4.0 0 0.0 34 29.3 0 0.0 28 25.9 40 33.3 1 1.2 2 2.1 15 12.7 14 24.1 2 2.1
18 9.1 2 1.5 5 4.3 4 3.3 5 4.6 0 0.0 4 4.8 51 52.6 4 3.4 4 6.9 3 3.1
17 8.6 8 5.9 7 6.0 16 13.0 1 0.9 6 5.0 26 31.3 4 4.1 5 4.2 2 3.4 8 8.3
ro vi n e eE ife bl h L a T ty f rt em O tion uri out fo te y s c a t tl h om un b e E li iz C F ea ua eal Of S rn A elf H ng g S Q e R i d in gh el lf- eed onc igh oo av i H C N G Fe H H Se
15.9 33.8
nm
en
t
Energy Saving
Higher Costs
Lower Costs
High Construction- & Material-Risk
Innovative & Modern
Not Common Housing
Warm Interior Atmosphere
Healthy Interior
Individual Architecture
Natural Material
Matrix 1 AGE, 65 years and older 30 responses, Germany
18 36.7 1 2.4 11 33.3 7 21.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 7.5
5 10.2 4 9.8 16 48.5 11 34.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
1 2.0 1 2.4 1 3.0 0 0.0 2 7.4 2 6.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 4.2 5 12.5
3 6.1 18 43.9 2 6.1 1 3.1 7 25.9 6 20.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
3 0 6.1 0.0 1 0 2.4 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 1 0.0 3.7 0 0 0.0 0.0 9 8 25.7 22.9 2 2 6.7 6.7 1 1 4.2 4.2 0 0 0.0 0.0
1 2.0 6 14.6 0 0.0 4 12.5 7 25.9 12 41.4 0 0.0 1 3.3 0 0.0 2 5.0
2 4.1 1 2.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.7 1 3.4 10 28.6 1 3.3 18 75.0 0 0.0
12 24.5 0 0.0 2 6.1 0 0.0 1 3.7 2 6.9 0 0.0 1 3.3 0 0.0 17 42.5
1 1 2.0 2.0 0 1 0.0 2.4 0 0 0.0 0.0 5 0 15.6 0.0 0 2 0.0 7.4 1 0 3.4 0.0 1 5 2.9 14.3 21 1 70.0 3.3 0 3 0.0 12.5 12 1 30.0 2.5
2 4.1 8 19.5 1 3.0 4 12.5 6 22.2 5 17.2 2 5.7 1 3.3 2 0.0 0 0.0
y g ds rit u ty is n dar nt vi ec i e s t n ou tan n m io rea H -S f I tion es ct on le y C s r O a t i A g b t n s r e p a f nv age U rta Saf ng tio cto epu ant O E o a s f e v R e m nt si ar Fa & ak & isad r Th dva edo ng Com tyou Rep A i e W s H v e i Li t & ual ual any g A mag ial D e Fo ial A Fr s & d y n I n d e nc nc ir ti v ite lth asa gh Q ivi o M usi od na osi ina im nsp d e o o i ea o i l n I L F F P H G I T H P H
Inspires & Wakes Up Creativity
Limited Freedom Of Action
Financial Advantages
Positive For The Environment
Financial Disadvantages
Good Image & Reputation
Housing As A Factor Of Insecurity
Too Many Reparations
Individual Housing
High Quality- & Safety-Standards
Pleasant & Comfortable Housing
Healthy Living
Matrix 2 AGE, 65 years and older 30 responses, Germany
14 46.7 3 10.0 3 8.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 4.0 0 0.0 9 45.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 25.9
3 8.1 0 0.0
4 10.8 4 13.3 3 10.0
3 10.0 8 1 22.9 2.9 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 3 6 20.0 12.0 24.0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0 2 5.0 0.0 10.0 2 1 1 16.6 8.3 8.3 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 2 8 25.9 7.4 29.6
12 32.4
0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 7.7 0 0.0
0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
0 2 0 9 2 2 3 0.0 5.4 0.0 24.3 5.4 5.4 8.1 0 4 0 0 0 0 8 0.0 13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.7 0 8 3 3 5 1 1 0.0 26.7 10.0 10.0 16.7 3.3 3.3 0 8 2 0 0 0 13 0.0 22.9 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.1 10 0 18 1 0 5 0 29.4 0.0 52.9 2.9 0.0 14.7 0.0 0 9 0 1 11 0 0.0 40.9 0.0 4.5 50.0 0.0 0 0 2 1 0 7 0.0 0.0 8.0 4.0 0.0 28.0 3 0 0 1 8 0 25.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 66.7 0.0 0 4 0 1 0 3 0.0 20.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 15.0 0 3 0 0 0 5 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 41.6 9 0 2 0 0 1 75.0 0.0 16.7 0.0 0.0 8.3 0 2 0 0 1 0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0
s rd da
y rit u t ity c iv en se t n ou tan n a o I i nm on ct Cre e H -S s r Of tati ges iro s A bl fety n p v a a rt Sa ng atio cto epu ant En age Of s U t fo a r i e R dv he an om k F & us pa m g in Co ity- Ho Re s A e & isa r T dv eed Wa v & al Li al any g A mag ial D e Fo ial A Fr s & y ant Qu idu I n e v c c ed h s lt h div o M usi od nan siti nan mit spir a a g e o o i e i o o i i l n n T H G F P I F L I H P H g
sin
Inspires & Wakes Up Creativity
Unlimited Freedom Of Action
Financial Advantagaes
Positive For The Environment
Good Image & Reputation
Secure Housing
Less Reparations
Individual Housing
High Quality- & Safety-Standards
Pleasant & Comfortable Housing
Healthy Living
Matrix 3 AGE, 65 years and older 30 responses, Germany
20 38.5 4 12.1 2 7.1 3 7.9 1 4.8 2 6.5 2 7.1 4 12.1 1 5.0 1 10.0 2 6.7
13 25.0 18 54.5 3 10.7 6 15.8 4 19.0 8 25.8 0 0.0 1 3.0 4 20.0 0 0.0 7 23.3
3 3.8 4 12.1 2 7.1 5 13.2 1 4.8 1 3.2 1 3.6 1 3.0 4 20.0 0 0.0 10 33.3
9 17.3 6 18.2 9 32.1 9 23.7 3 14.3 6 19.4 3 10.7 0 0.0 7 35.0 1 10.0 2 6.7
1 1.9 1 3.0 0 0.0 8 21.1 0 0.0 1 3.2 7 25.0 1 3.0 1 5.0 1 10.0 5 16.7
1 1.9 0 0.0 11 39.3 2 5.3 9 42.9 13 41.9 0 0.0 1 3.0 1 5.0 4 40.0 0 0.0
3 5.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 9.5 0 0.0 1 3.6 24 72.7 1 5.0 3 30.0 2 6.7
3 5.8 0 0.0 1 3.6 5 13.2 1 4.8 0 0.0 14 50.0 1 3.0 1 5.0 0 0.0 2 6.7
ro vi n e eE ife bl h L a T ty f rt em O tion uri out fo te y s c a t tl h om un b e E li iz C F ea ua eal Of S rn A elf H ng g S Q e R i d in gh el lf- eed onc igh oo av i H C N G Fe H H Se
nm
en
t
10. Energy Saving
9. Higher Costs
8. Lower Costs
7. High Construction- & Material-Risk
6. Innovative & Modern
5. Not Common Housing
4. Warm Interior Atmosphere
3. Healthy Interior
2. Individual Architecture
1. Natural Material
Matrix 1 INCOME, less than 10.000 €/year 32 responses, Germany
17 25.4 1 1.8 20 38.5 8 20.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 7.5
13 19.4 10 17.9 12 23.1 19 47.5 0 0.0 6 11.1 0 0.0 2 5.9 0 0.0 4 7.5
2 3.0 0 0.0 3 5.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 11.1 1 1.6 1 2.9 5 12.5 4 7.5
3 4.5 16 28.6 1 1.9 2 5.0 19 41.3 7 13.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.5 0 0.0
3 3 4.5 4.5 1 0 1.8 0.0 1 1 1.9 1.9 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 2 0.0 4.3 2 1 3.7 1.9 17 13 27.9 21.3 3 1 8.8 2.9 4 2 10.0 5.0 0 0 0.0 0.0
4 6.0 7 12.5 1 1.9 1 2.5 4 8.7 11 20.4 0 0.0 2 5.9 2 5.0 4 7.5
1 1.5 4 7.1 0 0.0 1 2.5 3 6.5 4 7.4 23 37.7 2 5.9 22 55.0 0 0.0
13 19.4 0 0.0 6 11.5 2 5.0 1 2.2 2 3.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 18 34.0
3 2 4.5 3.0 0 3 0.0 5.4 1 0 1.9 0.0 3 0 7.5 0.0 0 4 0.0 8.7 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 7 0.0 11.5 22 1 64.7 2.9 0 4 0.0 10.0 18 1 34.0 1.9
3 4.5 14 25.0 6 11.5 4 10.0 13 28.3 15 27.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
ity g ds ur in dar t ity c s iv en se t ou tan n a n H -S e nm f I tion es tio Cr le y s ro s O c t a i g b t n r e p a v A e to rta Saf ng pu tio nt En tag Of es U fo ra Fac Re dva i e n s a & h g ak om yva dom ou Rep A e & isa r T in d C t W s H v e i Li t & ual ual any g A mag ial D e Fo ial A Fre s & y n I n d e c c v Q h sa lt h divi o M usi od nan siti nan ited spir a a g e o o i e o i o i l m n n . H 2. P 3. H 4. I 5. T 6. H 7. G 8. F 9. P 0. F 1. I 2. I 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
22. Inspires & Wakes Up Creativity
21. Limited Freedom Of Action
20. Financial Advantages
19. Positive For The Environment
18. Financial Disadvantages
17. Good Image & Reputation
16. Housing As A Factor Of Insecurity
15. Too Many Reparations
14. Individual Housing
13. High Quality- & Safety-Standards
12. Pleasant & Comfortable Housing
11. Healthy Living
Matrix 2 INCOME, less than 10.000 €/year 32 responses, Germany
17 37.8 7 16.7 5 8.6 0 0.0 1 3.0 1 4.5 2 6.3 14 33.3 3 11.5 0 0.0 9 17.0 7 16.7 13 22.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 11 50.0 0 0.0 4 9.5 10 38.5 0 0.0 16 30.2
22 41.5
0 0.0 1 1.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.6 3 5.7
5 9.4 2 4.4
1 1.9 0 0.0 1 2.4 0 0.0
1 3 1 8 1 2 5 1.9 5.7 1.9 15.1 1.9 3.8 9.4 0 4 0 2 0 0 10 0.0 8.9 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 23.8 0 10 7 2 7 0 1 0.0 23.8 16.7 4.8 16.7 0.0 2.4 1 8 6 3 1 1 20 1.7 13.8 10.3 5.2 1.7 1.7 34.5 0 17 0 23 1 1 14 0 0.0 29.8 0.0 40.4 1.8 1.8 24.6 0.0 0 0 0 15 0 0 17 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.5 0.0 0.0 51.5 0.0 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 4 13.6 0.0 0.0 9.1 4.5 0.0 0.0 18.2 0 0 10 1 1 1 17 0 0.0 0.0 31.3 3.1 3.1 3.1 53.1 0.0 5 0 1 7 4 3 1 3 11.9 0.0 2.4 16.7 9.5 7.1 2.4 7.1 1 2 1 7 0 1 0 1 3.8 7.7 3.8 26.9 0.0 3.8 0.0 3.8 0 5 15 1 6 0 0 0 0.0 17.9 53.6 3.6 21.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 35.8 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8
4 7.5 10 23.8 0 0.0
i ty g ds ur in dar t ity c s iv en se t n ou tan n a I io H S on nm ct Cre le tys r Of tati ges iro s A b n e p rta Saf ng atio cto epu anta Env age Of s U fo r R dv he ant om ke Fa m - & ousi epa g a a o & n A C lity e Dis or T Adv reed W H yR s vi g i l A a al L t & ua ua an g m e F ial d F s & i y th asan h Q ivid M usin od I anc itiv anc ite pire l o o s m d s n e n ig o ea H . Pl . H . In . To . H . G . Fi . Po . Fi . Li . In . 9 5 7 1 4 8 1 2 6 0 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
22. Inspires & Wakes Up Creativity
21. Unlimited Freedom Of Action
20. Financial Advantagaes
19. Positive For The Environment
17. Good Image & Reputation
16. Secure Housing
15. Less Reparations
14. Individual Housing
13. High Quality- & Safety-Standards
12. Pleasant & Comfortable Housing
11. Healthy Living
Matrix 3 INCOME, less than 10.000 €/year 32 responses Germany
5.7
35.8
0.0
0.0
7.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.8
t en m n iro v n
26 26.8 7 9.7 6 11.3 3 3.4 2 4.2 3 5.8 1 2.2 9 16.7 3 5.4 0 0.0 3 4.9
19 19.6 25 34.7 11 20.8 10 14.5 11 22.9 17 32.7 6 13.0 7 13.0 7 12.5 1 5.6 11 18.0
7 7.2 12 16.7 1 1.9 15 21.7 7 14.6 2 3.8 5 10.9 3 5.6 18 32.1 1 5.6 17 27.9
15 15.5 11 15.3 14 26.4 10 14.5 13 27.1 14 26.9 14 30.4 6 11.1 17 30.4 0 0.0 10 16.4
3 3.1 7 9.7 0 0.0 20 29.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 15.2 1 1.9 5 8.9 0 0.0 12 19.7
6 6.2 2 2.8 18 34.0 0 0.0 11 22.9 14 26.9 4 8.7 0 0.0 3 5.4 11 61.1 1 1.6
13 13.4 1 1.4 2 3.8 0 0.0 3 6.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 27 50.0 1 1.8 4 22.2 1 1.6
8 8.2 7 9.7 1 1.9 11 15.9 1 2.1 2 3.8 9 19.6 1 1.9 2 3.6 1 5.6 6 9.8
E e fe bl he Li y T tr a m f t O tion uri out ee fo t y s c h a m b n e it E lt z Co Fu ual eali ea f S rn A elf H ng g O S e d i in gh Q lf-R ed nc igh el i e av oo o e e . G 4. F 5. H 6. H 7. S 8. N 9. C 0. H 2 2 2 23 2 2 2 3
17.0 30.2
10. Energy Saving
9. Higher Costs
8. Lower Costs
7. High Construction- & Material-Risk
6. Innovative & Modern
5. Not Common Housing
4. Warm Interior Atmosphere
3. Healthy Interior
2. Individual Architecture
1. Natural Material
Matrix 1 INCOME, 10.000-19.999 €/year 54 responses, Germany
14 12.1 1 0.8 35 38.0 9 10.7 1 1.1 1 1.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 2.7 6 6.0
26 22.4 18 15.3 35 38.0 40 47.6 1 1.1 5 4.8 0 0.0 5 7.8 0 0.0 4 4.0
6 5.2 4 3.4 1 1.1 0 0.0 1 1.1 11 10.5 2 2.1 0 0.0 7 9.3 3 3.0
4 3.4 43 36.4 2 2.2 5 6.0 30 34.1 17 16.2 2 2.1 0 0.0 2 2.7 2 2.0
3 4 2.6 3.4 3 2 2.5 1.7 2 1 2.2 1.1 1 0 1.2 0.0 3 6 3.4 6.8 5 0 4.8 0.0 24 29 24.7 29.9 2 3 3.1 4.7 5 5 6.7 6.7 0 0 0.0 0.0
8 6.9 12 10.2 2 2.2 6 7.1 10 11.4 22 21.0 2 2.1 1 1.6 4 5.3 9 9.0
3 2.6 11 9.3 1 1,1 3 3.6 7 8.0 7 6.7 25 25.8 5 7.8 39 52.0 0 0.0
30 3 2 25.9 2.6 1.7 1 0 2 0.8 0.0 1.7 8 2 0 8.7 2.2 0.0 3 5 0 3.6 6.0 0.0 2 0 7 2.3 0.0 8.0 4 7 2 3.8 6.7 1.9 0 1 12 0.0 1.0 12.4 7 40 0 10.9 62.5 0.0 2 0 9 2.7 0.0 12.0 41 30 4 41.0 30.0 4.0
13 11.2 21 17.8 3 3.3 12 14.3 20 22.7 24 22.9 0 0.0 1 1.6 0 0.0 1 1.0
ity g ds ur in dar t ity c s iv en se t ou tan n a n H -S e nm f I tion es tio Cr le y s ro s O c t a i g b t n r e p a v A e to rta Saf ng pu tio nt En tag Of es U fo ra Fac Re dva i e n s a & h g ak om yva dom ou Rep A e & isa r T in d C t W s H v e i Li t & ual ual any g A mag ial D e Fo ial A Fre s & y n I n d e c c v Q h sa lt h divi o M usi od nan siti nan ited spir a a g e o o i e o i o i l m n n . H 2. P 3. H 4. I 5. T 6. H 7. G 8. F 9. P 0. F 1. I 2. I 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
22. Inspires & Wakes Up Creativity
21. Limited Freedom Of Action
20. Financial Advantages
19. Positive For The Environment
18. Financial Disadvantages
17. Good Image & Reputation
16. Housing As A Factor Of Insecurity
15. Too Many Reparations
14. Individual Housing
13. High Quality- & Safety-Standards
12. Pleasant & Comfortable Housing
11. Healthy Living
Matrix 2 INCOME, 10.000-19.999 €/year 54 responses, Germany
21 26.9 10 11.0 6 5.8 0 0.0 1 1.7 6 9.5 3 6.0 21 33.3 3 8.1 0 0.0 8 11.0 13 14.3 17 16.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 15 23.8 0 0.0 6 9.5 8 21.6 0 0.0 24 32.9
32 35.6
3 2.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 6.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.7 1 2.3 1 1.4
7 7.8 4 5.1
0 0.0 0 0.0 4 4.4 3 2.9
3 8 3 17 5 1 11 3.3 8.9 3.3 18.9 5.6 1.1 12.2 0 12 0 3 0 0 24 0.0 15.4 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 30.8 2 22 14 5 13 3 2 2.2 24.2 15.4 5.5 14.3 3.3 2.2 3 17 16 0 0 2 36 2.9 16.5 15.5 0.0 0.0 1.9 35.0 2 26 0 41 0 1 21 0 2.2 28.6 0.0 45.1 0.0 1.1 23.1 0.0 2 2 0 25 0 1 28 0 3.4 3.4 0.0 42.4 0.0 1.7 47.5 0.0 9 0 0 6 4 6 1 12 14.3 0.0 0.0 9.5 6.3 9.5 1.6 19.0 0 1 15 1 4 1 25 0 0.0 2.0 30.0 2.0 8.0 2.0 50.0 0.0 1 0 0 17 8 4 4 2 1.6 0.0 0.0 27.0 12.7 6.3 6.3 3.2 3 1 2 11 0 0 0 8 8.1 2.7 5.4 29.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.6 0 6 22 2 9 2 0 1 0.0 14.0 51.1 4.7 20.9 4.7 0.0 2.3 28 0 0 8 0 0 2 2 38.4 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 2.7
3 3.3 14 17.9 3 3.3
i ty g ds ur in dar t ity c s iv en se t n ou tan n a I io H S on nm ct Cre le tys r Of tati ges iro s A b n e p rta Saf ng atio cto epu anta Env age Of s U fo r R dv he ant om ke Fa m - & ousi epa g a a o & n A C lity e Dis or T Adv reed W H yR s vi g i l A a al L t & ua ua an g m e F ial d F s & i y th asan h Q ivid M usin od I anc itiv anc ite pire l o o s m d s n e n ig o ea H . Pl . H . In . To . H . G . Fi . Po . Fi . Li . In . 9 5 7 1 4 8 1 2 6 0 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
22. Inspires & Wakes Up Creativity
21. Unlimited Freedom Of Action
20. Financial Advantagaes
19. Positive For The Environment
17. Good Image & Reputation
16. Secure Housing
15. Less Reparations
14. Individual Housing
13. High Quality- & Safety-Standards
12. Pleasant & Comfortable Housing
11. Healthy Living
Matrix 3 INCOME, 10.000 - 19.999 €/year 54 responses, Germany
42 24.7 13 9.6 8 7.8 5 4.2 1 1.1 3 3.4 2 2.5 14 17.1 4 4.9 1 2.4 5 4.6
35 20.6 46 33.8 18 17.6 21 17.6 18 20.5 18 20.4 9 11.3 8 9.8 15 18.5 4 9.5 16 14.7
13 7.6 21 15.4 5 4.9 21 17.6 14 15.9 4 4.5 5 6.3 1 1.2 19 23.5 4 9.5 26 23.9
34 20.0 29 21.3 23 22.5 20 16.8 25 28.4 22 25.0 12 15.0 8 8.9 29 35.8 7 16.7 16 14.7
10 5.9 10 7.4 7 6.9 34 28.6 3 3.4 2 2.3 15 18.8 2 2.4 7 8.6 3 7.1 29 26.6
2 1.2 3 2.2 35 34.3 0 0.0 21 23.9 34 38.6 2 2.5 1 1.2 3 3.7 14 33.3 1 0.9
17 10.0 0 0.0 4 3.9 2 1.7 6 6.8 0 0.0 6 7.5 43 52.4 1 1.2 9 21.4 5 4.6
17 10.0 14 15.4 2 2.0 16 13.4 0 0.0 5 5.7 29 36.3 5 6.1 3 3.7 0 0.0 11 10.1
E e fe bl he Li y T tr a m f t O tion uri out ee fo t y s c h a m b n e it E lt z Co Fu ual eali ea f S rn A elf H ng g O S e d i in gh Q lf-R ed nc igh el i e av oo o e e . G 4. F 5. H 6. H 7. S 8. N 9. C 0. H 2 2 2 23 2 2 2 3
t en m n iro v n
10. Energy Saving
9. Higher Costs
8. Lower Costs
7. High Construction- & Material-Risk
6. Innovative & Modern
5. Not Common Housing
4. Warm Interior Atmosphere
3. Healthy Interior
2. Individual Architecture
1. Natural Material
Matrix 1 INCOME, 20.000 - 29.999 €/year 53 responses, Germany
36 22.5 1 1.0 31 38.8 11 15.7 0 0.0 1 1.2 0 0.0 1 2.3 0 0.0 4 4.6
35 21.9 12 12.0 30 37.5 35 50.0 1 1.2 3 3.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.1
1 0.6 1 1.0 3 3.8 0 0.0 2 2.4 8 9.9 2 2.0 0 0.0 4 6.0 3 3.4
8 5.0 36 36.0 1 1.3 3 4.3 25 30.1 14 17.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.5 1 1.1
14 5 8.8 3.1 2 0 2.0 0.0 1 0 1.3 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 5 6 6.0 7.2 3 0 3.7 0.0 25 22 25.3 22.2 1 1 2.3 2.3 1 6 1.5 9.0 0 0 0.0 0.0
8 5.0 19 19.0 3 3.8 4 5.7 10 12.0 25 30.9 0 0.0 1 2.3 2 3.0 8 9.2
8 5.0 8 8.0 0 0.0 1 1.4 11 13.3 3 3.7 32 32.3 0 0.0 36 53.7 0 0.0
26 16.3 0 0.0 5 6.3 0 0.0 1 1.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 9.1 1 1.5 39 44.8
6 0 3.8 0.0 0 2 0.0 2.0 2 0 2.5 0.0 5 0 7.1 0.0 0 4 0.0 4.8 3 0 3.7 0.0 1 16 1.0 16.2 34 1 77.3 2.3 0 15 0.0 22.4 27 3 31.0 3.4
13 8.1 19 19.0 4 5.0 11 15.7 18 21.7 21 25.9 1 1.0 1 2.3 1 1.5 1 1.1
ity g ds ur in dar t ity c s iv en se t ou tan n a n H -S e nm f I tion es tio Cr le y s ro s O c t a i g b t n r e p a v A e to rta Saf ng pu tio nt En tag Of es U fo ra Fac Re dva i e n s a & h g ak om yva dom ou Rep A e & isa r T in d C t W s H v e i Li t & ual ual any g A mag ial D e Fo ial A Fre s & y n I n d e c c v Q h sa lt h divi o M usi od nan siti nan ited spir a a g e o o i e o i o i l m n n . H 2. P 3. H 4. I 5. T 6. H 7. G 8. F 9. P 0. F 1. I 2. I 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
