Ihf10 Schauerte
Ihf10 Schauerte
Ihf10 Schauerte
Internationales Holzbau-Forum 10
Wooden house construction in Scandinavia – a model for Europe | T. Schauerte 1
Tobias Schauerte
Associate Professor Industrial Engineering, ek. Dr.
Linnaeus University, School of Engineering
Växjö, Sweden
16. Internationales Holzbau-Forum 10
2 Wooden house construction in Scandinavia – a model for europe | T. Schauerte
16. Internationales Holzbau-Forum 10
Wooden house construction in Scandinavia – a model for Europe | T. Schauerte 3
tion-wall prefabrication includes almost all interior installations and fittings and particular
in ready-module houses, integrated interior systems can be and often are mainly manufac-
tured off-site, including e.g. completed electrical and plumbing systems or wallpaper hang-
ing, parquet laying and tiling, see as well picture 1. Consequently, working time on-site is
being reduced and action limited to the assembling of modules, see pictures 2 and 3.
Picture 1: Prefabricated module for single family house with already installed heating and ventilation system and
other interior fittings. Arrival on-site.
Picture 2: Prefabricated modules for single family house are assembled on-site.
Due to the high degree of prefabrication, ready-module houses are the most cost effec-
tive alternative on the market for wooden single family houses. This attribute bears how-
ever the risk of being associated with low budget houses and less good quality. Yet,
prefabrication was and still is not only being further developed due to its price advantag-
es. In Scandinavia, it is seen as a different and most of all better method to manufacture
16. Internationales Holzbau-Forum 10
Wooden house construction in Scandinavia – a model for Europe | T. Schauerte 5
2. Multistory houses
2.1. Regulations, strategies and projects
As in most other countries, national building regulations prohibited the construction of
wooden houses with more than two stories in Scandinavia; except Norway, where three
stories were allowed. In the mid and late 1990s, however, these regulations changed and
were adjusted towards functional requirements (Schauerte, 2010), compare figure 1.
Up to
1994 1997 1999 2004 2010
1993
Sweden 2 ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞
Norway 3 3 ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞
1
: with sprinkler, two stories
without sprinkler
Finland 2 2 41 41 41 41,2 2
: under investigation
Denmark 1-2 1-2 1-2 4 ∞ ∞
Figure 1: Number of stories allowed with wood as bearing material in Scandinavia (Östman, 2010)
Sweden was the first of the Scandinavian countries to change regulations in 1994, allow-
ing the infinite use of wood in bearing structures, as long as the functional requirements
are fulfilled. Nevertheless, practical concerns limited constructions higher than 8 stories.
In 1997, Norway introduced regulation changes, requiring that constructions in high rise
buildings have to outlast fire. Apart from that, they are relatively similar to the Swedish
regulations. The same year, Finland changed their regulations; yet, only four-story
wooden residential houses were approved and restrained to have sprinkler installations.
An expansion of the Finnish regulations is currently being investigated. Lastly, Denmark
followed in 1999 by implementing changes allowing for four-story houses to be built in
wood (Östman, 2003; Tykää et al., 2010) and from 2004 without limitations in stories
(Östman, 2010).
16. Internationales Holzbau-Forum 10
6 Wooden house construction in Scandinavia – a model for europe | T. Schauerte
which leads to improved construction conditions for the product and a better working
environment for the employees, which will improve quality controls.
- Environmental protection by sustainable construction. Substituting steel and concrete
with wood will reduce CO2 emissions considerably.
- Giving wood the chance to catch up to other construction materials that were treated
preferentially, due to the prohibition of wood in certain constructions. (Näringsdepar-
tementet, 2004)
The three above-described national projects or strategies have several similarities, and
the probably most notable fact they have in common is that the national governments
either were part of the projects or even took the initiative to start them.