22. Inspires & Wakes Up Creativity
21. Limited Freedom Of Action
20. Financial Advantages
19. Positive For The Environment
18. Financial Disadvantages
17. Good Image & Reputation
16. Housing As A Factor Of Insecurity
15. Too Many Reparations
14. Individual Housing
13. High Quality- & Safety-Standards
12. Pleasant & Comfortable Housing
11. Healthy Living
Matrix 2 INCOME, 20.000 - 29.999 €/year 53 responses, Germany
24 38.7 4 7.0 3 3.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 8.3 0 0.0 21 38.9 2 8.9 0 0.0 2 4.3 10 17.5 17 20.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 22.2 0 0.0 9 16.7 4 17.4 0 0.0 22 46.8
34 45.9
4 4.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.8 0 0.0 2 3.7 0 0.0 2 6.3 3 6.4
4 5.4 2 3.2
2 2.5 1 2.4 3 8.3 3 7.0 2 3.7 4 17.4 0 0.0 13 27.7
5 6.8 7 11.3 1 1.8
3 7.1 0 0.0 1 2.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.1 1 2.1
0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
8 3 12 1 2 4 10.8 4.1 16.2 1.4 2.7 5.4 10 0 0 0 0 19 16.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.6 17 11 4 8 1 1 29.8 19.3 7.0 14.0 1.8 1.8 19 7 0 0 0 34 22.4 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0 39 0 0 18 0 0.0 48.8 0.0 0.0 22.5 0.0 0 16 0 0 22 0 0.0 38.1 0.0 0.0 52.4 0.0 0 5 4 1 1 10 0.0 13.9 11.1 2.8 2.8 27.8 10 3 2 0 22 2 23.3 7.0 4.7 0.0 51.2 4.7 0 13 4 2 0 1 0.0 24.1 7.4 3.7 0.0 1.9 2 6 0 0 3 2 8.9 26.1 0.0 0.0 13.0 8.9 21 0 5 0 2 1 65.6 0.0 15.6 0.0 6.3 3.1 0 3 0 0 3 0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0
1 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.2 21 26.3
i ty g ds ur in dar t ity c s iv en se t n ou tan n a I io H S on nm ct Cre le tys r Of tati ges iro s A b n e p rta Saf ng atio cto epu anta Env age Of s U fo r R dv he ant om ke Fa m - & ousi epa g a a o & n A C lity e Dis or T Adv reed W H yR s vi g i l A a al L t & ua ua an g m e F ial d F s & i y th asan h Q ivid M usin od I anc itiv anc ite pire l o o s m d s n e n ig o ea H . Pl . H . In . To . H . G . Fi . Po . Fi . Li . In . 9 5 7 1 4 8 1 2 6 0 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
22. Inspires & Wakes Up Creativity
21. Unlimited Freedom Of Action
20. Financial Advantagaes
19. Positive For The Environment
17. Good Image & Reputation
16. Secure Housing
15. Less Reparations
14. Individual Housing
13. High Quality- & Safety-Standards
12. Pleasant & Comfortable Housing
11. Healthy Living
Matrix 3 INCOME, 20.000 - 29.999 €/year 53 responses, Germany
46.8
6.4
27.7
2.1
0.0
6.4
0.0
0.0
6.4
0.0
t en m n iro v n
32 25.0 36 35.0 17 22.1 18 18.4 16 21.6 18 22.1 14 20.9 9 11.8 17 20.7 4 8.0 19 22.6
8 6.3 23 22.3 2 2.6 13 13.3 12 16.2 8 9.3 7 10.4 2 2.6 19 23.2 8 16.0 26 31.0
28 21.9 23 22.3 20 26.0 23 23.5 23 31.8 14 16.3 8 11.9 5 6.6 23 28.0 8 16.0 8 9.5
3 2.3 7 6.8 1 1.3 32 32.7 4 5.4 4 4.7 14 20.9 1 1.3 12 14.6 6 12.0 21 25.0
0 0.0 1 1.0 25 32.5 1 1.0 17 23.0 34 39.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 7.3 18 36.0 0 0.0
12 9.4 0 0.0 1 1.3 1 1.0 1 1.4 0 0.0 3 4.5 45 59.2 0 0.0 5 10.0 0 0.0
5 3.9 3 2.9 5 6.5 9 9.2 0 0.0 2 2.3 21 31.3 5 6.6 2 2.4 1 2.0 8 9.5
E e fe bl he Li y T tr a m f t O tion uri out ee fo t y s c h a m b n e it E lt z Co Fu ual eali ea f S rn A elf H ng g O S e d i in gh Q lf-R ed nc igh el i e av oo o e e . G 4. F 5. H 6. H 7. S 8. N 9. C 0. H 2 2 2 23 2 2 2 3
40 31.3 10 9.7 6 7.8 1 1.0 1 1.4 5 5.8 0 0.0 9 11.8 3 3.7 0 0.0 2 2.4
4.3
10. Energy Saving
9. Higher Costs
8. Lower Costs
7. High Construction- & Material-Risk
6. Innovative & Modern
5. Not Common Housing
4. Warm Interior Atmosphere
3. Healthy Interior
2. Individual Architecture
1. Natural Material
Matrix 1 INCOME, 30.000 - 49.999 €/year 54 responses, Germany
34 28.1 1 1.0 34 43.0 8 11.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.1 0 0.0 4 5.1
24 19.8 11 11.5 30 38.0 41 60.3 5 5.9 5 6.7 0 0.0 1 2.1 0 0.0 1 1.3
0 0.0 3 3.1 3 3.8 5 7.4 1 1.2 13 17.3 1 1.1 0 0.0 2 3.2 5 6.4
2 1.7 39 40.6 0 0.0 1 1.5 21 24.7 17 22.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
9 6 7.4 5.0 0 1 0.0 1.0 2 1 2.5 1.3 0 0 0.0 0.0 4 5 4.7 5.9 0 0 0.0 0.0 25 25 26.9 26.9 2 0 4.3 0.0 1 6 1.6 9.7 0 0 0.0 0.0
10 8.3 14 14.6 1 1.3 4 5.9 14 16.5 18 24.0 0 0.0 1 2.1 1 1.6 5 6.4
7 5.8 10 10.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 11 12.9 4 5.3 26 28.0 0 0.0 40 64.5 0 0.0
20 5 0 4 16.5 4.1 0.0 3.3 0 1 0 16 0.0 1.0 0.0 16.7 4 1 0 3 3.8 5.1 1.3 0.0 2 4 0 3 2.9 5.9 0.0 4.4 1 1 3 19 1.2 1.2 3.5 22.4 4 2 1 11 5.3 2.7 1.3 14.7 0 0 15 1 0.0 0.0 16.1 1.1 1 40 1 0 2.1 85.1 2.1 0.0 1 1 1 10 0 1.6 .6 16.1 0.0 33 29 0 1 42.3 37.2 0.0 1.3
ity g ds ur in dar t ity c s iv en se t ou tan n a n H -S e nm f I tion es tio Cr le y s ro s O c t a i g b t n r e p a v A e to rta Saf ng pu tio nt En tag Of es U fo ra Fac Re dva i e n s a & h g ak om yva dom ou Rep A e & isa r T in d C t W s H v e i Li t & ual ual any g A mag ial D e Fo ial A Fre s & y n I n d e c c v Q h sa lt h divi o M usi od nan siti nan ited spir a a g e o o i e o i o i l m n n . H 2. P 3. H 4. I 5. T 6. H 7. G 8. F 9. P 0. F 1. I 2. I 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
22. Inspires & Wakes Up Creativity
21. Limited Freedom Of Action
20. Financial Advantages
19. Positive For The Environment
18. Financial Disadvantages
17. Good Image & Reputation
16. Housing As A Factor Of Insecurity
15. Too Many Reparations
14. Individual Housing
13. High Quality- & Safety-Standards
12. Pleasant & Comfortable Housing
11. Healthy Living
Matrix 2 INCOME, 30.000 - 49.999 €/year 54 responses, Germany
20 35.1 5 8.8 1 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 20 41.7 4 20.0 0 0.0 5 11.1
35 10 7 44.3 12.7 8.9 2 7 3.5 12.3 8 1 14.0 1.8 14 4 17.5 5.0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 2 1 40.6 6.3 3.1 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 2.9 5 0 1 10.4 0.0 2.1 6 1 2 30.0 5.0 10.0 0 1 0 0.0 3.3 0.0 13 2 19 28.9 4.4 42.2 1 2.1 0 0.0 1 2.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 6.7 0 0.0
0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
1 7 3 6 4 0 6 1.3 8.9 3.8 7.6 5.1 0.0 7.6 0 9 0 0 0 0 19 0.0 15.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 1 17 9 2 11 1 2 1.8 29.8 15.8 3.5 19.3 1.8 3.5 1 18 11 0 0 0 31 1.3 22.5 13.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 38.9 21 0 45 0 0 13 0 26.6 0.0 57.0 0.0 0.0 16.5 0.0 0 22 0 0 25 0 0.0 45.8 0.0 0.0 52.1 0.0 0 2 5 1 0 8 0.0 6.3 15.6 3.1 0.0 25.0 8 0 0 0 24 0 23.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.6 0.0 0 20 1 0 0 1 0.0 41.7 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.1 0 3 0 0 0 4 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 19 1 7 0 0 0 63.3 3.3 23.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 5 0 0 1 0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0
i ty g ds ur in dar t ity c s iv en se t n ou tan n a I io H S on nm ct Cre le tys r Of tati ges iro s A b n e p rta Saf ng atio cto epu anta Env age Of s U fo r R dv he ant om ke Fa m - & ousi epa g a a o & n A C lity e Dis or T Adv reed W H yR s vi g i l A a al L t & ua ua an g m e F ial d F s & i y th asan h Q ivid M usin od I anc itiv anc ite pire l o o s m d s n e n ig o ea H . Pl . H . In . To . H . G . Fi . Po . Fi . Li . In . 9 5 7 1 4 8 1 2 6 0 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
22. Inspires & Wakes Up Creativity
21. Unlimited Freedom Of Action
20. Financial Advantagaes
19. Positive For The Environment
17. Good Image & Reputation
16. Secure Housing
15. Less Reparations
14. Individual Housing
13. High Quality- & Safety-Standards
12. Pleasant & Comfortable Housing
11. Healthy Living
Matrix 3 INCOME, 30.000 - 49.999 €/year 54 responses, Germany
49 36.6 9 7.9 5 4.7 3 3.0 1 1.0 4 3.7 0 0.0 12 13.6 3 3.0 0 0.0 2 2.8
29 21.6 48 42.1 23 21.5 17 17.0 18 18.0 23 21.3 17 24.3 13 14.8 16 16.2 7 13.5 11 15.5
9 6.7 19 16.7 9 8.4 20 20.0 15 15.0 14 13.0 5 7.1 2 2.3 22 22.2 11 21.2 23 32.4
26 19.4 29 25.4 25 23.4 22 22.0 27 27.0 25 23.1 12 17.1 7 8.0 27 27.3 12 23.1 10 14.1
2 1.5 4 3.5 6 5.6 28 28.0 8 8.0 4 3.7 13 18.6 0 0.0 14 14.1 6 11.5 18 25.4
2 1.5 1 0.9 33 30.8 0 0.0 29 29.0 35 32.4 1 1.4 1 1.1 14 14.1 11 21.2 0 0.0
7 5.2 1 0.9 5 4.7 1 1.0 2 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 45 51.1 1 1.0 5 9.6 1 1.4
10 7.5 3 2.6 1 0.9 9 9.0 0 0.0 3 2.8 22 31.4 8 9.1 2 2.0 0 0.0 6 8.5
E e fe bl he Li y T tr a m f t O tion uri out ee fo t y s c h a m b n e it E lt z Co Fu ual eali ea f S rn A elf H ng g O S e d i in gh Q lf-R ed nc igh el i e av oo o e e . G 4. F 5. H 6. H 7. S 8. N 9. C 0. H 2 2 2 23 2 2 2 3
t en m n iro v n
10. Energy Saving
9. Higher Costs
8. Lower Costs
7. High Construction- & Material-Risk
6. Innovative & Modern
5. Not Common Housing
4. Warm Interior Atmosphere
3. Healthy Interior
2. Individual Architecture
1. Natural Material
Matrix 1 INCOME, 50.000€ and more per year 32 responses, Germany
21 29.2 2 2.9 24 51.1 3 6.4 0 0.0 1 1.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.1 5 8.3
12 16.7 5 7.2 13 27.7 28 59.6 1 2.0 1 1.8 0 0.0 1 2.7 2 4.2 2 3.3
0 0.0 5 7.2 2 4.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 9.1 2 3.3 0 0.0 4 8.5 3 5.0
4 5.6 20 29.0 1 2.1 2 4.2 19 38.8 9 16.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 6.4 0 0.0
4 1 5.6 1.4 2 1 2.9 1.4 1 0 2.1 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 2 1 4.1 2.0 1 1 1.8 1.8 19 16 31.1 26.2 4 2 10.8 5.4 1 1 2.1 2.1 1 1 1.7 1.7
6 8.3 11 15.9 0 0.0 4 8.5 9 18.4 14 25.5 1 1.6 1 2.7 2 4.2 1 1.7
3 4.2 5 7.2 1 2.1 1 2.1 5 10.2 4 7.3 13 21.3 1 2.7 25 53.2 1 1.7
14 19.4 0 0.0 2 4.2 1 2.1 0 0.0 2 3.6 0 0.0 2 5.4 2 4.2 26 43.3
1 2 1.4 2.8 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 1 0.0 2.1 1 1 2.1 2.1 0 2 0.0 4.1 1 1 1.8 1.8 1 9 1.6 14.8 23 2 62.2 5.4 1 4 2.1 8.5 20 0 33.3 0.0
4 5.6 18 26.1 2 4.2 6 12.8 10 20.4 15 27.3 0 0.0 1 2.7 1 2.1 0 0.0
ity g ds ur in dar t ity c s iv en se t ou tan n a n H -S e nm f I tion es tio Cr le y s ro s O c t a i g b t n r e p a v A e to rta Saf ng pu tio nt En tag Of es U fo ra Fac Re dva i e n s a & h g ak om yva dom ou Rep A e & isa r T in d C t W s H v e i Li t & ual ual any g A mag ial D e Fo ial A Fre s & y n I n d e c c v Q h sa lt h divi o M usi od nan siti nan ited spir a a g e o o i e o i o i l m n n . H 2. P 3. H 4. I 5. T 6. H 7. G 8. F 9. P 0. F 1. I 2. I 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
22. Inspires & Wakes Up Creativity
21. Limited Freedom Of Action
20. Financial Advantages
19. Positive For The Environment
18. Financial Disadvantages
17. Good Image & Reputation
16. Housing As A Factor Of Insecurity
15. Too Many Reparations
14. Individual Housing
13. High Quality- & Safety-Standards
12. Pleasant & Comfortable Housing
11. Healthy Living
Matrix 2 INCOME, 50.000€ and more per year 32 responses, Germany
11 29.0 4 10.3 1 2.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 17.4 1 5.0 12 35.3 1 6.3 0 0.0 9 20.5 4 10.3 5 10.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 21.7 0 0.0 2 5.9 1 6.3 0 0.0 12 27.3
22 41.5
3 6.1 2 4.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 6.3 2 6.7 1 2.3
2 3.8 2 5.3
0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.6 1 2.0
0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 14.0
9 3 8 0 2 5 17.0 5.7 15.1 0.0 3.8 9.4 8 0 0 0 0 10 21.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.3 10 7 1 4 3 2 25.6 17.9 2.6 10.3 7.7 5.1 14 2 0 0 1 22 28.6 4.1 0.0 0.0 2.0 44.9 0 0 27 1 0 7 0 0.0 0.0 62.8 2.3 0.0 16.3 0.0 0 0 0 14 0 1 14 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.3 0.0 3.4 48.3 0.0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 9 4.3 0.0 0.0 4.3 13.0 0.0 0.0 39.1 0 0 6 1 1 0 11 0 0.0 0.0 30.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 55.0 0.0 3 1. 0 12 1 1 2 0 8.8 2.9 0.0 35.3 2.9 2.9 5.8 0.0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 8 12.5 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 6.3 6.3 50.0 0 3 13 1 9 0 1 1 0.0 10.0 43.3 3.3 30.0 0.0 3.3 3.3 11 0 0 7 1 0 2 1 25.0 0.0 0.0 15.9 2.3 0.0 4.5 2.3
2 3.8 7 18.4 3 7.7
i ty g ds ur in dar t ity c s iv en se t n ou tan n a I io H S on nm ct Cre le tys r Of tati ges iro s A b n e p rta Saf ng atio cto epu anta Env age Of s U fo r R dv he ant om ke Fa m - & ousi epa g a a o & n A C lity e Dis or T Adv reed W H yR s vi g i l A a al L t & ua ua an g m e F ial d F s & i y th asan h Q ivid M usin od I anc itiv anc ite pire l o o s m d s n e n ig o ea H . Pl . H . In . To . H . G . Fi . Po . Fi . Li . In . 9 5 7 1 4 8 1 2 6 0 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
22. Inspires & Wakes Up Creativity
21. Unlimited Freedom Of Action
20. Financial Advantagaes
19. Positive For The Environment
17. Good Image & Reputation
16. Secure Housing
15. Less Reparations
14. Individual Housing
13. High Quality- & Safety-Standards
12. Pleasant & Comfortable Housing
11. Healthy Living
Matrix 3 INCOME, 50.000€ and more per year 32 responses, Germany
2.3
25.0
0.0
0.0
15.9
2.3
0.0
4.5
2.3
t en m n iro v n
23 24.5 3 5.2 2 3.6 1 1.5 1 2.4 1 2.0 0 0.0 11 24.4 1 2.6 1 5.3 3 5.1
20 21.3 23 39.7 12 21.8 9 13.8 10 23.8 15 30.0 8 19.5 1 2.2 8 20.5 0 0.0 11 18.6
6 6.4 6 10.3 1 1.8 11 16.9 6 14.3 2 4.0 3 7.3 1 2.2 9 23.1 2 10.5 14 23.7
19 20.2 17 29.3 14 25.4 11 16.9 10 23.8 9 18.0 5 12.2 2 4.4 12 30.8 1 5.3 8 13.6
4 4.3 2 3.4 1 1.8 22 33.8 3 7.1 1 2.0 9 22.0 1 2.2 2 5.1 2 10.5 16 27.1
4 4.3 0 0.0 18 32.7 1 1.5 10 23.8 20 40.0 0 0.0 1 2.2 3 7.7 8 42.1 0 0.0
10 10.6 1 1.7 2 3.6 0 0.0 1 2.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 24 53.3 2 5.1 4 21.1 1 1.7
8 8.5 6 10.3 5 9.1 10 15.4 1 2.4 2 4.0 16 39.0 4 8.9 2 5.1 1 5.3 6 10.2
E e fe bl he Li y T tr a m f t O tion uri out ee fo t y s c h a m b n e it E lt z Co Fu ual eali ea f S rn A elf H ng g O S e d i in gh Q lf-R ed nc igh el i e av oo o e e . G 4. F 5. H 6. H 7. S 8. N 9. C 0. H 2 2 2 23 2 2 2 3
20.5 27.3
10. Energy Saving
9. Higher Costs
8. Lower Costs
7. High Construction- & Material-Risk
6. Innovative & Modern
5. Not Common Housing
4. Warm Interior Atmosphere
3. Healthy Interior
2. Individual Architecture
1. Natural Material
Matrix 1 REGION, north-west 95 responses, Germany
69 24.2 4 1.8 76 43.7 16 10.0 1 0.5 3 1.6 0 0.0 2 2.1 3 1.9 8 4.5
54 18.9 27 12.3 52 29.9 83 51.9 5 2.7 10 5.5 0 0.0 1 1.1 2 1.3 6 3.4
4 1.4 5 2.3 6 3.4 3 1.9 0 0.0 18 9.8 1 0.5 0 0.0 8 5.1 7 4.0
12 4.2 73 33.2 2 1.1 9 5.6 55 29.6 33 18.0 2 1.0 0 0.0 4 2.6 1 0.6
16 13 5.6 4.6 5 3 2.3 1.4 3 0 1.7 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 10 13 5.4 7.0 9 0 4.9 0.0 59 52 28.6 25.2 4 5 4.3 5.3 6 8 3.8 5.1 1 1 0.6 0.6
23 8.1 28 12.7 4 2.3 13 8.1 25 13.4 41 22.4 3 1.5 3 3.2 6 3.8 18 10.2
14 4.9 25 11.4 1 0.6 1 0.6 26 14.0 13 7.1 57 27.7 0 0.0 77 49.4 1 0.6
48 8 2 16.8 2.8 0.7 1 1 2 0.5 0.5 0.9 10 3 1 5.7 1.7 0.6 4 8 0 2.5 5.0 0.0 2 1 6 1.1 0.5 3.2 5 7 1 2.7 3.8 0.5 0 1 31 0.0 0.5 15.0 8 67 2 8.5 71.3 2.1 4 8 29 2.6 5.1 18.6 74 51 6 42.0 29.0 3.4
22 7.7 46 20.9 16 9.2 23 14.4 42 22.6 43 23.5 0 0.0 2 2.1 1 0.6 2 1.1
ity g ds ur in dar t ity c s iv en se t ou tan n a n H -S e nm f I tion es tio Cr le y s ro s O c t a i g b t n r e p a v A e to rta Saf ng pu tio nt En tag Of es U fo ra Fac Re dva i e n s a & h g ak om yva dom ou Rep A e & isa r T in d C t W s H v e i Li t & ual ual any g A mag ial D e Fo ial A Fre s & y n I n d e c c v Q h sa lt h divi o M usi od nan siti nan ited spir a a g e o o i e o i o i l m n n . H 2. P 3. H 4. I 5. T 6. H 7. G 8. F 9. P 0. F 1. I 2. I 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
22. Inspires & Wakes Up Creativity
21. Limited Freedom Of Action
20. Financial Advantages
19. Positive For The Environment
18. Financial Disadvantages
17. Good Image & Reputation
16. Housing As A Factor Of Insecurity
15. Too Many Reparations
14. Individual Housing
13. High Quality- & Safety-Standards
12. Pleasant & Comfortable Housing
11. Healthy Living
Matrix 2 REGION, north-west 95 responses, Germany
34 28.6 15 12.9 8 4.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 9.5 4 4.3 37 32.7 6 12.5 0 0.0 13 10.2 18 15.5 27 15.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 17 27.0 0 0.0 12 10.6 6 12.5 0 0.0 51 40.2
67 41.1
5 2.8 2 1.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.9 0 0.0 5 5.8 4 3.1
11 6.7 7 5.9
1 0.6 0 0.0 2 1.7 2 1.1
3 1.8 0 0.0 1 0.9 0 0.0 39 22.8
21 12.9 18 15.1 35 30.2 37 21.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
8 20 6 3 14 4.9 12.3 3.4 1.8 8.6 0 1 0 0 43 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 36.1 20 4 15 3 1 17.2 3.4 12.9 2.6 0.9 26 1 1 1 68 14.8 1.1 1.1 1.1 38.6 4 82 1 0 43 0 2.3 48.0 0.6 0.0 25.1 0.0 3 0 49 0 0 52 0 2.9 0.0 47.1 0.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 1 0 0 11 8 0 2 18 1.6 0.0 0.0 17.5 12.7 0.0 3.2 28.6 4 0 24 4 8 0 46 2 4.3 0.0 26.1 4.3 8.7 0.0 50.0 2.2 5 1 1 38 11 3 4 0 4.4 0.9 0.9 33.6 9.7 2.7 3.5 0.0 4 2 5 8 0 2 4 11 8.3 4.2 10.4 16.7 0.0 4.2 8.3 22.9 0 15 42 3 15 2 3 1 0.0 17.4 48.8 3.5 17.4 2.3 3.5 1.2 38 1 0 13 0 0 6 1 30.0 0.8 0.0 10.2 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.8
9 5.5 16 13.4 2 1.7
i ty g ds ur in dar t ity c s iv en se t n ou tan n a I io H S on nm ct Cre le tys r Of tati ges iro s A b n e p rta Saf ng atio cto epu anta Env age Of s U fo r R dv he ant om ke Fa m - & ousi epa g a a o & n A C lity e Dis or T Adv reed W H yR s vi g i l A a al L t & ua ua an g m e F ial d F s & i y th asan h Q ivid M usin od I anc itiv anc ite pire l o o s m d s n e n ig o ea H . Pl . H . In . To . H . G . Fi . Po . Fi . Li . In . 9 5 7 1 4 8 1 2 6 0 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
22. Inspires & Wakes Up Creativity
21. Unlimited Freedom Of Action
20. Financial Advantagaes
19. Positive For The Environment
17. Good Image & Reputation
16. Secure Housing
15. Less Reparations
14. Individual Housing
13. High Quality- & Safety-Standards
12. Pleasant & Comfortable Housing
11. Healthy Living
Matrix 3 REGION, north-west 95 responses, Germany
80 28.2 22 9.4 16 7.7 6 2.8 3 1.8 8 4.1 0 0.0 23 14.6 9 5.0 2 1.8 7 3.7
60 21.1 81 34.7 44 21.1 32 15.1 31 18.5 49 24.9 30 23.8 16 10.1 37 20.6 11 10.0 35 18.6
23 8.1 32 13.7 10 4.8 42 19.8 32 19.0 20 10.2 8 6.3 5 3.2 40 22.2 21 19.1 49 26.1
63 22.2 55 23.6 50 23.9 39 18.4 43 25.6 42 21.3 21 16.7 12 7.6 47 26.1 21 19.1 27 14.4
7 2.5 17 7.3 8 3.8 67 31.6 11 6.5 8 4.1 27 21.4 3 1.9 26 14.4 13 11.8 49 26.1
6 2.1 3 1.3 61 29.2 1 0.5 42 25.0 64 32.5 6 4.8 1 0.6 14 7.8 22 20.0 0 0.0
24 8.5 2 0.9 11 5.3 1 0.5 5 3.0 0 0.0 2 1.6 84 53.2 1 0.6 19 17.3 2 1.1
21 7.4 21 9.0 9 4.3 24 11.3 1 0.6 6 3.0 32 25.4 14 8.9 6 3.3 1 0.9 19 10.1
E e fe bl he Li y T tr a m f t O tion uri out ee fo t y s c h a m b n e it E lt z Co Fu ual eali ea f S rn A elf H ng g O S e d i in gh Q lf-R ed nc igh el i e av oo o e e . G 4. F 5. H 6. H 7. S 8. N 9. C 0. H 2 2 2 23 2 2 2 3
t en m n iro v n
10. Energy Saving
9. Higher Costs
8. Lower Costs
7. High Construction- & Material-Risk
6. Innovative & Modern
5. Not Common Housing
4. Warm Interior Atmosphere
3. Healthy Interior
2. Individual Architecture
1. Natural Material
Matrix 1 REGION, south-west 83 responses Germany
50 32.1 2 1.7 44 42.3 18 18.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 7.3
31 19.9 12 9.9 42 40.4 54 55.1 0 0.0 4 3.6 0 0.0 5 5.9 0 0.0 5 4.0
1 0.6 3 2.5 4 3.8 1 1.0 3 2.9 12 10.7 3 2.5 1 1.2 10 11.5 8 6.5
5 3.2 49 40.5 2 1.9 2 2.0 34 32.7 19 17.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 2.3 1 0.8
8 2 5.1 1.3 3 0 2.5 0.0 1 3 1.0 2.9 0 0 0.0 0.0 3 5 2.9 4.8 1 2 0.9 1.8 32 33 26.4 27.3 6 2 7.1 2.4 2 5 2.3 5.7 0 0 0.0 0.0
5 3.2 20 16.5 0 0.0 2 2.0 13 12.5 35 31.3 0 0.0 1 1.2 5 5.7 4 3.2
2 1.3 6 5.0 1 1.0 5 5.1 7 6.7 6 5.4 37 30.6 7 8.2 54 62.1 0 0.0
35 22.4 0 0.0 5 4.8 1 1.0 3 2.9 3 2.7 0 0.0 3 3.5 2 2.3 50 40.3
4 2 2.6 1.3 0 5 0.0 4.1 1 0 1.0 0.0 5 1 5.1 1.0 0 11 0.0 10.6 3 2 2.7 1.8 1 13 0.8 10.7 58 1 68.2 1.2 0 7 0.0 8.0 46 1 37.1 0.8
11 7.1 21 17.4 1 1.0 9 9.2 25 24.0 25 22.3 2 1.7 1 1.2 0 0.0 0 0.0
ity g ds ur in dar t ity c s iv en se t ou tan n a n H -S e nm f I tion es tio Cr le y s ro s O c t a i g b t n r e p a v A e to rta Saf ng pu tio nt En tag Of es U fo ra Fac Re dva i e n s a & h g ak om yva dom ou Rep A e & isa r T in d C t W s H v e i Li t & ual ual any g A mag ial D e Fo ial A Fre s & y n I n d e c c v Q h sa lt h divi o M usi od nan siti nan ited spir a a g e o o i e o i o i l m n n . H 2. P 3. H 4. I 5. T 6. H 7. G 8. F 9. P 0. F 1. I 2. I 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
22. Inspires & Wakes Up Creativity
21. Limited Freedom Of Action
20. Financial Advantages
19. Positive For The Environment
18. Financial Disadvantages
17. Good Image & Reputation
16. Housing As A Factor Of Insecurity
15. Too Many Reparations
14. Individual Housing
13. High Quality- & Safety-Standards
12. Pleasant & Comfortable Housing
11. Healthy Living
Matrix 2 REGION, south-west 83 responses, Germany
24 46.8 8 8.9 4 4.3 0 0.0 2 3.4 3 5.8 2 4.4 41 52.6 4 8.0 0 0.0 12 14.5 10 11.1 15 16.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 16 30.8 0 0.0 7 9.0 15 30.0 0 0.0 18 21.7
49 45.4
3 3.2 1 1.0 0 0.0 2 3.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 4.0 1 1.9 5 6.0
9 8.3 2 2.1
0 0.0 0 0.0 3 5.8 0 0.0 4 5.1 6 12.0 0 0.0 34 41.0
7 6.5 14 14.9 4 4.4
2 3.4 0 0.0 2 4.4 0 0.0 1 2.0 3 5.8 0 0.0
0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.1 2 2.1
3 7 3 19 1 4 6 2.8 6.5 2.8 17.6 0.9 3.7 5.6 0 11 0 2 0 0 21 0.0 11.7 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 22.3 0 25 15 4 15 4 4 0.0 27.8 16.7 4.4 16.7 4.4 4.4 4 20 1 2 0 1 42 4.3 21.3 1.1 2.1 0.0 1.1 44.7 25 0 59 1 2 14 0 24.5 0.0 57.8 .0 2.0 13.7 0.0 0 20 0 2 32 0 0.0 34.5 0.0 3.4 55.2 0.0 0 5 4 2 0 17 0.0 9.6 7.7 3.8 0.0 32.7 8 2 0 2 29 0 17.8 4.4 0.0 4.4 64.4 0.0 0 17 1 5 1 2 0.0 21.8 1.3 6.4 1.3 2.6 0 17 0 0 0 5 0.0 34.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 30 2 14 0 0 2 57.7 3.8 26.9 0.0 0.0 3.8 0 8 1 0 1 4 0.0 9.6 1.2 0.0 1.2 4.8
i ty g ds ur in dar t ity c s iv en se t n ou tan n a I io H S on nm ct Cre le tys r Of tati ges iro s A b n e p rta Saf ng atio cto epu anta Env age Of s U fo r R dv he ant om ke Fa m - & ousi epa g a a o & n A C lity e Dis or T Adv reed W H yR s vi g i l A a al L t & ua ua an g m e F ial d F s & i y th asan h Q ivid M usin od I anc itiv anc ite pire l o o s m d s n e n ig o ea H . Pl . H . In . To . H . G . Fi . Po . Fi . Li . In . 9 5 7 1 4 8 1 2 6 0 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
22. Inspires & Wakes Up Creativity
21. Unlimited Freedom Of Action
20. Financial Advantagaes
19. Positive For The Environment
17. Good Image & Reputation
16. Secure Housing
15. Less Reparations
14. Individual Housing
13. High Quality- & Safety-Standards
12. Pleasant & Comfortable Housing
11. Healthy Living
Matrix 3 REGION, south-west 83 responses, Germany
6.0
41.0
0.0
0.0
9.6
1.2
0.0
1.2
4.8
t en m n iro v n
65 30.1 16 10.7 8 7.9 3 2.3 2 2.3 6 6.1 1 1.0 23 19.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 3.8
45 20.8 59 36.9 22 21.8 21 16.2 21 23.9 26 26.5 12 11.9 13 11.2 7 7.5 3 7.9 15 14.4
18 8.3 29 19.5 3 3.0 19 14.6 5 5.7 3 3.1 13 12.9 3 2.6 23 24.7 3 7.9 37 35.6
32 14.8 29 19.5 22 21.8 22 16.9 26 29.5 18 18.4 15 14.9 11 9.5 38 40.9 2 2.6 12 11.5
9 4.2 6 4.0 2 2.0 44 33.8 1 1.1 1 1.0 21 20.8 2 1.7 6 6.5 2 5.3 25 24.0
7 3.2 2 1.3 38 37.6 1 0.8 27 30.7 38 38.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 12 12.9 25 65.8 2 1.9
24 11.1 0 0.0 2 2.0 2 1.5 5 5.7 0 0.0 2 2.0 61 52.6 2 2.2 3 7.9 0 0.0
16 7.4 8 5.4 4 4.0 18 13.8 1 1.1 6 6.1 37 36.6 3 2.6 5 5.4 1 2.6 9 8.7
E e fe bl he Li y T tr a m f t O tion uri out ee fo t y s c h a m b n e it E lt z Co Fu ual eali ea f S rn A elf H ng g O S e d i in gh Q lf-R ed nc igh el i e av oo o e e . G 4. F 5. H 6. H 7. S 8. N 9. C 0. H 2 2 2 23 2 2 2 3
14.5 21.7
10. Energy Saving
9. Higher Costs
8. Lower Costs
7. High Construction- & Material-Risk
6. Innovative & Modern
5. Not Common Housing
4. Warm Interior Atmosphere
3. Healthy Interior
2. Individual Architecture
1. Natural Material
Matrix 1 REGION, east 48 responses, Germany
34 27.0 0 0.0 27 34.6 4 6.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 7.2
26 20.6 17 16.5 29 37.2 34 55.0 3 4.8 6 7.5 0 0.0 3 5.8 0 0.0 1 1.2
4 3.2 5 4.9 2 2.6 1 1.6 1 1.6 13 16.3 4 4.4 0 0.0 3 4.9 3 3.6
4 3.2 35 34.0 1 1.3 1 1.6 25 39.7 13 16.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.2
9 4 7.1 3.2 0 1 0.0 1.0 3 0 3.8 0.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 1 2 1.6 3.2 1 0 1.3 0.0 19 24 21.1 26.7 3 1 5.8 1.9 3 13 4.9 21.3 0 0 0.0 0.0
8 6.3 15 14.6 3 3.8 12 19.4 9 14.3 17 21.3 0 0.0 2 3.8 0 0.0 6 7.2
6 4.8 8 7.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 6.3 3 3.8 27 30.0 1 1.9 38 62.3 0 0.0
21 16.7 0 0.0 10 12.8 2 3.2 0 0.0 4 5.0 0 0.0 3 5.8 0 0.0 37 44.6
6 0 4.8 0.0 0 1 0.0 1.0 2 0 2.6 0.0 5 0 8.1 0.0 0 3 0.0 4.8 3 1 3.8 1.3 1 16 1.1 17.8 37 2 71.2 3.8 0 4 0.0 6.6 28 1 33.7 1.2
4 3.2 21 20.4 1 1.3 3 4.8 15 23.8 19 23.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
ity g ds ur in dar t ity c s iv en se t ou tan n a n H -S e nm f I tion es tio Cr le y s ro s O c t a i g b t n r e p a v A e to rta Saf ng pu tio nt En tag Of es U fo ra Fac Re dva i e n s a & h g ak om yva dom ou Rep A e & isa r T in d C t W s H v e i Li t & ual ual any g A mag ial D e Fo ial A Fre s & y n I n d e c c v Q h sa lt h divi o M usi od nan siti nan ited spir a a g e o o i e o i o i l m n n . H 2. P 3. H 4. I 5. T 6. H 7. G 8. F 9. P 0. F 1. I 2. I 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
22. Inspires & Wakes Up Creativity
21. Limited Freedom Of Action
20. Financial Advantages
19. Positive For The Environment
18. Financial Disadvantages
17. Good Image & Reputation
16. Housing As A Factor Of Insecurity
15. Too Many Reparations
14. Individual Housing
13. High Quality- & Safety-Standards
12. Pleasant & Comfortable Housing
11. Healthy Living
Matrix 2 REGION, east 48 responses, Germany
19 26.7 7 8.3 4 3.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 7.8 0 0.0 12 22.6 3 12.0 0 0.0 8 14.3
33 9 5 39.3 10.7 6.0 3 15 4.2 20.8 14 2 16.7 2.4 24 6 22.0 5.5 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 6 13 31.3 9.4 20.3 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 1 3 13.2 1.9 5.7 9 1 2 36.0 4.0 8.0 0 1 0 0.0 3.6 0.0 18 1 22 32.1 1.8 39.3 4 8.0 0 0.0 2 4.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
0 0.0 0 0.0 3 3.6 0 0.0
0 7 2 13 4 0 11 0.0 8.3 2.4 15.5 4.8 0.0 13.1 0 15 0 2 0 0 18 0.0 20.8 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 25.0 2 17 14 7 14 1 3 2.4 20.2 16.7 8.3 16.7 1.2 3.6 2 19 15 0 0 3 36 1.8 17.4 13.8 0.0 0.0 2.8 33.0 28 0 38 0 0 17 0 33.7 0.0 45.8 0.0 0.0 20.5 0.0 0 23 0 0 23 0 0.0 46.0 0.0 0.0 46.0 0.0 0 1 5 6 0 8 0.0 1.6 7.8 9.4 0.0 12.5 17 0 0 0 24 0 39.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.8 0.0 0 14 6 3 2 5 0.0 26.4 11.3 5.7 3.8 9.4 0 3 0 0 0 7 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.0 20 0 7 0 0 0 71.4 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 6 0 0 1 0 0.0 10.7 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.0
i ty g ds ur in dar t ity c s iv en se t n ou tan n a I io H S on nm ct Cre le tys r Of tati ges iro s A b n e p rta Saf ng atio cto epu anta Env age Of s U fo r R dv he ant om ke Fa m - & ousi epa g a a o & n A C lity e Dis or T Adv reed W H yR s vi g i l A a al L t & ua ua an g m e F ial d F s & i y th asan h Q ivid M usin od I anc itiv anc ite pire l o o s m d s n e n ig o ea H . Pl . H . In . To . H . G . Fi . Po . Fi . Li . In . 9 5 7 1 4 8 1 2 6 0 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
22. Inspires & Wakes Up Creativity
21. Unlimited Freedom Of Action
20. Financial Advantagaes
19. Positive For The Environment
17. Good Image & Reputation
16. Secure Housing
15. Less Reparations
14. Individual Housing
13. High Quality- & Safety-Standards
12. Pleasant & Comfortable Housing
11. Healthy Living
Matrix 3 REGION, east 48 responses, Germany
39 28.9 4 3.7 4 4.5 4 3.5 1 1.0 2 2.2 2 2.5 10 13.3 5 5.6 0 0.0 4 4.1
32 23.7 41 38.0 16 18.2 22 19.5 21 21.0 19 20.7 14 17.3 9 12.0 20 22.5 2 5.9 18 18.6
3 2.2 22 20.4 5 5.7 19 16.8 18 18.0 7 7.6 5 6.2 1 1.3 25 28.1 2 5.9 22 22.7
29 21.5 26 24.1 24 27.3 25 22.1 31 31.0 24 26.1 15 18.5 5 6.7 26 29.2 6 17.6 13 13.4
6 4.4 7 6.5 5 5.7 28 24.8 6 6.0 2 2.2 10 12.3 0 0.0 8 9.0 2 5.9 24 24.7
1 0.7 2 1.9 32 36.4 0 0.0 20 20.0 35 38.0 1 1.2 2 2.7 3 3.4 16 47.1 0 0.0
12 8.9 1 0.9 1 1.1 1 0.9 3 3.0 0 0.0 5 6.2 42 56.0 2 2.2 5 14.7 6 6.2
13 9.6 5 4.6 1 1.1 14 12.4 0 0.0 3 3.3 29 35.8 6 8.0 0 0.0 1 2.9 10 10.3
E e fe bl he Li y T tr a m f t O tion uri out ee fo t y s c h a m b n e it E lt z Co Fu ual eali ea f S rn A elf H ng g O S e d i in gh Q lf-R ed nc igh el i e av oo o e e . G 4. F 5. H 6. H 7. S 8. N 9. C 0. H 2 2 2 23 2 2 2 3
t en m n iro v n
Energy Saving
Higher Costs
Lower Costs
High Construction- & Material-Risk
Innovative & Modern
Not Common Housing
Warm Interior Atmosphere
Healthy Interior
Individual Architecture
Natural Material
Matrix 1 Germany accumulated 229 responses
153 27.0 6 1.4 147 41.3 39 12.5 1 0.3 3 0.8 0 0.0 2 0.9 3 1.0 23 6.0
111 19.6 56 12.6 123 34.6 166 53.2 8 2.3 20 5.3 0 0.0 9 3.9 2 0.7 12 3.1
9 1.6 13 2.9 12 3.4 5 1.6 4 1.1 43 11.5 8 1.9 1 0.4 22 7.5 18 4.7
21 3.7 157 35.4 5 1.4 13 4.2 114 32.3 65 17.3 2 0.5 0 0.0 7 2.4 3 0.8
33 19 5.8 3.4 8 4 1.8 0.9 7 3 2.0 0.8 1 0 0.3 0.0 14 20 4.0 5.7 11 2 2.9 0.5 100 109 26.3 26.1 13 8 5.6 3.5 12 20 4.1 6.8 1 1 0.3 0.3
36 6.4 63 14.2 7 2.0 19 6.1 47 13.3 93 24.8 3 0.7 6 2.6 11 3.7 28 7.3
22 3.9 39 8.8 2 0.6 6 1.9 37 10.5 22 5.9 121 29.0 8 3.5 166 56.5 1 0.3
104 18.3 1 0.2 25 7.0 8 2.6 5 1.4 12 3.2 0 0.0 14 6.1 6 2.0 161 42.0
18 4 3.2 0.7 1 8 0.2 1.8 6 1 1.7 0.3 18 1 5.8 0.3 1 20 0.3 5.7 13 4 3.5 1.1 3 60 0.7 14.4 162 5 70.1 2.2 2 42 0.7 14.3 125 8 32.6 2.1
37 6.5 88 19.8 18 5.1 36 11.5 82 23.2 87 23.2 2 0.5 3 1.3 1 0.3 2 0.5
y g ds rit u ty is n dar nt vi ec i e s t n ou tan n m io rea H -S f I tion es ct on le y C s r O a t i A g b t n s r e p a f nv age U rta Saf ng tio cto epu ant O E o a s f e v R e m nt si ar Fa & ak & isad r Th dva edo ng Com tyou Rep A i e W s H v e i Li t & ual ual any g A mag ial D e Fo ial A Fr s & d y n I n d e nc nc ir ti v ite lth asa gh Q ivi o M usi od na osi ina im nsp d e o o i ea o i l n I L F F P H G I T H P H
Inspires & Wakes Up Creativity
Limited Freedom Of Action
Financial Advantages
Positive For The Environment
Financial Disadvantages
Good Image & Reputation
Housing As A Factor Of Insecurity
Too Many Reparations
Individual Housing
High Quality- & Safety-Standards
Pleasant & Comfortable Housing
Healthy Living
Matrix 2 Germany accumulated 229 responses
97 34.0 30 10.3 16 4.2 0 0.0 2 0.9 14 7.8 6 3.3 90 36.9 13 10.6 0 0.0 33 12.4 42 14.5 66 17.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 53 29.6 0 0.0 26 10.7 30 24.4 0 0.0 87 32.7
149 42.0
14 3.7 3 0.8 0 0.0 8 4.5 0 0.0 2 0.8 3 2.4 7 4.2 10 3.8
29 8.2 12 4.2
1 0.3 0 0.0 6 2.1 4 1.1
6 35 13 52 11 7 31 1.7 9.9 3.7 14.7 3.1 2.0 8.7 0 4 0 5 0 0 82 0.0 15.4 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 28.8 3 77 49 15 44 8 8 0.7 26.6 16.9 5.2 15.2 2.8 2.8 6 76 42 3 1 5 146 1.6 20.1 11.1 0.8 0.3 1.3 38.5 4 92 0 179 2 2 74 0 1.1 25.8 0.0 50.3 0.6 0.6 20.8 0.0 3 6 0 92 0 2 107 0 1.4 2.8 0.0 43.4 0.0 0.9 50.5 0.0 17 0 0 17 17 8 2 43 9.5 0.0 0.0 9.5 9.5 4.5 1.1 24.0 4 4 49 6 8 2 99 2 2.2 2.2 27.2 3.3 4.4 1.1 55.0 1.1 12 1 1 69 18 11 7 7 4.9 0.4 0.4 28.3 7.4 4.5 2.9 2.9 12 3 5 28 0 2 4 23 9.8 2.4 4.1 22.8 0.0 1.6 3.3 18.7 0 18 92 5 36 2 3 3 0.0 10.8 55.4 3.0 21.7 1.2 1.8 1.8 94 1 0 27 1 0 8 5 35.3 0.4 0.0 10.2 0.4 0.0 3.0 1.9
21 5.9 45 15.8 8 2.8
s rd da
y rit u t ity c iv en se t n ou tan n a o I i nm on ct Cre e H -S s r Of tati ges iro s A bl fety n p v a a rt Sa ng atio cto epu ant En age Of s U t fo a r i e R dv he an om k F & us pa m g in Co ity- Ho Re s A e & isa r T dv eed Wa v & al Li al any g A mag ial D e Fo ial A Fr s & y ant Qu idu I n e v c c ed h s lt h div o M usi od nan siti nan mit spir a a g e o o i e i o o i i l n n T H G F P I F L I H P H g
sin
Inspires & Wakes Up Creativity
Unlimited Freedom Of Action
Financial Advantagaes
Positive For The Environment
Good Image & Reputation
Secure Housing
Less Reparations
Individual Housing
High Quality- & Safety-Standards
Pleasant & Comfortable Housing
Healthy Living
Matrix 3 Germany accumulated 229 responses
3.8
35.3
0.4
0.0
10.2
0.4
0.0
3.0
1.9
184 29.0 42 8.6 28 7.0 13 2.9 6 1.7 16 4.1 3 1.0 56 16.1 14 3.9 2 1.1 15 3.9
137 21.6 181 36.9 82 20.6 75 16.5 73 20.5 94 24.3 56 18.2 38 10.9 46 17.7 16 8.8 68 17.5
44 6.9 83 16.9 18 4.5 80 17.6 55 15.5 30 7.8 26 8.4 9 2.6 88 24.3 26 14.3 108 27.8
124 19.5 110 22.5 96 24.1 86 18.9 100 28.1 84 21.7 51 16.6 28 8.0 111 30.7 28 15.4 52 13.4
22 3.5 30 6.1 15 3.8 139 30.6 18 5.1 11 2.8 58 18.8 5 1.4 40 11.1 17 9.3 98 25.2
14 2.2 7 1.4 131 32.9 2 0.4 89 25.0 137 35.4 7 2.3 3 0.9 29 8.0 63 34.6 2 0.5
60 9.5 3 0.6 14 3.5 4 0.9 13 3.7 0 0.0 9 2.9 187 53.6 5 1.4 27 14.8 8 2.1
50 7.9 34 6.9 14 3.5 56 12.3 2 0.6 15 3.9 98 31.8 23 6.6 11 3.0 3 1.7 38 9.8
ro vi n e eE ife bl h L a T ty f rt em O tion uri out fo te y s c a t tl h om un b e E li iz C F ea ua eal Of S rn A elf H ng g S Q e R i d in gh el lf- eed onc igh oo av i H C N G Fe H H Se
12.4 32.7
nm
en
t
Lower construction costs
Higher construction costs
More expensive to run
Healthy interior
Natural material
Warm interior atmosphere
High construction & material risk
Positive for the environment
Typical Swedish housing
Modern & aesthetic
Matrix 1 AGE, younger than 35 years 118 responses, Sweden
10 6.4 15 11.1 42 20.3 0 0 34 19.2 51 25.4 74 40.0 3 2.3 2 1.7 0 0
15 9.6 15 11.1 27 13.0 5 4.0 42 23.7 18 9.0 30 16.2 9 7.0 12 10.3 16 16.8
3 1.9 7 5.2 72 34.8 1 0.8 2 1.1 67 33.3 13 7.0 4 3.1 6 5.3 0 0
55 35.0 15 11.1 27 13.0 3 2.4 15 8.5 24 11.9 11 6.0 1 0.8 3 2.6 1 1.1
45 7 28.7 4.5 51 4 37.8 3.0 9 9 4.4 4.4 3 36 2.4 28.8 74 1 41.8 0.6 22 5 11.0 2.5 46 2 24.9 1.1 3 69 2.3 53.9 3 66 2.6 56.9 0 3 0 3.2
15 2 9.6 1.3 18 5 3.7 13.3 4 11 1.9 5.3 5 16 4.0 12.8 4 3 2.3 1.7 5 5 2.5 2.5 2 2 1.1 1.1 4 12 3.1 9.4 1 6 0.9 5.2 0 6 0 6.3