In this regard, the project “Nordic Wooden Cities” has to be mentioned as well. This
project comprises Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland in a cooperation aim-
ing at developing modern wooden cities. Wood should play a more central role in urban
development in all kinds of buildings. A close collaboration on the political and adminis-
trative level, information sharing, sharing of “best-practice” experiences in the whole
range of the building process, innovation promoting and supporting cooperation between
public and private sector are of utmost importance for the Nordic delegates involved in
this project. Today, 17 members are engaged in “Nordic Wooden Cities”, whilst new
members are welcome to join (Nordic Wooden Cities, 2010).
One condition, that cannot be dismissed when looking for strengths that trigger wood in
multistory constructions, is the involvement of the public sector in the Scandinavian
countries. Clear stated strategies and goals and, even more important, their implementa-
tion give a stronger authenticity to governmental statements on, e.g. how CO2 emissions
should or could be diminished. Here, Scandinavian countries might be an example for
other European countries. In various discussions with European politicians it is concluded
that wood, as a building material, cannot be advocated as such, since this would be a
distortion of competition. This argument is rather absurd for several reasons, yet, since
the present paper is not focusing on industry-political discussions nor lobbying, only the
most obvious reason is stated here. When setting up, or objectively operationalizing, cli-
mate goals, a thorough investigation of facts shows that there are materials that are
more suitable to apply e.g. in certain construction than others. In the majority of cases,
wood is beneficial. When tendering building projects, many municipalities aim at testing
whether or not wood might be an alternative construction material for that very project.
Yielding to logic and reason it should however probably be the other way around: If no
other material can offer more beneficial features, wood should be used. This precludes at
the same time an exaggeration of the usage of wood, since other materials definitively
can and should be used in case they are more beneficial.
A similar approach is e.g. practiced in the “Välle broar” project by the municipality of
Växjö, Sweden1. In addition to that, project coordinator Hans Andrén emphasizes the
importance of a functioning cooperation between the public sector, the industry and
academics. All three parts have a common denominator in triggering the use of wood in
construction and the understanding, that each part cannot do everything on its own but
benefit a lot if working together. In that manner, wood construction can be lifted to a
higher level.
2.2. Markets for wooden multistory houses
Concerning markets and the market share of wooden multistory houses, difficulties occur
to gather data since national statistical agencies often do not collect information about
material use in construction. In Norway, e.g., different statistics have to be combined in
order to estimate the share of buildings with more than four housing units build in wood 2.
In 2006 and 2007, the corresponding market share was 56% and 52%. With comparable
quantities, the market share decreased by 22% to 30% in 2008. In 2009, a downturn of
1
Read more about this project in Schauerte (2007).
2
I would like to thank sen. reseacher Anders Q. Nyrud, Treteknisk, Oslo, for providing me with the requested
information for the Norwegian market.
16. Internationales Holzbau-Forum 10
8 Wooden house construction in Scandinavia – a model for europe | T. Schauerte
32% in quantities occurred; however, the market share of wooden multistory houses
remained at a level of around 33% (Treteknisk, 2010).
As mentioned above, the Norwegian statistics comprise buildings with more than four
housing units. In addition to that it has to be noted that it was allowed to construct
wooden buildings up to three stories even before the 1990s. Thus, a conclusion might lie
at hand that the rather high market share of wooden multistory buildings in Norway
mainly has to be ascribed to two or three story houses and that only a smaller part of the
share attributes to higher buildings. However, that part of the market share is not known
down to the present day, the author could at least not be provided with corresponding
numbers on request.
In Finland, statistics capture the market share of wooden multistory houses in two differ-
ent ways. First, according to m2 build in total and second, according to the number of
finished buildings. The market share of wooden multistory houses up to four stories is
2.5% when it comes to m2, and 10.6% when calculated in relation to the number of
finished houses3. This means that housing units in wooden houses are rather small, com-
pared to housing units in houses with other materials. These numbers include housing
units in two-story houses as well.