4 1 2.6 0.6 3 2 2.2 1.5 4 2 1.9 1.0 5 51 4.0 40.8 1 1 0.6 0.6 1 3 0.5 1.5 5 0 2.7 0 0 23 0 18.0 3 14 2.6 12.1 62 7 65.3 7.4
g sin u n n ho io il sm atio ble ges ct s a t a t ta ta u of tage g en rep for van ing y e m m n s n n n & com isad ou edo va usi ng mo iro e i d h o e a d g v l r h liv the en ima nt & cial dua ed f cial y re e i a u t tl h rth n n s d i c v iv o m na nse oo lea ina ndi ea ct Li Fi I F I P H W A G
Insecure housing
Financial advantages
Limited freedom of action
Individual housing
Financial disadvantages
Pleasant & comfortable housing
Good image & reputation
Active environmentalism
Worth the money
Healthy living
Matrix 2 AGE, younger than 35 years 118 responses, Sweden
22 17.6 44 25.1 15 10.6 54 29.4 3 2.3 12 8.8 2 2.0 8 7.7 1 0.9
59 35 30.1 17.9 14 11.2 35 20.0 27 18 19.0 12.7 62 5 33.7 2.7 28 8 21.4 6.1 32 6 23.4 4.4 2 6 2.0 6.0 37 6 35.6 5.8 2 0 1.9 0
24 49 7 10 4 7 1 12.3 25.0 3.6 5.1 2.0 3.6 0.5 12 34 0 13 1 28 1 9.6 27.2 0 10.4 0.8 22.4 0.8 42 16 11 3 12 12 0 24.0 9.1 6.3 1.7 6.9 6.9 0 33 11 13 2 22 1 23.2 7.8 9.2 1.4 15.5 0.7 25 3 17 2 16 0 16.6 1.6 9.2 1.1 8.7 0 4 1 3 31 1 52 3.1 0.8 2.3 23.7 0.8 39.7 22 33 12 6 8 6 16.1 24.1 8.8 4.4 5.8 4.4 3 2 34 4 7 40 3.0 2.0 34.0 4.0 7.0 40.0 18 15 1 7 5 7 17.3 14.4 1.0 6.7 4.8 6.7 1 2 58 4 35 5 0.9 1.9 53.7 3.7 32.4 4.6
g sin u n n ho tio ism atio ble ges c l a s t a nt epu orta anta ng of tage g e y f i r dv us m ne nm in om an g in mo viro ge & co disa l ho eed adv ous v r h li the en ma t & ial u a d f i a l re y tl h rth ive od i asan anc ivid ite anc ecu o m n ns e n nd o ct ea G Pl Li Fi I H W A Fi I
Secure housing
Financial advantages
Unlimited freedom of action
Individual housing
Pleasant & comfortable housing
Good image & reputation
Active environmentalism
Worth the money
Healthy living
Matrix 3 AGE, younger than 35 years 118 responses, Sweden
82 31.1 37 16.0 38 24.2 9 5.6 41 16.1 10 6.5 5 8.5 14 8.9 5 1.9
60 22.8 56 24.2 23 14.7 51 31.9 73 28.7 42 27.3 4 6.8 30 19.1 72 27.3
64 24.2 52 22.5 24 15.3 40 25.0 63 24.8 33 21.4 3 5.1 30 19.1 59 22.4
l of
ife
on
y rit
15 5.7 23 10.0 17 10.8 27 16.9 23 9.1 53 34.4 10 17.0 21 13.4 14 5.3
39 14.8 59 25.5 22 14.0 28 17.5 53 20.9 14 9.1 14 23.7 59 37.6 93 35.2
4 1.5 4 1.7 33 21.0 5 3.1 1 0.4 2 1.3 23 39.0 3 1.9 21 8.0
f i th om lity izat secu ab al c a l e g h qu -rea d of cern in d h l o n lf e ig ee o H Se N Co G Fe
e
bl
ta or h tt ou
ee
nm ro i nv
en
t
Lower construction costs
Higher construction costs
More expensive to run
Healthy interior
Natural material
Warm interior atmosphere
High construction & material risk
Positive for the environment
Typical Swedish housing
Modern & aesthetic
Matrix 1 AGE, 35 - 49 years 97 responses, Sweden
11 8.0 18 15.8 45 24.2 3 3.2 27 19.3 52 31.3 63 39.6 0 0 1 0.9 0 0
7 5.1 9 7.9 64 34.4 1 1.1 3 2.1 46 27.7 25 15.7 0 0 1 0.9 0 0
39 37 9 28.3 26.8 6.5 19 36 5 16.7 31.6 4.4 22 12 6 11.8 6.5 3.2 2 0 35 2.1 0 37.2 15 60 4 10.7 42.9 2.9 16 13 3 9.6 7.8 1.8 14 28 3 8.8 17.6 1.9 1 1 61 1.0 1.0 58.1 0 3 64 0 2.7 58.2 0 1 1 0 1.6 1.6
15 10.9 7 6.1 3 1.6 1 1.1 6 4.3 3 1.8 1 0.6 1 1.0 1 0.9 2 3.2
4 2.9 3 2.6 6 3.2 8 8.5 0 0 4 2.4 0 0 12 11.4 8 7.3 5 8.0
5 3.6 3 2.6 5 2.7 1 1.1 2 1.4 7 4.2 5 3.1 2 1.9 2 1.8 41 65.1
2 1.5 2 1.8 1 0.5 36 38.3 0 0 4 2.4 1 0.6 17 16.2 16 14.6 1 1.6
n h m io on s ct s lis tati able age a a t t t u of tage g en rep for van ing y e m m n s n g on iron e & com isad hou edo dva usi in m o e a d g v v l r h li the en ima nt & cial dua ed f cial y re e u i a t tl h rth n n d s c i v iv o m na nse ea ct oo lea ina ndi I Fi Li I F P H W A G 9 6.5 12 10.6 22 11.8 7 7.5 23 16.4 18 10.8 19 12.0 10 9.5 14 12.7 12 19.1
g
in
s ou
Insecure housing
Financial advantages
Limited freedom of action
Individual housing
Financial disadvantages
Pleasant & comfortable housing
Good image & reputation
Active environmentalism
Worth the money
Healthy living
Matrix 2 AGE, 35 - 49 years 97 responses, Sweden
58 40 31.5 21.7 11 11 14.1 14.1 45 24 34.9 18.6 10 29 7 9.3 27.1 6.5 39 42 11 26.0 28.0 7.3 2 6 4 2.1 6.4 4.3 9 27 6 8.3 25.0 5.6 2 2 9 2.3 2.3 10.5 7 28 5 9.5 37.8 6.8 1 1 1 1.1 1.1 1.1
25 44 4 3 4 6 0 13.6 23.9 2.2 1.6 2.2 3.3 0 12 21 3 4 0 16 0 15.4 26.9 3.9 5.1 0 20.5 0 29 14 4 2 6 5 0 22.5 10.9 3.1 1.6 4.7 3.9 0 19 9 8 1 23 1 17.8 8.4 7.5 0.9 21.5 0.9 30 1 15 1 10 1 20.0 0.7 10.0 0.7 6.7 0.7 4 1 7 25 0 45 4.3 1.1 7.5 26.6 0 47.9 12 29 8 6 5 6 11.1 26.9 7.4 5.6 4.6 5.6 2 1 20 3 3 44 2.3 1.2 23.3 3.5 3.5 51.2 14 9 0 8 2 1 18.9 12.2 0 10.8 2.7 1.4 1 0 49 1 36 1 1.1 0 53.9 1.1 39.6 1.1
g in s u n n ho io il sm atio ble ges ct s a t a t e ta f ta u y men rep for van sing m o ntag ng e g on ron e & com isad ou edo dva usi in il v he m nvi ag t & al d al h fre al a ho e e u t m i i d y r n i d te nc i cu lth orth tive od asa anc ivi m ina nse e n nd o c ea i l i G P L F I H W A F I
Secure housing
Financial advantages
Unlimited freedom of action
Individual housing
Pleasant & comfortable housing
Good image & reputation
Active environmentalism
Worth the money
Healthy living
Matrix 3 AGE, 35 - 49 years 97 responses, Sweden
67 30.7 22 13.3 32 25.2 10 8.6 32 15.0 11 8.0 2 3.9 16 12.1 9 4.1
l of
ife
y rit
46 21.1 45 27.1 13 10.2 29 25.0 57 26.6 37 26.8 2 3.9 24 18.2 47 21.5
56 25.7 40 24.1 29 22.8 26 22.4 60 28.0 29 21.0 3 5.8 29 22.0 53 24.2
11 5.1 18 10.8 14 11.0 24 20.7 20 9.4 41 29.7 7 13.5 16 12.1 18 8.2
33 5 2.3 15.1 39 2 23.5 1.2 13 26 10.2 20.5 24 3 20.7 2.6 44 1 20.6 0.5 15 5 10.9 3.6 6 32 11.5 61.5 46 1 34.9 0.8 75 17 34.3 7.8
on f m lity zati ecu ab o s c a li he ng qu -rea d of cern i d h l n lf e ig ee oo H Se N Co G Fe th al
e
bl
ta or h tt u o
ee
nm i ro v n
en
t
Lower construction costs
Higher construction costs
More expensive to run
Healthy interior
Natural material
Warm interior atmosphere
High construction & material risk
Positive for the environment
Typical Swedish housing
Modern & aesthetic
Matrix 1 AGE, 50 - 64 years 143 responses, Sweden
14 7.5 20 14.4 52 24.8 2 1.5 46 25.1 74 32.6 87 38.8 1 0.7 1 0.7 1 1.1
7 3.8 10 7.2 88 41.9 4 2.9 11 5.8 60 26.4 25 11.2 4 2.7 2 1.4 2 2.2
58 59 2 31.2 31.7 1.1 24 41 3 17.3 29.5 2.2 18 16 3 8.6 7.6 1.4 2 2 44 1.5 1.5 32.1 18 69 0 9.4 36.1 0.0 26 28 3 11.5 12.3 1.3 25 49 1 11.2 21.9 0.5 3 3 65 2.0 2.0 43.1 3 6 63 2.1 4.2 44.4 3 3 2 3.2 3.2 2.2
13 7.0 10 7.2 1 0.5 3 2.2 7 3.7 1 0.4 5 2.2 2 1.3 6 4.2 3 3.2
4 2.2 10 7.2 4 1.9 18 13.1 2 1.1 3 1.3 0 0.0 12 8.0 16 11.3 1 1.1
5 2.7 8 5.8 5 2.4 6 4.4 2 1.1 6 2.6 2 0.9 2 1.3 1 0.7 63 67.7
0 0.0 4 2.9 0 0.0 41 29.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.9 25 16.6 18 12.7 1 1.1
n h m io on s ct s lis tati able age a a t t t u of tage g en rep for van ing y e m m n s n g on iron e & com isad hou edo dva usi in m o e a d g v v l r h li the en ima nt & cial dua ed f cial y re e u i a t tl h rth n n d s c i v iv o m na nse ea ct oo lea ina ndi I Fi Li I F P H W A G 24 12.9 9 6.5 23 11.0 15 11.0 34 17.8 26 11.5 28 12.5 34 22.5 26 18.3 14 15.1
g
in
s ou
Insecure housing
Financial advantages
Limited freedom of action
Individual housing
Financial disadvantages
Pleasant & comfortable housing
Good image & reputation
Active environmentalism
Worth the money
Healthy living
Matrix 2 AGE, 50 - 64 years 143 responses, Sweden
21 20.4 51 28.8 15 9.2 60 30.2 2 1.7 13 9.0 5 3.9 10 10.2 1 0.9
55 34 25.4 15.7 12 11.7 31 17.5 40 20 24.5 12.3 56 10 28.1 5.0 13 4 11.1 3.4 31 4 21.4 2.8 5 6 3.9 4.7 36 8 36.7 8.2 1 0 0.9 0.0
34 74 2 7 2 9 0 15.7 34.1 0.9 3.2 0.9 4.2 0.0 14 21 3 8 1 23 0 13.6 20.4 2.9 7.8 1.0 22.3 0.0 50 22 5 4 8 5 1 28.2 12.4 2.8 2.3 4.5 2.8 0.6 39 6 20 2 21 0 23.9 3.7 12.3 1.2 12.9 0.0 41 1 18 3 10 0 20.6 0.5 9.0 1.5 5.0 0.0 2 0 3 45 1 47 1.7 0.0 2.6 38.5 0.9 40.2 21 45 11 8 8 4 14.5 31.0 7.6 5.5 5.5 2.8 6 3 36 9 1 58 4.7 2.3 27.9 7.0 0.8 45.0 21 10 2 4 6 1 21.4 10.2 2.0 4.1 6.1 1.0 5 2 52 4 45 2 4.5 1.8 46.4 3.6 40.2 1.8
g in s u n n ho io il sm atio ble ges ct s a t a t e ta f ta u y men rep for van sing m o ntag ng e g on ron e & com isad ou edo dva usi in il v he m nvi ag t & al d al h fre al a ho e e u t m i i d y r n i d te nc i cu lth orth tive od asa anc ivi m ina nse e n nd o c ea i l i G P L F I H W A F I
Secure housing
Financial advantages
Unlimited freedom of action
Individual housing
Pleasant & comfortable housing
Good image & reputation
Active environmentalism
Worth the money
Healthy living
Matrix 3 AGE, 50 - 64 years 143 responses, Sweden
97 33.8 26 12.0 48 25.1 15 8.0 44 16.6 14 7.7 3 4.0 10 7.6 4 1.4
l of
ife
3 1.1 1 0.5 40 20.9 4 2.1 1 0.4 1 0.6 48 64.0 4 3.1 24 8.5
y rit
57 19.9 52 24.1 18 9.4 67 35.8 70 26.4 42 23.0 5 6.7 27 20.6 62 21.9
78 27.2 56 25.6 49 25.7 45 24.1 76 28.7 35 19.1 1 1.3 30 22.9 68 24.0
11 3.8 18 8.3 13 6.8 20 10.7 29 10.9 66 36.1 10 13.3 14 10.7 17 6.0
41 14.3 63 29.2 23 12.0 36 19.3 45 17.0 25 13.7 8 10.7 46 35.1 108 38.2
on f m lity zati ecu ab o s c a li he ng qu -rea d of cern i d h l n lf e ig ee oo H Se N Co G Fe th al
e
bl
ta or h tt u o
ee
nm i ro v n
en
t
Lower construction costs
Higher construction costs
More expensive to run
Healthy interior
Natural material
Warm interior atmosphere
High construction & material risk
Positive for the environment
Typical Swedish housing
Modern & aesthetic
Matrix 1 AGE, 65 years and older 145 responses, Sweden
18 12.8 15 11.2 36 22.6 2 2.0 35 22.2 50 31.7 62 39.5 3 2.4 3 2.6 0 0.0
13 9.2 20 14.9 22 13.8 10 9.9 27 17.1 21 13.3 20 12.7 22 17.6 17 14.9 5 7.6
10 7.1 8 6.0 64 40.3 0 0.0 5 3.2 40 25.3 16 10.2 2 1.6 3 2.6 0 0.0
34 24.1 24 17.9 14 8.8 4 4.0 8 5.1 9 5.7 11 7.0 2 1.6 2 1.8 0 0.0
41 29.1 37 27.6 11 6.9 0 0.0 65 41.1 21 13.3 36 22.9 6 4.8 4 3.5 2 3.0
9 6.4 2 1.5 1 0.6 27 26.7 2 1.3 4 2.5 2 1.3 56 44.8 62 54.4 0 0.0
10 7.1 15 11.2 2 1.3 4 4.0 8 5.1 2 1.3 3 1.9 2 1.6 3 2.6 0 0.0
0 0.0 6 4.5 4 2.5 12 11.9 3 1.9 4 2.5 2 1.3 16 12.8 7 6.1 3 4.6
3 2.1 3 2.2 3 1.9 2 2.0 3 1.9 5 3.2 4 2.6 2 1.6 3 2.6 54 81.8
3 2.1 4 3.0 2 1.3 40 39.6 2 1.3 2 1.3 1 0.6 14 11.2 10 8.8 2 3.0
g sin u n n ho tio ism atio ble ges c l a s ta ut rta anta ng of tage g en rep y fo i v e m m n s n g on ron e & com isad hou edo dva usi in o e a d g l r il v he m nvi h a f a t & al al e t y e e d im san nci vidu ited nci cur th rth v l i a i a a e o t a o m n n e d s o c e Li Fi In Fi In A G Pl H W
Insecure housing
Financial advantages
Limited freedom of action
Individual housing
Financial disadvantages
Pleasant & comfortable housing
Good image & reputation
Active environmentalism
Worth the money
Healthy living
Matrix 2 AGE, 65 years and older 145 responses, Sweden
11 17.2 31 26.5 13 12.2 35 24.3 0 0.0 10 9.4 3 3.3 6 8.6 1 1.3
43 30 29.5 20.6 6 9.4 26 22.2 28 14 26.2 13.1 47 7 32.6 4.9 7 2 7.9 2.3 26 3 24.3 2.8 3 3 3.3 3.3 26 5 37.1 7.1 2 1 2.7 1.3
21 43 2 14.4 29.5 1.4 10 14 3 15.6 21.9 4.7 37 12 2 31.6 10.3 1.7 24 1 22.4 0.9 27 3 18.8 2.1 2 2 2.3 2.3 14 30 11 13.1 28.0 10.3 4 4 29 4.4 4.4 32.2 18 3 1 25.7 4.3 1.4 1 0 32 1.3 0.0 42.7 4 4.4 4 5.7 3 4.0
2 1.4 5 7.8 2 1.7 10 9.4 12 8.3 6 6.7
2 1 2 1.4 0.7 1.4 2 12 1 3.1 18.8 1.6 7 0 0 6.0 0.0 0.0 1 16 0 0.9 15.0 0.0 4 9 0 2.8 6.3 0.0 30 1 39 33.7 1.1 43.8 7 3 3 6.5 2.8 2.8 7 33 7.8 36.7 4 3 5.7 4.3 32 3 42.7 4.0
g in s u n n ho io il sm atio ble ges ct s a t a t e ta f ta u y men rep for van sing m o ntag ng e g on ron e & com isad ou edo dva usi in il v he m nvi ag t & al d al h fre al a ho e e u t m i i d y r n i d te nc i cu lth orth tive od asa anc ivi m ina nse e n nd o c ea i l i G P L F I H W A F I
Secure housing
Financial advantages
Unlimited freedom of action
Individual housing
Pleasant & comfortable housing
Good image & reputation
Active environmentalism
Worth the money
Healthy living
Matrix 3 AGE, 65 years and older 145 responses, Sweden
80 39.0 25 17.0 23 19.2 7 5.8 28 15.0 8 6.5 2 3.1 6 5.7 4 1.7
l of
ife
5 2.4 3 2.0 28 23.3 1 0.8 2 1.1 3 2.4 30 46.2 1 1.0 24 10.0
y rit
35 17.1 44 29.9 15 12.5 35 29.2 65 34.8 36 29.0 9 13.9 15 14.3 55 22.8
55 26.8 24 16.3 26 21.7 27 22.5 42 22.5 23 18.6 6 9.2 11 10.5 55 22.8
6 2.9 9 6.1 11 9.2 19 15.8 14 7.5 36 29.0 14 21.5 10 9.5 9 3.7
24 11.7 42 28.6 17 14.2 31 25.8 36 19.3 18 14.5 4 6.2 62 59.1 94 39.0
on f m lity zati ecu ab o s c a li he ng qu -rea d of cern i d h l n lf e ig ee oo H Se N Co G Fe th al
e
bl
ta or h tt u o
ee
nm i ro v n
en
t
Lower construction costs
Higher construction costs
More expensive to run
Healthy interior
Natural material
Warm interior atmosphere
High construction & material risk
Positive for the environment
Typical Swedish housing
Modern & aesthetic
Matrix 1 INCOME, less than 10.000 € per year 55 responses, Sweden
8 13.3 7 12.7 13 18.6 0 0.0 11 17.7 24 32.0 31 44.9 1 1.9 0 0.0 0 0.0
10 3 14 16.7 5.0 23.3 8 3 6 14.6 5.5 10.9 11 27 5 15.7 38.6 7.1 4 0 3 8.2 0.0 6.1 10 3 8 16.1 4.8 12.9 11 16 7 14.7 21.3 9.3 11 6 3 15.9 8.7 4.4 5 0 0 9.4 0.0 0.0 6 0 1 11.8 0.0 2.0 3 0 1 7.7 0.0 2.6
12 20.0 15 27.3 4 5.7 2 4.1 26 41.9 6 8.0 12 17.4 1 1.9 1 2.0 0 0.0
4 6.7 1 1.8 1 1.4 12 24.5 0 0.0 2 2.7 1 1.5 27 50.9 28 54.9 2 5.1
7 11.7 7 12.7 1 1.4 1 2.0 3 4.8 1 1.3 1 1.5 2 3.8 0 0.0 0 0.0
0 0.0 3 5.5 2 2.9 6 12.3 1 1.6 4 5.3 1 1.5 9 17.0 8 15.7 3 7.7
1 1.7 1 1.8 3 4.3 1 2.0 0 0.0 1 1.3 3 4.4 0 0.0 1 2.0 29 74.4
1 1.7 4 7.3 3 4.3 20 40.8 0 0.0 3 4.0 0 0.0 8 15.1 6 11.8 1 2.6
g sin u n n ho tio ism atio ble ges c l a s ta ut rta anta ng of tage g en rep y fo i v e m m n s n g on ron e & com isad hou edo dva usi in o e a d g l r il v he m nvi h a f a t & al al e t y e e d im san nci vidu ited nci cur th rth v l i a i a a e o t a o m n n e d s o c e Li Fi In Fi In G Pl A H W
Insecure housing
Financial advantages
Limited freedom of action
Individual housing
Financial disadvantages
Pleasant & comfortable housing
Good image & reputation
Active environmentalism
Worth the money
Healthy living
Matrix 2 INCOME, less than 10.000 € per year 55 responses, Sweden
4 16.0 15 24.2 6 10.5 16 23.9 1 3.6 3 4.4 3 5.8 2 6.7 1 2.4 13 21.0 14 24.6 20 29.9 5 17.9 14 20.6 1 1.9 12 40.0 2 4.8
20 29.9
7 10.5 4 16.0 15 24.2
7 12.3 4 10 6.0 14.9 3 1 10.7 3.6 2 4 5.9 2.9 2 4 3.9 7.7 2 6 6.7 20.0 1 1 2.4 2.4
12 17.9 2 8.0
0 0.0 13 19.1 4 7.7 3 10.0 1 2.4
18 26.9 8 32.0 6 9.7 13 22.8
4 4.9 14 26.9 0 0.0 19 45.2
2 3.0 0 0.0 3 4.8 5 8.8 2 3.0
6 11.5 1 3.3 2 4.8
2 3.0 1 4.0 3 4.8 3 5.3 5 7.5 4 14.3
1 3.3 12 28.6
1 1.5 0 0.0 4 6.5 1 1.8 2 3.0 12 42.9 5 7.4
3 7.1
4 6.0 6 24.0 3 4.8 8 14.0 8 11.9 1 3.6 19 27.9 1 1.9
1 1.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 3.6 4 5.9 17 32.7 3 10.0
g sin u n n ho tio ism atio ble ges c l a s ta ut rta anta ng of tage g en rep y fo i v e m m n s n g on ron e & com isad hou edo dva usi in o e a d g l r il v he m nvi h a f a t & al al e t y e e d im san nci vidu ited nci cur th rth v l i a a i a o e t a o m n n e d s o c e Li Fi In Fi In A G Pl H W
Secure housing
Financial advantages
Unlimited freedom of action
Individual housing
Pleasant & comfortable housing
Good image & reputation
Active environmentalism
Worth the money
Healthy living
Matrix 3 INCOME, less than 10.000 € per year 55 responses, Sweden
33 37.1 16 19.5 15 24.6 5 8.1 14 15.7 4 6.6 3 9.7 5 9.3 3 2.9
16 18.0 21 25.6 13 21.3 16 25.8 23 25.8 12 19.7 4 12.9 9 16.7 22 21.6
16 18.0 14 17.1 12 19.7 18 29.0 22 24.7 13 21.3 1 3.2 9 16.7 19 18.6
5 5.6 7 8.5 5 8.2 11 17.7 13 14.6 17 27.9 2 6.5 9 16.7 9 8.8
15 16.9 21 25.6 7 11.2 11 17.7 16 18.0 13 21.3 3 9.7 22 40.7 43 42.2
4 4.5 3 3.7 9 14.8 1 1.6 1 1.1 2 3.3 18 58.1 0 0.0 6 5.9
ee ife h l y t of ion rit ut fo th om lity izat secu abo l a c a l he ng qu -rea d of cern i d h l n lf e ig ee oo H Se N Co G Fe
e
bl
rta
nm ro i nv
en
t
Lower construction costs
Higher construction costs
More expensive to run
Healthy interior
Natural material
Warm interior atmosphere
High construction & material risk
Positive for the environment
Typical Swedish housing
Modern & aesthetic
Matrix 1 INCOME, 10.000 - 19.999 € per year 127 responses, Sweden
17 13.5 13 10.5 35 21.6 1 1.0 32 21.1 48 28.6 65 40.9 2 1.7 4 3.9 0 0.0
13 10.3 18 14.5 21 13.0 5 5.2 33 21.7 17 10.1 20 12.6 19 16.0 15 14.6 10 13.7
8 6.4 4 3.2 61 37.7 1 1.0 7 4.6 45 26.8 13 8.2 3 2.5 4 3.9 0 0.0
35 27.8 19 15.3 17 10.5 4 4.2 10 6.6 17 10.1 12 7.2 2 1.7 3 2.9 0 0.0
32 25.4 43 34.7 11 6.8 0 0.0 51 33.6 19 11.3 39 24.5 5 4.2 3 2.9 2 2.7
7 5.6 1 0.8 3 1.9 23 24.0 3 2.0 3 1.8 1 0.6 49 41.2 48 46.6 3 4.1
8 6.4 13 10.5 3 1.9 2 2.1 11 7.2 6 3.6 3 1.9 2 1.7 7 6.8 0 0.0
1 0.8 5 4.0 7 4.3 11 11.5 2 1.3 4 2.4 1 0.6 19 16.0 4 3.9 3 4.1
5 4.0 4 3.2 3 1.9 2 2.1 2 1.3 5 3.0 4 2.5 3 2.5 4 3.9 49 67.1
0 0.0 4 3.2 1 0.6 47 49.0 1 0.7 4 2.4 1 0.6 15 12.6 11 10.7 6 8.2
g sin u n n ho tio ism atio ble ges c l a s ta ut rta anta ng of tage g en rep y fo i v e m m n s n g on ron e & com isad hou edo dva usi in o e a d g l r il v he m nvi h a f a t & al al e t y e e d im san nci vidu ited nci cur th rth v l i a i a a e o t a o m n n e d s o c e Li Fi In Fi In A G Pl H W
Insecure housing
Financial advantages
Limited freedom of action
Individual housing
Financial disadvantages
Pleasant & comfortable housing
Good image & reputation
Active environmentalism
Worth the money
Healthy living
Matrix 2 INCOME, 10.000 - 19.999 € per year 127 responses, Sweden
18 22.2 36 29.0 14 13.6 37 26.4 0 0.0 11 8.5 2 2.3 6 8.6 1 1.3 27 21.8 28 27.2 39 27.9 7 14.9 20 15.5 2 2.3 28 40.0 3 4.0
46 30.3
9 8.7 7 5.0 4 8.5 5 3.9 6 6.8 5 7.1 0 0.0
29 19.1 7 8.6
28 20.0 3 6.4 14 10.9 3 3.4 14 20.0 3 4.0
23 15.1 14 17.3 30 24.2
39 2 1.3 25.7 18 1 22.2 1.2 13 1 10.5 0.8 21 5 20.4 4.9 1 0.7 0 0.0 30 8 23.3 6.6 4 24 4.6 27.3 7 1 10.0 1.4 0 30 0.0 40.0 4 4.6 2 2.9 4 5.3
4 2.6 3 3.7 3 2.4 12 11.7 16 11.4 3 6.4
5 7.1 29 38.7
4 2.6 2 2.5 10 8.1 2 1.9 3 2.1 28 59.6 1 0.8
5 6.7
3 2.0 16 19.8 4 3.2 11 10.7 9 6.4 1 2.1 35 27.1 6 6.8
2 1.3 2 2.5 0 0.0 1 1.0 0 0.0 1 2.1 5 3.9 37 42.1 2 2.9
g sin u n n ho tio ism atio ble ges c l a s ta ut rta anta ng of tage g en rep y fo i v e m m n s n g on ron e & com isad hou edo dva usi in o e a d g l r il v he m nvi h a f a t & al al e t y e e d im san nci vidu ited nci cur th rth v l i a a i a o e t a o m n n e d s o c e Li Fi In Fi In A G Pl H W
Secure housing
Financial advantages
Unlimited freedom of action
Individual housing
Pleasant & comfortable housing
Good image & reputation
Active environmentalism
Worth the money
Healthy living
Matrix 3 INCOME, 10.000 - 19.999 € per year 127 responses, Sweden
80 37.0 21 13.7 29 23.4 6 5.7 28 14.9 7 5.7 1 1.9 10 8.3 3 1.3
40 18.5 43 28.1 13 10.5 39 33.6 65 34.6 33 27.0 4 7.6 20 16.5 57 25.1
57 26.4 32 20.9 27 21.8 27 23.3 45 23.9 21 17.2 5 9.4 19 15.7 51 22.5
10 4.6 12 7.8 10 8.1 18 15.5 16 8.5 44 36.1 10 18.9 14 11.6 9 4.0
25 11.6 42 27.5 20 16.1 24 20.7 33 17.6 14 11.5 10 18.9 54 44.6 85 37.5
4 1.9 3 2.0 25 20.2 2 1.7 1 0.5 3 2.5 23 43.4 4 3.3 22 9.7
ee ife h l y t of ion rit ut fo th om lity izat secu abo l a c a l he ng qu -rea d of cern i d h l n lf e ig ee oo H Se N Co G Fe
e
bl
rta
nm ro i nv
en
t
Lower construction costs
Higher construction costs
More expensive to run
Healthy interior
Natural material
Warm interior atmosphere
High construction & material risk
Positive for the environment
Typical Swedish housing
Modern & aesthetic
Matrix 1 INCOME, 20.000 - 29.999 € per year 185 responses, Sweden
15 6.4 26 13.2 70 22.7 3 1.7 56 21.8 92 31.2 111 38.8 1 0.6 3 1.7 1 0.9
18 7.7 18 9.1 39 12.6 14 7.9 49 19.1 29 10.0 38 13.3 26 14.4 23 12.9 18 15.8
10 4.3 15 7.6 114 36.9 1 0.6 6 2.3 91 31.3 31 10.9 3 1.7 2 1.1 2 1.8
77 32.8 35 17.8 37 12.0 3 1.7 20 7.8 29 10.0 24 8.4 2 1.1 1 0.6 2 1.8
73 31.1 66 33.5 17 5.5 1 0.6 111 43.2 31 10.7 64 22.4 4 2.2 7 3.9 3 2.6
9 3.8 8 4.1 12 3.9 59 33.3 2 0.8 6 2.1 4 1.4 100 55.3 98 54.8 0 0.0
22 9.4 13 6.6 4 1.3 7 4.0 4 1.6 1 0.3 6 2.1 3 1.7 2 1.1 2 1.8
6 2.6 9 4.6 11 3.6 23 13.0 3 1.2 3 1.0 1 0.4 9 5.0 17 9.5 4 3.5
3 1.3 4 2.0 5 1.6 4 2.3 5 2.0 9 3.1 4 1.4 2 1.1 3 1.7 79 69.3
2 0.9 3 1.5 0 0.0 62 35.0 1 0.4 0 0.0 3 1.1 31 17.1 23 12.9 3 2.6
g sin u n n ho tio ism atio ble ges c l a s ta ut rta anta ng of tage g en rep y fo i v e m m n s n g on ron e & com isad hou edo dva usi in o e a d g l r il v he m nvi h a f a t & al al e t y e e d im san nci vidu ited nci cur th rth v l i a i a a e o t a o m n n e d s o c e Li Fi In Fi In A G Pl H W
Insecure housing
Financial advantages
Limited freedom of action
Individual housing
Financial disadvantages
Pleasant & comfortable housing
Good image & reputation
Active environmentalism
Worth the money
Healthy living
Matrix 2 INCOME, 20.000 - 29.999 € per year 185 responses, Sweden
25 17.0 67 32.8 20 10.0 71 26.4 2 2.1 16 6.3 5 3.4 10 7.3 2 1.4 47 23.0 41 20.4 86 32.0 23 24.2 41 16.1 3 2.0 50 36.2 0 0.0
75 26.5
24 11.9 11 4.1 4 4.2 9 3.5 12 8.2 7 5.1 0 0.0
57 20.1 21 14.3
45 16.7 6 6.3 29 11.4 3 2.0 35 25.4 2 1.4
41 14.5 16 10.9 30 14.7
3 3.2 55 21.7 1 0.7 13 9.4 2 1.4
79 27.9 39 26.5 27 13.2 46 22.9
18 7.1 43 29.3 2 1.5 72 48.7
6 2.1 4 2.7 10 4.9 12 6.0 4 1.5
6 4.1 13 9.4 5 3.4
11 3.9 13 8.8 4 2.0 22 11.0 31 11.5 1 1.1
5 3.6 65 43.9
3 1.1 1 0.7 10 4.9 2 1.0 5 1.9 56 59.0 11 4.3
0 0.0
11 3.9 28 19.1 9 4.4 33 16.4 16 6.0 0 0.0 71 28.0 6 4.1
0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 1.6 68 46.3 3 2.2
g sin u n n ho tio ism atio ble ges c l a s ta ut rta anta ng of tage g en rep y fo i v e m m n s n g on ron e & com isad hou edo dva usi in o e a d g l r il v he m nvi h a f a t & al al e t y e e d im san nci vidu ited nci cur th rth v l i a a i a o e t a o m n n e d s o c e Li Fi In Fi In A G Pl H W
Secure housing
Financial advantages
Unlimited freedom of action
Individual housing
Pleasant & comfortable housing
Good image & reputation
Active environmentalism
Worth the money
Healthy living
Matrix 3 INCOME, 20.000 - 29.999 € per year 185 responses, Sweden
122 32.8 39 13.4 53 22.8 17 7.4 54 14.6 13 5.7 6 6.0 16 7.6 12 3.1
77 20.7 72 24.7 24 10.3 78 33.8 103 27.8 62 27.0 9 9.0 33 15.6 91 23.5
97 26.1 74 25.3 46 19.7 47 20.4 98 26.5 46 20.0 5 5.0 40 19.0 96 24.8
16 4.3 31 10.6 24 10.3 36 15.6 35 9.5 75 32.6 21 21.0 22 10.4 22 5.7
53 14.3 74 25.3 32 13.7 47 20.4 78 21.1 29 12.6 14 14.0 95 45.0 135 34.9
7 1.9 2 0.7 54 23.2 6 2.6 2 0.5 5 2.2 45 45.0 5 2.4 31 8.0
ee ife h l y t of ion rit ut fo th om lity izat secu abo l a c a l he ng qu -rea d of cern i d h l n lf e ig ee oo H Se N Co G Fe
e
bl
rta
nm ro i nv
en
t
Lower construction costs
Higher construction costs
More expensive to run
Healthy interior
Natural material
Warm interior atmosphere
High construction & material risk
Positive for the environment
Typical Swedish housing
Modern & aesthetic
Matrix 1 INCOME, 30.000€ and more per year 133 responses, Sweden
11 5.7 21 14.8 54 25.4 2 1.4 43 22.9 61 28.8 77 37.8 2 1.3 0 0.0 0 0.0
20 10.4 11 7.8 23 10.8 14 9.9 33 17.6 25 11.8 28 13.7 25 16.6 24 16.4 16 17.8
6 3.1 12 8.5 85 39.9 4 2.8 5 2.7 62 29.3 26 12.8 4 2.7 6 4.1 0 0.0
60 31.1 22 15.5 22 10.3 1 0.7 17 9.0 21 9.9 22 10.8 3 2.0 3 2.1 1 1.1
62 32.1 40 28.2 15 7.0 2 1.4 79 42.0 27 12.7 43 21.1 2 1.3 4 2.7 1 1.1
7 3.6 4 2.8 3 1.4 47 33.1 1 0.5 3 1.4 1 0.5 74 49.0 80 54.8 1 1.1
15 7.8 17 12.0 1 0.5 3 2.1 6 3.2 3 1.4 1 0.5 1 0.7 2 1.4 3 3.3
2 1.0 7 4.9 4 1.9 14 9.9 2 1.1 5 2.4 1 0.5 15 9.9 8 5.5 5 5.6
7 3.6 7 4.9 5 2.4 7 4.9 1 0.5 3 1.4 5 2.5 1 0.7 1 0.7 62 68.9
3 1.6 1 0.7 1 0.5 48 33.8 1 0.5 2 0.9 0 0.0 24 15.9 18 12.3 1 1.1
g sin u n n ho tio ism atio ble ges c l a s ta ut rta anta ng of tage g en rep y fo i v e m m n s n g on ron e & com isad hou edo dva usi in o e a d g l r il v he m nvi h a f a t & al al e t y e e d im san nci vidu ited nci cur th rth v l i a i a a e o t a o m n n e d s o c e Li Fi In Fi In A G Pl H W
Insecure housing
Financial advantages
Limited freedom of action
Individual housing
Financial disadvantages
Pleasant & comfortable housing
Good image & reputation
Active environmentalism
Worth the money
Healthy living
Matrix 2 INCOME, 30.000€ and more per year 133 responses, Sweden
18 15.4 52 31.0 12 7.7 62 31.6 3 4.2 44 19.0 1 0.9 12 11.1 0 0.0 28 16.7 41 26.3 61 31.1 18 25.4 40 17.2 6 5.1 38 35.2 1 0.8
58 26.6
19 12.2 11 5.6 7 9.9 3 1.3 4 3.4 10 9.3 1 0.8
40 18.4 13 11.1
39 19.9 2 2.8 22 9.5 5 4.3 16 14.8 2 1.7
33 15.1 14 12.0 48 28.6
1 1.4 38 16.4 1 0.9 14 13.0 1 0.8
71 32.6 25 21.4 17 10.1 36 23.1
11 4.7 38 32.5 1 0.9 69 57.5
4 1.8 4 3.4 7 4.2 5 3.2 1 0.5
4 3.4 7 6.5 1 0.8
5 2.3 13 11.1 1 0.6 13 8.3 9 4.6 3 4.2
6 5.6 42 35.0
3 1.4 1 0.9 8 4.8 1 0.6 0 0.0 35 49.3 10 4.3
3 2.5
4 1.8 29 24.8 6 3.6 29 18.6 12 6.1 1 1.4 58 25.0 5 4.3
0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6 0 0.0 1 0.5 1 1.4 6 2.6 53 45.3 4 3.7
g sin u n n ho tio ism atio ble ges c l a s ta ut rta anta ng of tage g en rep y fo i v e m m n s n g on ron e & com isad hou edo dva usi in o e a d g l r il v he m nvi h a f a t & al al e t y e e d im san nci vidu ited nci cur th rth v l i a a i a o e t a o m n n e d s o c e Li Fi In Fi In A G Pl H W
Secure housing
Financial advantages
Unlimited freedom of action
Individual housing
Pleasant & comfortable housing
Good image & reputation
Active environmentalism
Worth the money
Healthy living
Matrix 3 INCOME, 30.000€ and more per year 133 responses, Sweden
88 30.5 33 14.4 42 24.3 12 7.1 49 17.6 17 9.3 1 1.5 15 8.9 3 1.1
63 21.8 60 26.1 19 11.0 48 28.4 81 29.1 50 27.5 3 4.6 34 20.2 65 23.2
82 28.4 52 22.6 42 24.3 45 26.6 76 27.3 40 22.0 2 3.1 31 18.5 68 24.3
12 4.2 18 7.8 16 9.3 24 14.2 21 7.6 59 32.4 8 12.3 15 8.9 18 6.4
42 14.5 65 28.3 16 9.3 36 21.3 50 18.0 15 8.2 5 7.7 73 43.5 105 37.5
2 0.7 2 0.9 38 22.0 4 2.4 1 0.4 1 0.6 46 70.8 0 0.0 21 7.5
ee ife h l y t of ion rit ut fo th om lity izat secu abo l a c a l he ng qu -rea d of cern i d h l n lf e ig ee oo H Se N Co G Fe
e
bl
rta
nm ro i nv
en
t
Lower construction costs
Higher construction costs
More expensive to run
Healthy interior
Natural material
Warm interior atmosphere
High construction & material risk
Positive for the environment
Typical Swedish housing
Modern & aesthetic
Matrix 1 LANDS, Götaland 204 responses, Sweden
17 6.9 30 14.7 71 23.1 2 1.1 56 20.7 96 30.4 111 36.4 2 1.0 3 1.6 1 0.5
29 11.8 26 12.7 39 12.7 15 8.4 53 19.6 32 10.1 41 13.4 31 15.2 26 14.1 40 20.7
13 5.3 14 6.9 115 37.3 1 0.6 7 2.6 93 29.4 35 11.5 6 2.9 7 3.8 2 1.0
67 27.3 29 14.2 36 11.7 3 1.7 20 7.4 31 9.8 24 7.9 0 0.0 5 2.7 3 1.6
78 8 31.2 3.3 54 6 26.5 2.9 16 9 5.2 2.3 1 60 0.6 33.7 117 1 43.2 0.4 35 5 11.1 1.6 78 3 25.6 1.0 5 104 2.5 50.9 3 93 1.6 50.5 5 5 2.6 2.6
20 8.2 22 10.8 3 1.0 6 3.4 10 3.7 6 1.9 4 1.3 5 2.5 7 3.8 4 2.1
4 1.6 12 5.9 8 2.6 18 10.1 6 2.2 8 2.5 1 0.3 23 11.3 15 8.2 10 5.2
7 2.9 5 2.5 8 2.6 4 2.3 1 0.4 6 1.9 5 1.6 0 0.0 7 3.8 113 58.6
2 0.8 6 2.9 3 1.0 68 38.2 0 0.0 4 1.3 3 1.0 28 13.7 18 9.8 10 5.2
g sin u n n ho tio ism atio ble ges c l a s ta ta ta ut of tage g en rep for van ing y e m m n s n g on ron e & com isad hou edo dva usi in o e a d g l r il v he m nvi h a f a t & al al e t y e e d im san nci vidu ited nci cur th rth v l i a i a a e o t a o m n n d e s o c e Li Fi In Fi In Pl A G H W
Insecure housing
Financial advantages
Limited freedom of action
Individual housing
Financial disadvantages
Pleasant & comfortable housing
Good image & reputation
Active environmentalism
Worth the money
Healthy living
Matrix 2 LANDS, Götaland 204 responses, Sweden
49 18.9 78 32.8 23 10.8 69 26.4 2 1.2 21 10.0 5 2.9 17 8.4 4 2.5 37 15.6 47 22.1 79 30.3 10 5.9 53 25.2 5 2.9 78 38.6 4 2.5
72 25.5
27 12.8 12 4.6 12 7.0 9 4.3 13 7.7 12 5.9 0 0.0
58 20.6 32 12.3
54 20.7 5 2.9 25 11.9 7 4.1 39 19.3 4 2.5
41 14.5 30 11.5 68 28.6
3 1.8 60 28.6 6 3.5 26 12.9 1 0.6
79 28.0 66 25.4 20 8.4 50 23.5
15 7.1 48 28.2 2 1.0 81 50.0
3 1.1 5 1.9 7 2.9 9 4.2 4 1.5
9 5.3 13 6.4 6 3.7
11 3.9 23 8.9 3 1.3 22 10.3 22 8.4 12 7.0
9 4.5 56 34.6
5 1.8 2 0.8 11 4.6 2 0.9 3 1.1 56 32.8 13 6.2
6 3.7
12 4.3 52 20.0 14 5.9 33 15.5 18 6.9 2 1.2 7 3.3 10 5.9
1 0.4 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 69 40.4 7 3.3 67 39.4 6 3.0
g sin u n n ho tio ism atio ble ges c l a s ta ut rta anta ng of tage g en rep y fo i v e m m n s n g on ron e & com isad hou edo dva usi in o e a d g l r il v he m nvi h a f a t & al al e t y e e d im san nci vidu ited nci cur th rth v l i a a i a o e t a o m n n e d s o c e Li Fi In Fi In A G Pl H W
Secure housing
Financial advantages
Unlimited freedom of action
Individual housing
Pleasant & comfortable housing
Good image & reputation
Active environmentalism
Worth the money
Healthy living
Matrix 3 LANDS, Götaland 204 responses, Sweden
126 30.8 45 14.4 60 24.4 16 7.4 57 15.3 19 7.7 7 7.4 16 7.1 4 0.8
92 22.5 81 25.9 30 12.2 66 30.7 106 28.4 59 23.9 8 8.4 41 18.1 135 26.7
111 27.1 70 22.4 44 17.9 54 25.1 99 26.5 58 23.5 7 7.4 41 18.1 130 25.7
19 4.7 26 8.3 26 10.6 35 16.3 29 7.8 75 30.4 16 16.8 25 11.1 7 1.4
56 13.7 86 27.5 39 15.9 38 17.7 79 21.2 34 13.8 12 12.6 100 44.2 155 30.6
5 1.2 5 1.6 47 19.1 6 2.8 3 0.8 2 0.8 45 47.4 3 1.3 75 14.8
ee ife h l y t of ion rit ut fo th om lity izat secu abo l a c a l he ng qu -rea d of cern i d h l n lf e ig ee oo H Se N Co G Fe
e
bl
rta
nm ro i nv
en
t
Lower construction costs
Higher construction costs
More expensive to run
Healthy interior
Natural material
Warm interior atmosphere
High construction & material risk
Positive for the environment
Typical Swedish housing
Modern & aesthetic
Matrix 1 LANDS, Svealand 152 responses, Sweden
16 9.0 15 9.6 42 19.8 3 2.1 46 23.2 60 28.7 87 43.7 3 2.1 3 2.1 0 0.0
18 10.2 15 9.6 25 11.7 8 5.7 34 17.2 30 14.4 25 12.6 20 14.0 16 11.3 6 6.5
7 4.0 8 5.1 90 42.3 1 0.7 8 4.0 56 26.8 20 10.1 1 0.7 1 0.7 0 0.0
58 32.8 28 18.0 20 9.4 4 2.8 18 9.1 20 9.6 18 9.1 2 1.4 1 0.7 1 1.1
41 23.2 55 35.3 15 7.0 3 2.1 76 38.4 20 9.6 38 19.1 2 1.4 8 5.7 1 1.1
9 5.1 5 3.2 6 2.8 43 30.5 3 1.5 4 1.9 1 0.5 68 47.6 75 53.2 1 1.1
17 9.6 14 9.0 2 0.9 2 1.4 8 4.0 2 1.0 2 1.0 2 1.4 3 2.1 1 1.1
5 2.8 6 3.9 6 2.8 21 14.9 2 1.0 4 1.9 1 0.5 15 10.5 12 8.5 4 4.4
4 2.3 7 4.5 6 2.8 4 2.8 2 1.0 9 4.3 7 3.5 3 2.1 2 1.4 78 84.9
2 1.1 3 1.9 1 0.5 52 36.9 1 0.5 4 1.9 0 0.0 27 18.9 20 14.2 0 0.0
g sin u n n ho tio ism atio ble ges c l a s ta ut rta anta ng of tage g en rep y fo i v e m m n s n g on ron e & com isad hou edo dva usi in o e a d g l r il v he m nvi h a f a t & al al e t y e e d im san nci vidu ited nci cur th rth v l i a i a a e o a t o m n n d e s o e c Li Fi In Fi In H W A G Pl
Insecure housing
Financial advantages
Limited freedom of action
Individual housing
Financial disadvantages
Pleasant & comfortable housing
Good image & reputation
Active environmentalism
Worth the money
Healthy living
Matrix 2 LANDS, Svealand 152 responses, Sweden
3 11.1 41 25.5 17 10.4 50 25.9 1 0.9 10 7.4 5 4.0 10 12.4 0 0.0 37 23.0 41 25.0 64 33.2 6 5.4 26 19.1 1 0.8 26 32.1 2 1.9
63 31.7
15 9.2 8 4.2 1 0.9 5 3.7 6 4.8 8 9.9 1 1.0
30 15.1 2 7.4
34 17.6 0 0.0 22 16.2 5 4.0 19 21.0 1 1.0
31 15.6 6 22.2 44 27.3
0 0.0 36 26.5 3 2.4 5 6.2 0 0.0
58 29.2 6 22.2 17 10.6 38 23.2
11 8.1 40 32.0 1 1.2 46 44.2
4 2.0 0 0.0 4 2.5 7 4.3 1 0.5
5 4.0 9 11.1 4 3.9
2 1.0 1 3.7 3 1.9 18 11.0 14 7.3 10 8.9
4 4.9 50 48.1
3 1.5 0 0.0 8 5.0 0 0.0 5 2.6 37 33.0 9 6.6
0 0.0
7 3.5 9 33.3 6 3.7 27 16.5 16 8.3 0 0.0 9 6.6 4 3.2
1 0.5 0 0.0 1 0.6 1 0.6 1 0.5 57 50.9 8 5.9 56 44.8 1 1.2
g sin u n n ho tio ism atio ble ges c l a s ta ut rta anta ng of tage g en rep y fo i v e m m n s n g on ron e & com isad hou edo dva usi in o e a d g l r il v he m nvi h a f a t & al al e t y e e d im san nci vidu ited nci cur th rth v l i a a i a o e t a o m n n e d s o c e Li Fi In Fi In A G Pl H W
Secure housing
Financial advantages
Unlimited freedom of action
Individual housing
Pleasant & comfortable housing
Good image & reputation
Active environmentalism
Worth the money
Healthy living
Matrix 3 LANDS, Svealand 152 responses, Sweden
105 40.2 26 12.9 36 22.1 12 6.6 37 14.1 11 6.5 3 3.7 14 9.0 11 4.6
41 15.7 60 29.7 15 9.2 54 29.5 77 29.4 48 28.2 7 8.5 25 16.1 48 20.1
62 23.8 43 21.3 41 25.2 42 23.0 68 26.0 27 15.9 4 4.9 23 14.8 43 18.0
10 3.8 19 9.4 14 8.6 26 14.2 27 10.3 62 36.5 14 17.1 17 11.0 26 10.9
36 13.8 51 25.3 18 11.0 49 26.8 51 19.5 19 11.2 11 13.4 75 48.4 111 46.4
7 2.7 3 1.5 39 23.9 0 0.0 2 0.8 3 1.8 43 52.4 1 0.7 0 0.0
ee ife h l y t of ion rit ut fo th om lity izat secu abo l a c a l he ng qu -rea d of cern i d h l n lf e ig ee oo H Se N Co G Fe
e
bl
rta
nm ro i nv
en
t
Lower construction costs
Higher construction costs
More expensive to run
Healthy interior
Natural material
Warm interior atmosphere
High construction & material risk
Positive for the environment
Typical Swedish housing
Modern & aesthetic
Matrix 1 LANDS, Norrland 147 responses, Sweden
20 10.1 23 14.2 62 25.7 2 1.5 42 21.3 71 31.0 88 39.8 2 1.2 1 0.6 0 0.0
14 7.0 15 9.3 30 12.5 14 10.1 39 19.8 21 9.2 31 14.0 24 14.8 27 17.2 1 3.1
7 3.5 12 7.4 83 34.4 4 2.9 6 3.0 66 28.8 24 10.9 3 1.9 4 2.6 0 0.0
61 30.7 25 15.4 25 10.4 4 2.9 18 9.1 24 10.5 19 8.6 5 3.1 2 1.3 0 0.0
63 31.7 56 34.6 17 7.1 1 0.7 75 38.1 29 12.7 43 19.5 6 3.2 5 3.2 0 0.0
9 4.5 3 1.9 4 1.7 39 28.3 3 1.5 6 2.6 4 1.8 79 48.8 87 55.4 0 0.0
16 8.0 14 8.6 5 2.1 5 3.6 7 3.6 3 1.3 5 2.3 2 1.2 1 0.6 0 0.0
1 0.5 6 3.7 11 4.6 15 10.9 0 0.0 4 1.8 2 0.9 14 8.6 10 6.4 1 3.1
6 3.0 5 3.1 3 1.2 6 4.3 5 2.5 4 1.8 4 1.8 3 1.9 0 0.0 29 90.6
2 1.0 3 1.9 1 0.4 48 34.8 2 1.0 1 0.4 1 0.5 24 14.8 20 12.7 1 3.1
g sin u n n ho tio ism atio ble ges c l a s ta ut rta anta ng of tage g en rep y fo i v e m m n s n g on ron e & com isad hou edo dva usi in o e a d g l r il v he m nvi h a f a t & al al e t y e e d im san nci vidu ited nci cur th rth v l i a i a a e o t a o m n n e d s o c e Li Fi In Fi In A G Pl H W
Insecure housing
Financial advantages
Limited freedom of action
Individual housing
Financial disadvantages
Pleasant & comfortable housing
Good image & reputation
Active environmentalism
Worth the money
Healthy living
Matrix 2 LANDS, Norrland 147 responses, Sweden
13 15.7 52 26.1 13 9.2 69 30.9 4 3.1 13 8.6 2 1.8 4 6.3 0 0.0 42 21.1 36 25.4 64 28.7 11 8.5 37 24.5 6 5.5 24 37.5 0 0.0
65 26.3
17 12.0 13 5.8 5 3.9 5 3.3 5 4.6 4 6.3 1 0.8
51 20.7 9 10.8
35 15.7 7 5.4 22 14.6 3 2.7 15 23.4 3 2.5
32 13.0 12 14.5 46 23.1
1 0.8 41 27.2 1 0.9 6 9.4 3 2.5
73 29.6 18 21.7 27 13.6 27 19.0
16 10.6 31 28.2 1 1.6 64 53.3
8 3.2 4 4.8 11 5.5 11 7.8 3 1.4
6 5.5 1 1.6 2 1.7
9 3.6 6 7.2 5 2.5 11 7.8 26 11.7 6 4.6
4 6.3 42 35.0
4 1.6 2 2.4 14 7.0 4 2.8 2 0.9 38 29.2 5 3.3
5 4.2
4 1.6 18 21.7 2 1.0 22 15.5 11 4.9 1 0.8 8 5.3 4 3.6
1 0.4 1 1.2 0 0.0 1 0.7 0 0.0 57 43.9 4 2.7 52 47.3 5 7.8
g sin u n n ho tio ism atio ble ges c l a s ta ut rta anta ng of tage g en rep y fo i v e m m n s n g on ron e & com isad hou edo dva usi in o e a d g l r il v he m nvi h a f a t & al al e t y e e d im san nci vidu ited nci cur th rth v l i a a i a o e t a o m n n e d s o c e Li Fi In Fi In A G Pl H W
Secure housing
Financial advantages
Unlimited freedom of action
Individual housing
Pleasant & comfortable housing
Good image & reputation
Active environmentalism
Worth the money
Healthy living
Matrix 3 LANDS, Norrland 147 responses, Sweden
95 31.3 39 15.9 45 24.2 13 7.0 51 17.4 13 7.1 2 2.7 16 9.1 6 2.4
65 21.4 56 22.9 24 12.9 62 33.5 90 30.7 50 27.5 5 6.8 30 17.1 53 20.8
80 26.3 59 24.1 43 23.1 42 22.7 74 25.3 35 19.2 2 2.7 36 20.5 62 24.3
14 4.6 23 7.6 15 8.1 29 15.7 30 10.2 59 32.4 11 14.9 19 10.8 25 9.8
45 14.8 66 21.7 18 9.7 32 17.3 48 16.4 19 10.4 9 12.2 70 39.8 104 40.8
5 1.7 2 0.8 41 22.0 7 3.8 0 0.0 6 3.3 45 60.8 5 2.8 5 2.0
ee ife h l y t of ion rit ut fo th om lity izat secu abo l a c a l he ng qu -rea d of cern i d h l n lf e ig ee oo H Se N Co G Fe
e
bl
rta
nm ro i nv
en
t
10. Lower construction costs
9. Higher construction costs
8. More expensive to run
7. Healthy interior
6. Natural material
5. Warm interior atmosphere
4. High construction & material risk
3. Positive for the environment
2. Typical Swedish housing
1.Modern & aesthetic
Matrix 1 Sweden accumulated 503 responses
53 8.5 68 13.0 175 23 7 1.5 144 21.6 277 30.1 286 39.5 7 1.4 7 1.5 1 0.3
g
in
61 9.8 56 10.7 94 12.3 37 8.1 126 18.9 83 11.0 97 13.4 75 14.7 69 14.3 47 14.8
27 4.4 34 6.5 288 37.8 6 1.3 21 3.2 215 28.5 79 10.9 10 2.0 12 2.5 2 0.6
186 30 82 15.7 81 10.6 11 2.4 56 8.4 75 10.0 61 8.4 7 1.4 8 1.7 4 1.3
182 26 29.3 4.2 165 14 31.6 2.7 48 19 6.3 2.5 5 142 1.1 31.1 268 7 40.2 1.1 84 15 11.1 2.0 159 8 21.9 1.1 13 251 2.6 49.3 16 255 3.3 52.9 6 6 1.9 1.9
53 8.5 50 9.6 10 1.3 13 2.9 25 3.8 11 1.5 11 1.5 9 1.8 11 2.3 5 1.6
10 1.6 24 4.6 25 3.3 54 11.8 8 1.2 16 2.1 4 0.6 52 10.2 37 7.7 15 4.7
17 2.7 17 3.3 17 2.2 13 2.9 8 1.2 19 2.5 16 2.2 6 1.2 9 1.9 220 69.4
6 1.0 12 2.3 5 6.7 168 36.8 3 0.5 9 1.2 4 0.6 79 15.5 58 12.0 11 3.5
n n h tio ism atio ble ges c l a s t a f nt epu orta anta ng ge o e a y t f r v m n si ng ne nm & om isad hou edo dva usi ng mo iro c e i o a d g v l re h liv the en ima nt & cial dua ed f cial y re e h u i a h t n d s c i v lt ort iv an ea ct oo lea ina ndi im Fin Inse L I F P H A G W . . . . . . . . . . 20 19 18 17 16 15 11 13 14 12
s ou
Insecure housing
Financial advantages
Limited freedom of action
Individual housing
Financial disadvantages
Pleasant & comfortable housing
Good image & reputation
Active environmentalism
Worth the money
Healthy living
Matrix 2 Sweden accumulated 503 responses
65 17.6 171 28.6 53 10.2 188 39.7 7 1.7 44 8.9 12 3.0 31 8.9 4 1.0
200 139 104 27.5 19.1 14.3 43 48 11.6 13.0 116 158 19.4 26.4 124 59 23.9 11.4 4 33 123 0.8 7.0 26.0 27 18 12 6.5 4.4 2.9 116 19 69 23.3 3.8 13.9 12 24 15 3.0 5.9 3.7 128 24 71 36.9 6.9 20.5 6 2 8 1.6 0.5 2.1 4 1.0 137 27.6 10 2.5 37 10.7 4 1.0
210 28.9 90 24.3 64 10.7 115 22.2
42 8.5 119 29.4 4 1.2 191 49.5
15 2.1 9 2.4 22 3.7 27 5.2 8 1.7
22 12 23 3 3.0 1.7 3.2 0.4 30 4 79 2 8.1 1.1 21.4 0.5 11 33 22 1 1.8 5.5 3.7 0.2 51 6 82 2 9.8 1.2 15.8 0.4 62 10 45 1 13.1 2.1 9.5 0.2 28 131 3 183 6.8 31.7 0.7 44.3 27 24 19 5.4 4.8 3.8 20 18 175 4.9 4.4 43.2 23 17 12 6.6 4.9 3.5 12 148 11 3.1 38.3 2.9
g in s u n n ho io il sm atio ble ges ct s a t a t e ta f ta u y men rep for van sing m o ntag ng e g on ron e & com isad ou edo dva usi in il v he m nvi ag t & al d al h fre al a ho e e u t m i i d y r n i d te nc i cu lth orth tive od asa anc ivi m ina nse e n nd o c ea i l i G P L F I H W A F I
Secure housing
Financial advantages
Unlimited freedom of action
Individual housing
Pleasant & comfortable housing
Good image & reputation
Active environmentalism
Worth the money
Healthy living
Matrix 3 Sweden accumulated 503 responses
326 33.6 110 14.5 141 23.7 41 7.0 145 15.6 43 7.2 12 4.8 46 8.3 21 2.1
l of
ife
17 1.8 10 1.3 127 21.4 13 2.2 5 0.5 11 1.8 133 53.0 9 1.6 80 8.0
y rit
198 20.4 197 25.9 69 11.6 182 31.2 273 29.4 157 26.2 20 8.0 96 17.2 236 23.6
253 26.1 172 22.6 128 21.5 138 23.7 241 26.0 120 20.0 13 5.2 100 18.0 235 23.5
40 4.1 68 9.0 55 9.2 90 15.4 86 9.3 196 32.7 41 16.3 61 11.0 58 5.8
137 14.1 203 26.7 75 12.6 119 20.4 178 19.2 72 12.0 32 12.8 245 44.0 370 37.0
on f m lity zati ecu ab o s c a li he ng qu -rea d of cern i d h l n lf e ig ee oo H Se N Co G Fe th al
e
bl
ta or h tt u o
ee
nm i ro v n
en
t
5
VALUES
Hierarchical Value Map of German age-group ’35 – 49 years’ Numbers = percentages of observations with n=53
Feeling comfortable
Good health
81 34
CONSEQUENCES
Healthy living
Positive for the environment
Pleasant & comfortable housing
CONSEQUENCES
36 68
Concern about the environment
Need of security
Healthy living
49
Healthy interior
33
Individual housing
High self esteem
Good image & reputation
34 34 64
43
42
38
Financial advantages ---------------Finacial disadvantages
Individual housing
Financial advantages
Individual architecture
40
Unlimited freedom of action -------------Limited freedom of action
43 45
Inspires & wakes up creativity
Good image & reputation
43
Positive for the environment
Financial advantages
36
79
57
Limited freedom of action
62
Secure housing --------------Housing as a factor of insecurity
89
38
38 45
43
49 High quality & safety standards
53 81
49 Natural material
36
Less reparations --------------Too many reparations
Inspires & wakes up creativity
75
74 70
46 49
45 77
Pleasant & comfortable housing
40
High quality & safety standards
40 36
53
38 58
83 53
77
ATTRIBUTES
Self realization
43
60 55
68
High quality of life
Having fun
Finacial disadvantages
Housing as a factor of insecurity
79
81
53
Too many reparations
49
42
59
Warm interior atmosphere
Not common housing
Innovative & modern
Energy saving
Lower costs
Higher costs
High construction & material risks
VALUES
Hierarchical Value Map of German age-group ’50 – 64 years’ Numbers = percentage of observations with n=67 Good health
Feeling comfortable
81
81 45
76
CONSEQUENCES
Self realization
Healthy living
Positive for the environment
Pleasant & comfortable housing
57
Healthy living
37 42 51
36
High quality & safety standards
75
36
40 43
ATTRIBUTES
High self esteem
Inspires & wakes up creativity
Less reparations --------------Too many reparations
Good image & reputation
Individual housing
54
Financial advantages ---------------Finacial disadvantages
Individual housing
Healthy interior
Natural material
73 Warm interior atmosphere
Unlimited freedom of action -------------Limited freedom of action
46
Inspires & wakes up creativity
36
High quality & safety standards
Good image & reputation
Positive for the environment
Financial advantages
67
39
Individual architecture
40 Not common housing
Limited freedom of action
Finacial disadvantages
73
42
Housing as a factor of insecurity
57
Too many reparations
52 54
51
34
Innovative & modern
Secure housing --------------Housing as a factor of insecurity
37 52
46
66 52
Financial advantages
42
46 69
39 60 34
52
39
36
Pleasant & comfortable housing
34 52
39
34 42
45 66
Concern about the environment
Need of security
39
58 55
CONSEQUENCES
High quality of life
Having fun
67
Energy saving
Lower costs
Higher costs
High construction & material risks
VALUES
Hierarchical Value Map of German age-group ’65 years and older’ Numbers = percentage of observations with n=30 Feeling comfortable
Good health
Self realization
High quality of life
Having fun
Concern about the environment
Need of security
High self esteem
67 43 60
CONSEQUENCES
80
Healthy living
Positive for the environment
Pleasant & comfortable housing
CONSEQUENCES
High quality & safety standards
43
47
Inspires & wakes up creativity
Less reparations ---------------Too many reparations
Good image & reputation
Financial advantages ---------------Finacial disadvantages
Individual housing
Unlimited freedom of action -------------Limited freedom of action
Financial advantages
43
40
Healthy living
Individual housing
Inspires & wakes up creativity
High quality & safety standards
Positive for the environment
Good image & reputation
Financial advantages
40
60
53
Healthy interior
33
37
Pleasant & comfortable housing
60
Secure housing --------------Housing as a factor of insecurity
60
47
37
ATTRIBUTES
33
37
40
37
57
Limited freedom of action
Finacial disadvantages
Housing as a factor of insecurity
60
70
Too many reparations
33
40 Natural material
Individual architecture
Warm interior atmosphere
Not common housing
Innovative & modern
Energy saving
Lower costs
Higher costs
High construction & material risks
VALUES
Hierarchical Value Map of German income-class ‘less than 10.000 € per year’ Numbers = percentage of observations with n=32 Good health
Feeling comfortable
81
Self realization
Concern about the environment
Need of security
High self esteem
38
59 47 78 34
84
CONSEQUENCES
High quality of life
Having fun
Healthy living
Positive for the environment
34
53
44 56
High quality & safety standards
Pleasant & comfortable housing
41
63
34 38
34 34
Inspires & wakes up creativity
Less reparations --------------Too many reparations
47
44
Good image & reputation
34
53
34
44 44 53
56 Financial advantages ---------------Finacial disadvantages
Individual housing
Financial advantages
Unlimited freedom of action -------------Limited freedom of action
Secure housing --------------Housing as a factor of insecurity
44
CONSEQUENCES
69 53
Healthy living
ATTRIBUTES
63
Pleasant & comfortable housing
38
63
50
34 59
Individual housing
Inspires & wakes up creativity
High quality & safety standards
Natural material
Positive for the environment
Financial advantages
34
56
56 41 59
41
Good image & reputation
44 Individual architecture
47
72
Limited freedom of action
53
47 53
47
44
50
41 53
Healthy interior
41
53
Finacial disadvantages
Housing as a factor of insecurity
69
69
72
Too many reparations
41
53
59
Warm interior atmosphere
Not common housing
Innovative & modern
Energy saving
Lower costs
Higher costs
High construction & material risks
VALUES
Hierarchical Value Map of German income-class ’10.000 – 19.999 € per year’ Numbers = percentage of observations with n=54 Good health
Feeling comfortable
78
Concern about the environment
Need of security
High self esteem
39
85 54
80
Healthy living
38
46
65 63
CONSEQUENCES
Self realization
High quality of life
Having fun
Positive for the environment
33
43
48
65
High quality & safety standards
Pleasant & comfortable housing
54
63
33 39
Good image & reputation
41 63 33
35 54
54
Less reparations ---------------Too many reparations
Inspires & wakes up creativity
38
Financial advantages ---------------Finacial disadvantages
Individual housing
Unlimited freedom of action -------------Limited freedom of action
Financial advantages
Secure housing --------------Housing as a factor of insecurity
39 44
CONSEQUENCES
59 39
Healthy living
ATTRIBUTES
65
65
44 52
Pleasant & comfortable housing
Individual housing
Inspires & wakes up creativity
41
Natural material
Positive for the environment
Financial advantages
41
76
56 37 74
33
Good image & reputation
39
Individual architecture
44
76
Limited freedom of action
48
46 52
41
39
High quality & safety standards
78
48 56
Healthy interior
67
46
Finacial disadvantages
Housing as a factor of insecurity
72
74
46
Too many reparations
54
44
56
Warm interior atmosphere
Not common housing
Innovative & modern
Energy saving
Lower costs
Higher costs
High construction & material risks
VALUES
Hierarchical Value Map of German income-class ’20.000 – 29.999 € per year’ Numbers = percentage of observations with n=53 Feeling comfortable
Good health
77
Concern about the environment
Need of security
High self esteem
44
62 54
Healthy living
38
69 44
87
CONSEQUENCES
Self realization
High quality of life
Having fun
Positive for the environment
48
44
37 40
High quality & safety standards
Pleasant & comfortable housing
44 62
50
35
Less reparations ---------------Too many reparations
Inspires & wakes up creativity
Good image & reputation
35
37 44
40
Financial advantages ---------------Finacial disadvantages
Individual housing
35
Unlimited freedom of action -------------Limited freedom of action
Financial advantages
65
Secure housing --------------Housing as a factor of insecurity
35 37
CONSEQUENCES
65 46
Healthy living
ATTRIBUTES
60
Healthy interior
Individual housing
High quality & safety standards
50 Natural material
Good image & reputation
Positive for the environment
Financial advantages
48
75
52 35 37 37
Individual architecture
67
40
Limited freedom of action
Finacial disadvantages
Housing as a factor of insecurity
69
65
40
42
40
40 Inspires & wakes up creativity
69
67 69
42
42
37
Pleasant & comfortable housing
58
65
75
62
Too many reparations
42
48
48
Warm interior atmosphere
Not common housing
Innovative & modern
Energy saving
Lower costs
Higher costs
High construction & material risks
VALUES
Hierarchical Value Map of German income-class ’30.000 – 49.999 € per year’ Numbers = percentage of observations with n=54 Good health
Feeling comfortable
91
CONSEQUENCES
Healthy living
Positive for the environment
35
CONSEQUENCES
37
Pleasant & comfortable housing
56
Concern about the environment
Need of security
High self esteem
Healthy interior
33
52
33 54
Inspires & wakes up creativity
37
41
Less reparations --------------Too many reparations
Good image & reputation
60
41
57
Financial advantages ---------------Finacial disadvantages
Individual housing
46 65 43
50
Financial advantages
Unlimited freedom of action -------------Limited freedom of action
44 33
Individual housing
63 Inspires & wakes up creativity
37 High quality & safety standards
Individual architecture
Good image & reputation
37
Positive for the environment
Financial advantages
33
61
Limited freedom of action
Secure housing --------------Housing as a factor of insecurity
83
39
41 46
35
54 35 76
37 Natural material
41
50
72
44 63
57
43
High quality & safety standards
Pleasant & comfortable housing
65
Healthy living
46 43 61
89 54
83
ATTRIBUTES
Self realization
35
54 48
63
High quality of life
Having fun
Finacial disadvantages
Housing as a factor of insecurity
74
74
48
Too many reparations
46
46
39
Warm interior atmosphere
Not common housing
Innovative & modern
Energy saving
Lower costs
Higher costs
High construction & material risks
VALUES
Hierarchical Value Map of German income-class ‘50.000 € and more per year’ Numbers = percentage of observations with n=32 Good health
Feeling comfortable
High quality of life
Having fun
Self realization
Concern about the environment
Need of security
High self esteem
72
CONSEQUENCES
63 59
Healthy living
34
72 53
75
Positive for the environment
69
CONSEQUENCES
34
75
Pleasant & comfortable housing
41
ATTRIBUTES
Healthy interior
34 50
Inspires & wakes up creativity
Less reparations --------------Too many reparations
44 Natural material
Good image & reputation
38
44
34
Individual housing
High quality & safety standards
Good image & reputation
Financial advantages ---------------Finacial disadvantages
Individual housing
56
34
Individual architecture
Financial advantages
Unlimited freedom of action -------------Limited freedom of action
Positive for the environment
Financial advantages
44
81
Limited freedom of action
Secure housing --------------Housing as a factor of insecurity
44 44
Finacial disadvantages
Housing as a factor of insecurity
78
72
63
84
34 41
63 47
47
38
38
Inspires & wakes up creativity
38
34 34
50
63
38 66
69
44
44 56
High quality & safety standards
Pleasant & comfortable housing
69
Healthy living
38
41
Too many reparations
50
59
59 88 Warm interior atmosphere
Not common housing
Innovative & modern
Energy saving
Lower costs
Higher costs
High construction & material risks
VALUES
Hierarchical Value Map of region ‘north-west’ Numbers = percentages of observations with n=96 Good health
Feeling comfortable
84
34
85 58
CONSEQUENCES
Healthy living
Positive for the environment
46
52
53 64
High quality & safety standards
Pleasant & comfortable housing
34
37 52
Inspires & wakes up creativity
Concern about the environment
Need of security
High self esteem
49
45
63 66 88
Self realization
High quality of life
Having fun
44
Less reparations --------------Too many reparations
44
34
Good image & reputation
71 41
42 39
44 67 52 Financial advantages ---------------Finacial disadvantages
Individual housing
Financial advantages
Unlimited freedom of action -------------Limited freedom of action
Secure housing --------------Housing as a factor of insecurity
45 45
CONSEQUENCES
71 36
Healthy living
ATTRIBUTES
80
Healthy interior
54
Inspires & wakes up creativity
High quality & safety standards
Natural material
Good image & reputation
45
58
Positive for the environment
Financial advantages
43
78
Warm interior atmosphere
Limited freedom of action
41
52 55 Housing as a factor of insecurity
Finacial disadvantages
81
71
60
Too many reparations
55
62
35
48 Individual architecture
86
44
54 44 87
51
39
37
77
57 73
Individual housing
48
40 40
Pleasant & comfortable housing
55
72 39
Not common housing
Innovative & modern
Energy saving
Lower costs
Higher costs
High construction & material risks
VALUES
Hierarchical Value Map of region ‘south-west’ Numbers = percentages of observations with n=84 Good health
Feeling comfortable
78
CONSEQUENCES
Healthy living
Positive for the environment
Pleasant & comfortable housing
59
45
46
High self esteem
High quality & safety standards
Inspires & wakes up creativity
Less reparations --------------Too many reparations
Healthy living
51
Healthy interior
Inspires & wakes up creativity
High quality & safety standards
Financial advantages
Unlimited freedom of action -------------Limited freedom of action
Good image & reputation
Positive for the environment
Financial advantages
42
60
65
Limited freedom of action
Secure housing --------------Housing as a factor of insecurity
71 39
36
55
42 Natural material
Financial advantages ---------------Finacial disadvantages
Individual housing
49
59
37 60
Individual housing
Good image & reputation
35
51
Pleasant & comfortable housing
46
53
45
41
53
Concern about the environment
Need of security
46 71 35
73
CONSEQUENCES
Self realization
35
54 39
ATTRIBUTES
High quality of life
Having fun
Finacial disadvantages
Housing as a factor of insecurity
65
70
45
Too many reparations
40
39
41 Individual architecture
Warm interior atmosphere
Not common housing
Innovative & modern
Energy saving
Lower costs
Higher costs
High construction & material risks
VALUES
Hierarchical Value Map of region ‘east’ Numbers = percentages of observations with n=49 Feeling comfortable
Good health
81
85 54
88
Healthy living
Positive for the environment
33
50
67
High quality & safety standards
Pleasant & comfortable housing
High self esteem
54
65
46
Concern about the environment
Need of security
46
67 60
CONSEQUENCES
Self realization
High quality of life
Having fun
58 52
38 50
44 42
Inspires & wakes up creativity
Less reparations ---------------Too many reparations
60
52 42
33
50 73 40
46
Good image & reputation
Financial advantages ---------------Finacial disadvantages
Individual housing
Unlimited freedom of action -------------Limited freedom of action
Financial advantages
Secure housing --------------Housing as a factor of insecurity
35 38
CONSEQUENCES
69 40
Healthy living
ATTRIBUTES
56
Pleasant & comfortable housing
60
38
Individual housing
Inspires & wakes up creativity
High quality & safety standards
Good image & reputation
Natural material
Positive for the environment
Financial advantages
35
77
58 40 71
35
42
35
73 44
50
42 46
54 71
Healthy interior
50
75 40
44
Individual architecture
Limited freedom of action
79
35
Finacial disadvantages
Housing as a factor of insecurity
79
77
58
48 48
56
Too many reparations
50
40
52 Warm interior atmosphere
Not common housing
Innovative & modern
Energy saving
Lower costs
Higher costs
High construction & material risks
VALUES
Hierarchical Value Map of Germany accumulated Numbers = percentage of observations with n=229 Good health
Feeling comfortable
Having fun
High quality of life
Selfrealization
Concern about the environment
Need of security
High selfesteem
36
ATTRIBUTES
CONSEQUENCES
CONSEQUENCES
60 80
17 54
Healthy living
65
23
Healthy living
64
54 Healthy interior
25
42
82
79 48
Positive for the environment
36
42
Pleasant & comfortable housing
49 67
36 57
Pleasant & comfortable housing
20
45
Natural material
29
64
High quality & safety standards
38 14 41
33
Inspires & wakes up creativity
Individual housing
69
47
38
28
Individual architecture
73 17
30
25
44 43
32
39
25
Less reparations
Inspires & wakes up creativity
19
High quality & safety standards
16
Warm interior atmosphere
50
36
23
19
11 39
38
Not common housing
30
61
Individual housing
28 28
49
37
11
Financial Financial advan- disadvantages tages
12
13
Financial advantages
8
60
41 Unlimited freedom of action Limited freedom of action
16
10
Positive for the environment
Good image & reputation
21
35
Good image & reputation
Too many reparations
21 34
43
12
38
38
Secure housing Insecure housing
32 40
43 21
40 47
Limited freedom of action
Financial disadvantages
Insecure housing
78
40
Too many reparations
48 41
28 Innovative & modern
70
55 Energy saving
71 Lower costs
18 73 Higher costs
53
48
High construction & material risk
VALUES
Hierarchical Value Map of Swedish age-group ’younger than 35 years’ Numbers = percentages of observations with n=118 Concern about the environment
Good health
CONSEQUENCES
51 70
54
34 43
24
Good image & reputation
Healthy living
Feeling comfortable
53 62
45
Pleasant & comfortable housing
44 48
High quality of life
30
28 50
32
20
36
Active environmentailsm
Worth the money
Selfrealization
50 45
61
25
20
79
25
Unlimited freedom of action Limited freedom of action
Secure housing
Individual housing
Need of security
Insecure housing
50 Financial Financial advan- disadvantages tages
28
CONSEQUENCES
36 37
50 36
42
Active environmentalism
30 Healthy living
21 53
23 28 19
Pleasant & comfortable housing
Good image & reputation
46
ATTRIBUTES
43 61
36
Positive for the environment
58
19
29
24
Natural material
63
24
27
Individual housing
Worth the money
39 20
19
44 26
Financial disadvantages
34
29
Limited freedom of action
31
30
Financial advantages
49
Insecure housing
63 25
Healthy interior
43 Typical Swedish housing
38
47
Modern & aesthetic
29
36
Warm interior atmosphere
59
20
More expencive to run
56 Higher construction costs
53 Lower construction costs
31
43
High construction & material risk
VALUES
Hierarchical Value Map of Swedish age-group ‘35 – 49 years’ Numbers = percentages of observations with n=97 Concern about the environment
Good health
CONSEQUENCES
47 69
58
30
27
Good image & reputation
Healthy living
ATTRIBUTES
CONSEQUENCES
30 45
45
Active environmentalism
66
46
Positive for the environment
41 Healthy living
47
54
62
59
Pleasant & comfortable housing
60 25
Feeling comfortable
Natural material
46
40
27 33
30 30
Healthy interior
38
Active environmentailsm
20 Good image & reputation
24
22
42
49
55
Need of security
30 77
33
Insecure housing
47
25
Unlimited freedom of action Limited freedom of action
Secure housing
Individual housing
19 20 Typical Swedish housing
30
28
Individual housing
Worth the money
37 29
Selfrealization
Financial Financial advan- disadvantages tages
30 43
Pleasant & comfortable housing
26
41
Worth the money
31 40
65 19
45
High quality of life
46 26 Financial disadvantages
45
21
Limited freedom of action
29
37
Financial advantages
51
Insecure housing
62 38
40
Modern & aesthetic
28
24
Warm interior atmosphere
63 More expencive to run
66 Higher construction costs
42 Lower construction costs
36
37
High construction & material risk
VALUES
Hierarchical Value Map of Swedish age-group ‘50 – 64 years’ Numbers = percentages of observations with n=143
Concern about the environment
Good health
CONSEQUENCES
40 68
55
32 47
25
CONSEQUENCES
52
39 Healthy living
42
28 34
44
Selfrealization
25 34
29
Active environmentailsm
Worth the money
36
Positive for the environment
42
27
39 Pleasant & comfortable housing
52
ATTRIBUTES
High quality of life
46
43
48
21 34
76
19
Unlimited freedom of action Limited freedom of action
Secure housing
Individual housing
Need of security
Insecure housing
55
Financial Financial advan- disadvantages tages
29 22
Active environmentalism
62
39
36
Pleasant & comfortable housing
35 36
53 32
55
Good image & reputation
Healthy living
Feeling comfortable
Good image & reputation
34 20
Natural material
61
20 Healthy interior
28
32
48
24
Warm interior atmosphere
32 Worth the money
41
41
Modern & aesthetic
22
33
Financial disadvantages
Individual housing
29 Typical Swedish housing
32
24
46
More expencive to run
41
25
Limited freedom of action
18
44
Higher construction costs
25
32
Financial advantages
44 Lower construction costs
36
Insecure housing
31
29
High construction & material risk
VALUES
Hierarchical Value Map of Swedish age-group ‘65 years and older’ Numbers = percentages of observations with n=145
Concern about the environment
Good health
Feeling comfortable
High quality of life
Selfrealization
Need of security
24
CONSEQUENCES
29 38
55
24
45
19
30
CONSEQUENCES
21
26
30
Active environmentalism
Healthy living
30
Pleasant & comfortable housing
Good image & reputation
Healthy living
25
21
29
19
Active environmentailsm
Worth the money
25
38
38
65
Individual housing
43
21 Unlimited freedom of action Limited freedom of action
Secure housing Insecure housing
Financial Financial advan- disadvantages tages
19 24
32
19
Pleasant & comfortable housing
21
Good image & reputation
Worth the money
27 21
Individual housing
Financial disadvantages
26
39
Typical Swedish housing
More expencive to run
23
20
Limited freedom of action
22 Financial advantages
22
Insecure housing
ATTRIBUTES
45 44
25
Positive for the environment
28
35 Natural material
43
25 Healthy interior
24
19 Warm interior atmosphere
28
24
Modern & aesthetic
43 Higher construction costs
37 Lower construction costs
19
28 High construction & material risk
VALUES
Hierarchical Value Map of Swedish income-class ‘less than 10.000 € per year’ Numbers = percentages of observations with n=55
Concern about the environment
Good health
CONSEQUENCES
29 29
55
40 29
ATTRIBUTES
CONSEQUENCES
27 27
33
24
20
Positive for the environment
22
Healthy living
29
44
29
Natural material
High quality of life
24
38
27
Active environmentailsm
Worth the money
36
24 26
Pleasant & comfortable housing
56
Worth the money
Healthy interior
20
40
35
78
Individual housing
34
22 Financial disadvantages
40
33 Unlimited freedom of action Limited freedom of action
Secure housing Insecure housing
26
Need of security
31
26
Limited freedom of action
Financial Financial advan- disadvantages tages
22
35
Financial advantages
22
Insecure housing
25
47 20
24
Individual housing
24
Good image & reputation
Selfrealization
31 24
22
18 29
22 20
38 29
Pleasant & comfortable housing
36 24
Active environmentalism
49
42
33
Good image & reputation
Healthy living
Feeling comfortable
18
Warm interior atmosphere
18
22 Modern & aesthetic
27 Typical Swedish housing
49 More expencive to run
51 Higher construction costs
53 Lower construction costs
22
36 High construction & material risk
VALUES
Hierarchical Value Map of Swedish income-class ’10.000 – 19.999 € per year’ Numbers = percentages of observations with n=127
Concern about the environment
Good health
CONSEQUENCES
32 63
45
21 19
31
Good image & reputation
Healthy living
CONSEQUENCES
24 28
31
Active environmentalism
23 Healthy living
35
51
Pleasant & comfortable housing
36 21
Feeling comfortable
22 29
31
Pleasant & comfortable housing
26
34
26
33
High quality of life
20 23
21
Active environmentailsm
Worth the money
22 Good image & reputation
26
35
Selfrealization
45
40
43
67 Unlimited freedom of action Limited freedom of action
Secure housing
Individual housing
Insecure housing
24
28
Individual housing
Worth the money
22 Financial disadvantages
Need of security
29
19
Limited freedom of action
Financial Financial advan- disadvantages tages
22 Financial advantages
23
24
Insecure housing
ATTRIBUTES
40 48
28
Positive for the environment
35
38 Natural material
51
31 Healthy interior
34 Typical Swedish housing
25
28
Modern & aesthetic
25
26
Warm interior atmosphere
39 More expencive to run
38 Higher construction costs
39
29
Lower construction costs
High construction & material risk
VALUES
Hierarchical Value Map of Swedish income-class ’20.000 – 29.999 € per year’ Numbers = percentages of observations with n=185 Concern about the environment
Good health
CONSEQUENCES CONSEQUENCES
42 66
36
52
25 42
25
Good image & reputation
Healthy living
53 56
ATTRIBUTES
43
Active environmentalism
62
38
31 Healthy living
40
42
39
Pleasant & comfortable housing
41 25
Feeling comfortable
High quality of life
25
29 40
29
25
47
25
Pleasant & comfortable housing
22
Good image & reputation
21
Positive for the environment
49
50 Natural material
60
52 41
49
22
Worth the money
30
38
Individual housing
Financial disadvantages
22
Unlimited freedom of action Limited freedom of action
Insecure housing
30
Need of security
25
73
Secure housing
Individual housing
24 38
35 21
34
Active environmentailsm
Worth the money
Selfrealization
37
23
Limited freedom of action
19
51 Financial Financial advan- disadvantages tages
27
35
Financial advantages
39
Insecure housing
60 21
Healthy interior
36
19 Typical Swedish housing
40
42
Modern & aesthetic
30
27
Warm interior atmosphere
54 More expencive to run
53 Higher construction costs
43 Lower construction costs
32
33
High construction & material risk
VALUES
Hierarchical Value Map of Swedish income-class ’30.000 € and more per year’ Numbers = percentages of observations with n=133 Concern about the environment
Good health
CONSEQUENCES CONSEQUENCES
47 66
39
62
34 36
27
Good image & reputation
Healthy living
36
57 61
53
Active environmentalism
30 Healthy living
ATTRIBUTES
41
Positive for the environment
47
20 Natural material
39 45
46
31 27 22
Pleasant & comfortable housing
Good image & reputation
High quality of life
32
32
22
51 44
49
30
26
44
Financial disadvantages
Individual housing
23 26
Unlimited freedom of action Limited freedom of action
Insecure housing
33
Need of security
35
79
Secure housing
Individual housing
Worth the money
32 58
38
Active environmentailsm
19
Selfrealization
30
29 49
Worth the money
29 47
46 64
38
Pleasant & comfortable housing
44 21
Feeling comfortable
40
29
Limited freedom of action
55 Financial Financial advan- disadvantages tages
29
32
Financial advantages
52
Insecure housing
59 21
Healthy interior
30 Typical Swedish housing
47
45
Modern & aesthetic
32
25
Warm interior atmosphere
19
56
More expencive to run
60 Higher construction costs
47 Lower construction costs
35
36
High construction & material risk
VALUES
Hierarchical Value Map of Swedish land ‘Götaland’ Numbers = percentages of observations with n=204 Concern about the environment
Good health
CONSEQUENCES CONSEQUENCES
45 62
54
38 33
27 32
19
Good image & reputation
Healthy living
49 52
ATTRIBUTES
Active environmentalism
56
35
28 Healthy living
39
Pleasant & comfortable housing
35 39
Feeling comfortable
39 40
High quality of life
28
23 42
29
22
Positive for the environment
46
47 Natural material
64 37
66
20
22
76
20
Unlimited freedom of action Limited freedom of action
Secure housing
Individual housing
Need of security
Insecure housing
49 Financial Financial advan- disadvantages tages
27 34
39
Pleasant & comfortable housing
25
23
Good image & reputation
24 32
26
54
29
26
Individual housing
Worth the money
38 19
29
Active environmentailsm
Worth the money
Selfrealization
34 28 Financial disadvantages
33
24
57 20
Healthy interior
27 Typical Swedish housing
38
33
Modern & aesthetic
28
26
Warm interior atmosphere
51 More expencive to run
19
Limited freedom of action
46 Higher construction costs
38
28
Financial advantages
20
55 Lower construction costs
40
Insecure housing
29
33
High construction & material risk
VALUES
Hierarchical Value Map of Swedish land ‘Svealand’ Numbers = percentages of observations with n=152 Concern about the environment
Good health
CONSEQUENCES CONSEQUENCES
27 69
27
41
32
Good image & reputation
Healthy living
29
28 36
45 51
38
Active environmentalism
20 Healthy living
34
Pleasant & comfortable housing
42 24
Feeling comfortable
28 40
High quality of life
26 34
24
28 27
ATTRIBUTES
28
Positive for the environment
37
20 Natural material
32
Active environmentailsm
Worth the money
41
32
28
73
49
Unlimited freedom of action Limited freedom of action
Secure housing
Individual housing
Need of security
Insecure housing
Financial Financial advan- disadvantages tages
22 33
42
Pleasant & comfortable housing
25
27
Good image & reputation
24 Individual housing
Worth the money
40 59
Selfrealization
38 24 Financial disadvantages
37
26
Limited freedom of action
33 Financial advantages
30
Insecure housing
50 57
25 Healthy interior
36 18 Typical Swedish housing
27
38
Modern & aesthetic
30
22
Warm interior atmosphere
45 More expencive to run
49 Higher construction costs
51 Lower construction costs
28
34
High construction & material risk
VALUES
Hierarchical Value Map of Swedish land ‘Norrland’ Numbers = percentages of observations with n=147 Concern about the environment
Good health
CONSEQUENCES CONSEQUENCES
44 65
35
54
50
Healthy living
42
ATTRIBUTES
35
50
Positive for the environment
45
20 Natural material
38
Pleasant & comfortable housing
High quality of life
24
28 45
31
29
34
Active environmentailsm
Worth the money
Selfrealization
42 40
36
31
71
20
Unlimited freedom of action Limited freedom of action
Secure housing
Individual housing
Need of security
Insecure housing
25 48 Financial Financial advan- disadvantages tages
24 47
44
18
Pleasant & comfortable housing
48 20
40
61 35
44 29
Active environmentalism
57
22
Good image & reputation
Healthy living
31
29 42
Feeling comfortable
25
Good image & reputation
28
Individual housing
Worth the money
39 26 Financial disadvantages
35
21
Limited freedom of action
29 Financial advantages
44
Insecure housing
51
29 60
25
21 Healthy interior
43
38 Typical Swedish housing
42
Modern & aesthetic
29
27
Warm interior atmosphere
54 More expencive to run
18
59
Higher construction costs
20 Lower construction costs
27
33
High construction & material risk
VALUES
Hierarchical Value Map of Sweden accumulated Numbers = percentages of observations with n=147 Concern about the environment
Good health
CONSEQUENCES
39 65
50
27 36
48
54
24
Good image & reputation
Healthy living
Feeling comfortable
34
36
39
Pleasant & comfortable housing
High quality of life
24
25 41
28
26
31
Active environmentailsm
Worth the money
Selfrealization
8
47 39
47
26
74
Insecure housing
14
7
6
19
Unlimited freedom of action Limited freedom of action
Secure housing
Individual housing
Need of security
20 49 Financial Financial advan- disadvantages tages
36
CONSEQUENCES
27
34
31
40 23
42
Active environmentalism
Healthy living
ATTRIBUTES
35 57
28
37
Positive for the environment
43
17 Natural material
12
23
Pleasant & comfortable housing
55 19
25 13
25
39 16
16
Good image & reputation
19 Healthy interior
14
16 Typical Swedish housing
14
36
37
12
Modern & aesthetic
6
23
53 29
25
Warm interior atmosphere
26
Financial disadvantages
Individual housing
Worth the money
33
32 57
18
15
50
16
More expencive to run
5
35
29 2
24
Limited freedom of action
14
51
12
Higher construction costs
Financial advantages
9
3
38 Insecure housing
11 44
Lower construction costs
28
33 High construction & material risk
Acta Wexionensia Below please find a listing of publications in the Acta Wexionensia series. For more information, please see www.vxu.se Series III (ISSN 1404-4307). From 2007 and onward. 106. Ann-Charlotte Larsson 2007, Study of Catalyst Deactivation in Three Different Industrial Processes (doktorsavhandling), ISBN: 978-91-7636-533-5. 107. Karl Loxbo, 2007,Bakom socialdemokraternas beslut. En studie av den politiska förändringens dilemman - från 1950-talets ATP-strid till 1990-talets pensionsuppgörelse (doktorsavhandling), ISBN: 978-91-7636-535-9. 108. Åsa Nilsson-Skåve, 2007, Den befriade sången. Stina Aronsons berättarkonst (doktorsavhandling), ISBN: 978-91-7636-536-6. 109. Anne Haglund Morrissey, Daniel Silander (eds.), 2007, The EU and the Outside World - Global Themes in a European Setting, ISBN: 978-91-7636-537-3. 110. Robert Nyqvist, 2007, Algebraic Dynamical Systems, Analytical Results and Numerical Simulations (doktorsavhandling), ISBN: 978-91-7636-547-2. 111. Christer Fritzell, Lena Fritzén, 2007, Integrativ didaktik i olika ämnesperspektiv. ISBN: 978-91-7636-548-9. 112. Torgny Klasson, Daniel Silander, 2007. Hot och hotbilder i globaliseringens tid – en studie av den svenska säkerhetspolitiska debatten. ISBN: 978-91-7636-550-2 113. Olof Eriksson (red.), 2007. Översättning och Kultur. Föredrag från ett symposium vid Växjö universitet 17-18 november 2006, ISBN: 978-91-7636-552-6 114. Henrik Tryggeson, 2007. Analytical Vortex Solutions to the Navier-Stokes Equation (doktorsavhandling), ISBN: 978-91-7636-555-7. 115. Sofia Ask, 2007. Vägar till ett akademiskt skriftspråk (doktorsavhandling), ISBN: 978-91-7636-557-1. 116. Cesar Villanueva Rivas, 2007 Representing Cultural Diplomacy: Soft Power, Cosmopolitan Constructivism and Nation Branding in Mexico and Sweden. (doktorsavhandling), ISBN: 978-91-7636-560-1. 117. Elisabet Frithiof, 2007. Mening, makt och utbildning. Delaktighetens villkor för personer med utvecklingsstörning (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-554-0. 118. Mats Johansson, 2007. Product Costing for Sawmill Business Management (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-564-9. 119. Rune Svanström, 2007. När väven blir skör och brister – erfarenheter av att leva med demenssjukdom (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-565-6 120. Sofia Almerud, 2007. Vigilance & Invisibility. Care in technologically intense environments (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-569-4. 121. Urban Ljungquist, 2007. Core Competence Matters: Preparing for a New Agenda (doktorsavhandling) . ISBN: 978-91-7636-567-0. 122. Jimmy Engren, 2007. Railroading and Labor Migration. Class and Ethnicity in Expanding Capitalism in Northern Minnesota, the 1880s to the mid 1920s (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-566-3. 123. Susanne Källerwald, 2007. I skuggan av en hotad existens – om den onödiga striden mellan biologi och existens i vården av patienter med malignt lymfom (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-568-7. 124. Gunilla Härnsten, Britta Wingård, 2007. Högskoleutbildning – Javisst, men med vem och för vad? ISBN: 978-91-7636-570-0.
125. Thérèse Eng, 2007. Traduire l´oral en une ou deux lignes – Étude traductologique du sous-titrage français de films suédois contemporains (doktorsavhandling). ISBN : 97891-7636-570-0. 126. Andreas Jansson, 2007. Collective Action Among Shareholder Activists (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-573-1. 127. Karl-Olof Lindahl, 2007. On the linearization of non-Archimedean holomorphic functions near an indifferent fixed point (doktorsavhandling) ISBN : 978-91-7636574-8. 128. Annette Årheim, 2007. När realismen blir orealistisk. Litteraturens ”sanna historier” och unga läsares tolkningsstrategier (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-571-7. 129. Marcela Ramírez-Pasillas, 2007. Global spaces for local entrepreneurship: Stretching clusters through networks and international trade fairs (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-577-9. 130. Daniel Ericsson, Pernilla Nilsson, Marja Soila-Wadman (red.), 2007. Tankelyft och bärkraft: Strategisk utveckling inom Polisen. ISBN: 978-91-7636-580-9. 131. Jan Ekberg (red.), Sveriges mottagning av flyktingar – några exempel. Årsbok 2007 från forskningsprofilen Arbetsmarknad, Migration och Etniska relationer (AMER) vid Växjö universitet. ISBN: 978-91-7636-581-6. 132. Birgitta E. Gustafsson, 2008. Att sätta sig själv på spel. Om språk och motspråk i pedagogisk praktik (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-589-2. 133. Ulrica Hörberg, 2008. Att vårdas eller fostras. Det rättspsykiatriska vårdandet och traditionens grepp (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-590-8. 134. Mats Johansson, 2008. Klassformering och klasskonflikt i Södra och Norra Möre härader 1929 – 1931 (licentiatavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-591-5. 135. Djoko Setijono, 2008. The Development of Quality Management toward Customer Value Creation (doktorsavhandling). ISBN : 978-91-7636-592-2. 136. Elisabeth Björk Brämberg, 2008. Att vara invandrare och patient i Sverige. Ett individorienterat perspektiv (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-594-6. 137. Anne Harju, 2008. Barns vardag med knapp ekonomi. En studie om barns erfarenheter och strategier (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-595-3. 138. Johan Sjödin, 2008. Strength and Moisture Aspects of Steel-Timber Dowel Joints in Glulam Structures. An Experimental and Numerical Study (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-596-0. 139. Inger von Schantz Lundgren, 2008. Det är enklare i teorin… Om skolutveckling i praktiken. En fallstudie av ett skolutvecklingsprojekt i en gymnasieskola (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-600-4. 140. Lena Nordgren, 2008. När kroppen sätter gränser – en studie om att leva med hjärtsvikt i medelåldern (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-593-9. 141. Mirka Kans, 2008. On the utilisation of information technology for the management of profitable maintenance (doktorsavhandling). ISBN : 978-91-7636-601-1. 143. Christer Fritzell (red.), 2008. Att tolka pedagogikens språk – perspektiv och diskurser. ISBN: 978-91-7636-603-5. 144. Ernesto Abalo, Martin Danielsson, 2008. Digitalisering och social exklusion. Om medborgares användning av och attityder till Arbetsförmedlingens digitala tjänster. ISBN: 978-91-7636-608-0. 145. Patrik Wahlberg, 2008. On time-frequency analysis and pseudo-differential operators for vector-valued functions (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-612-7. 146. Morgan Ericsson, 2008. Composition and Optimization (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-613-4.
147. Jesper Johansson, 2008. ”Så gör vi inte här i Sverige. Vi brukar göra så här.” Retorik och praktik i LO:s invandrarpolitik 1945-1981 (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-917636-614-1. 148. Monika Hjeds Löfmark, 2008. Essays on transition (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 97891-7636-617-2. 149. Bengt Johannisson, Ewa Gunnarsson, Torbjörn Stjernberg (red.), 2008. Gemensamt kunskapande – den interaktiva forskningens praktik. ISBN: 978-91-7636-621-9. 150. Sara Hultqvist, 2008. Om brukardelaktighet i välfärdssystemen – en kunskapsöversikt. ISBN: 978-91-7636-623-3. 151. Jaime Campos Jeria, ICT tools for e-maintenance (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 97891-7636-624-0. 152. Johan Hall, Transition-Based Natural Language Parsing with Dependency and Constituency Representations (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-625-7. 153. Maria Fohlin, L’adverbe dérivé modifieur de l’adjectif. Étude comparée du français et du suédois (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-626-4. 154. Tapio Salonen, Ernesto Abalo, Martin Danielsson, 2008. Myndighet frågar medborgare. Brukarundersökningar I offentlig verksamhet. ISBN: 978-91-7636-628-8. 155. Ann-Christin Torpsten, 2008. Erbjudet och upplevt lärande i mötet med svenska som andraspråk och svensk skola (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-629-5. 156. Guillaume Adenier, 2008. Local Realist Approach and Numerical simulations of Nonclassical Experiments in Quantum Mechanics (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-917636-630-8. 157. Jimmy Johansson, 2008. Mechanical processing for improved products made from Swedish hardwood (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-631-8. 158. Annelie Johansson Sundler, 2008. Mitt hjärta, mitt liv: Kvinnors osäkra resa mot hälsa efter en hjärtinfarkt (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-633-2. 159. Attila Lajos, 2008. På rätt sida om järnridån? Ungerska lantarbetare i Sverige 19471949. ISBN: 978-91-7636-634-9. 160. Mikael Ohlson, 2008. Essays on Immigrants and Institutional Change in Sweden (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-635-6 161. Karin Jonnergård, Elin K. Funck, Maria Wolmesjö (red.), 2008. När den professionella autonomin blir ett problem. ISBN: 978-91-7636-636-3 162. Christine Tidåsen, 2008. Att ta över pappas bolag. En studie av affärsförbindelser som triadtransformationer under generationsskiften i familjeföretag (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 878-91-7636-637-0 163. Jonas Söderberg, 2009. Essays on the Scandinavian Stock Market (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-638-7 164. Svante Lundberg, Ellinor Platzer (red.), 2008. Efterfrågad arbetskraft? Årsbok 2007 från forskningsprofilen Arbetsmarknad, Migration och Etniska relationer (AMER) vid Växjö universitet. ISBN: 978-91-7636-639-4 165. Katarina H. Thorén, 2008 “Activation Policy in Action”: A Street-Level Study of Social Assistance in the Swedish Welfare State. ISBN: 978-91-7636-641-7 166. Lennart Karlsson, 2009. Arbetarrörelsen, Folkets Hus och offentligheten i Bromölla 1905-1960 (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-645-5. 167. Anders Ingwald, 2009. Technologies for better utilisation of production process resources (doktorsavhandling) ISBN: 978-91-7636-646-2. 168. Martin Estvall, 2009. Sjöfart på stormigt hav – Sjömannen och Svensk Sjöfarts Tidning inför den nazistiska utmaningen 1932-1945 (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-917636-647-9.
169. Cecilia Axelsson, 2009. En Meningsfull Historia? Didaktiska perspektiv på historieförmedlande museiutställningar om migration och kulturmöten (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-648-6. 170. Raisa Khamitova, 2009. Symmetries and conservation laws (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-650-9. 171. Claudia Gillberg, 2009. Transformativa kunskapsprocesser för verksamhetsutveckling – en feministisk aktionsforskningsstudie i förskolan (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-652-3. 172. Kina Hammarlund, 2009. Riskfyllda möten. Unga människors upplevelser av sexuellt överförbara infektioner och sexuellt risktagande (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 97891-7636-653-0. 173. Elin K. Funck, 2009. Ordination Balanced Scorecard – översättning av ett styrinstrument inom hälso- och sjukvården (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-656-1. 174. Ann-Kari Sundberg, 2009. Le poids de la tradition. La gestion professorale de l’altérité linguistique et culturelle en classe de FLE (doktorsavhandling). ISBN : 97891-7636-657-8. 175. Peter Bengtsson, 2009. Development towards an efficient and sustainable biofuel drying (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-659-2. 176. Linda Reneland-Forsman, 2009. A changing experience – communication and meaning making in web-based teacher training (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636660-8. 177. Anders Andersson, 2009. Numerical conformal mappings for waveguides (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-661-5. 178. Rune Svanström, 2009. När livsvärldens mönster brister – erfarenheter av att leva med demenssjukdom (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-662-2. 179. Mats Anderberg och Mikael Dahlberg, 2009. Strukturerade intervjuer inom missbruksvården – en grund för kunskapsutveckling (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-917636-663-9. 180. Arianit Kurti, 2009. Exploring the multiple dimensions of context: Implications for the design and development of innovative technology-enhanced learning environments (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-665-3. 181. Joakim Krantz, 2009. Styrning och mening – anspråk på professionellt handlande i lärarutbildning och skola (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-671-4. 182. Hans Lundberg, 2009. Kommunikativt entreprenörskap: Underhållningsidrott som totalupplevelse före, under och efter formeringen av den svenska upplevelseindustrin 1999-2008 (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-673-8. 183. Jens Nilsson, 2009. Transformation and Combination in Data-Driven Dependency Parsing (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-674-5. 184. Uffe Enokson, 2009. Livspusslet: Tid som välfärdsfaktor (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-676-9. 185. Karin Olsson, 2009. Den (över)levande demokratin. En idékritisk analys av demokratins reproducerbarhet i Robert Dahls tänkta värld (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 97891-7636-677-6. 186. Rüdiger Lincke, 2009. Validation of a Standard- and Metric-Based Software Quality Model (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-679-0. 187. Lina Andersson, 2009. Essays on economic outcomes of immigrants and homosexuals (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-680-6.
188. Susanna Holzer, 2009. University Choice, Equality, and Academic Performance (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-681-3. 189. Magnus Carlsson, 2009. Essays on Discrimination in Hiring (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-682-0. 190. Håkan Jenner & Vera Segraeus (eds.), 2009. Evidence and Practical Knowledge in Substance Abuse Treatment – A basis for discussion. ISBN: 978-91-7636-684-4. 191. Dennis Strein, 2009. Code Analysis and Refactoring Tools for Heterogeneous Software Systems (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-686-8. 192. Anna Wingkvist, 2009. Understanding Scalability and Sustainability in Mobile Learning: A Systems Development Framework (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-917836-687-5. 193. Anna Höglund, 2009. Vampyrer. En kulturkritisk studie av den västerländska vampyrberättelsen från 1700-talet till 2000-talet (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636683-7. 194. Tobias Schauerte, 2009. Investigating Consumer Perceptions by applying the Extended Association Pattern Technique – A Study on Wooden Multistory Houses (doktorsavhandling). ISBN: 978-91-7636-689-9.
Växjö University Press 351 95 Växjö www.vxu.se
[email protected]