In Sweden, the market share of wooden multistory houses has been growing since the
implementation of the above described strategy for more wood in construction. Reaching
about 10% in 2005 (Stehn et al., 2008), it exceeded 15% in the 2009 and is continuing
upwards (Svensson, 2009; Schauerte, 2009a). However, in contrast to Norway and
Finland, Swedish data only displays buildings with more than three stories. This is due to
the fact that it already was allowed to build two-story houses in wood before 1994 and
that the difference from then on is of particular interest. According to Jan Lagerström,
Swedish Forest Industry Federation, it is currently being worked on developing a statis-
tical database comprising all wooden multistory houses with two or more stories.
Concerning the Danish market, no data could be presented to the author on request.
Nevertheless it might be probable and fair to conclude that wood in multistory construc-
tions only plays a minor role in Denmark. The market for single family homes is still on a
relatively low level, as described before, and differentiates itself from the other Scandi-
navian countries. Shortage of raw material on the domestic market might serve as one
possible, yet nonetheless unsatisfactory explanation to the author that should be further
investigated in the future.
The above shows, that numbers on market share hardly can be compared between the
Scandinavian countries, since different national intents determine how „market share“ is
being operationalized and thus measured. Consistent data, like e.g. wooden houses with
more than two stories and two housing units, would simplify such a comparison.
3. Concluding remarks
All in all it can be said that wooden house construction has a long and well-routed tradi-
tion in Scandinavia. The development of industrialized production processes for single-
family houses seems to reach its limit while the development for multistory applications
has just begun. The latter can hopefully lead to a change on the construction markets
towards a higher degree of utilization of wood. One aspect that is of referent power for
other European countries is the culturally accepted way of building. Prefabrication is
regarded and accepted as a high-qualitative and less expensive production method.
Further, the official involvement of governmental instances, like e.g. ministries of the
environment or economics, is a beneficial aspect for projects aiming at triggering the
usage of wood especially in multistory constructions.
However, industry should not just wait for the public sector to act. A concentration of
activities is often required to reach considerable success. Small one-shot projects do not
have enough power in itself compared to a series of linked projects. Involved actors
3
“Thank you“ to prof. Matti Kairi, Aalto University, and Pekka Pajakkala, vice president at the Technical Re-
search Centre of Finland, VTT, for helping me with the data for the Finnish market.
16. Internationales Holzbau-Forum 10
Wooden house construction in Scandinavia – a model for Europe | T. Schauerte 9
should merge towards project groups in order to centre their activities and pull into the
same direction. What somehow sounds like a cliché and reminds of a managerial text-
book image is successfully implemented in the “Välle broar” project in Växjö in Sweden4.
There, public sector, industry and academics have a common denominator, i.e. lifting
wooden construction to the next level. However, each actor would spend too much energy
if “fighting for itself”. By concentrating energies towards a common goal, synergy effect
emerge which makes the three involved parts to a modern triumvirate of wood construc-
tion. This constellation should be applied elsewhere as well!
4. References
Kaden, T. (2010). Holzbau vertical: neue 5 – 7 geschossige Wohngebäude in der Stadt.
Dena-Dialog regional, 16.09.2010.
http://www.dena.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Download/Veranstaltungen/2010/dena_dialo
g_berlin/Reimer_web.pdf Version current as of 2010-09-21.
Karjalainen, M. and Koiso-Kanttila, J. (2005). The Modern Wooden Town Project
(1999 – 2010) in Finland. Conference proceeding of the XXXIII IAHS World Congress on
Housing, September 27 – 30, 2005, South Africa, Pretoria.
http://repository.up.ac.za/upspace/bitstream/2263/10420/1/The%20Modern%20Woode
n%20Town%20Project%20in%20Finland.pdf Version current as of 2010-10-25.
Näringsdepartementet (2004). Mer trä i byggandet – underlag för en nationell strate-
gi att främja användningar av trä i byggandet, Ds 2004:1, Regeringskansliet.
Lavoie, P. (2008). Green building trends are advancing wood as a building material. In:
Wahl, A. (edit.) (2008). Wood Market Trends in Europe. FPInnovations, Special Publica-
tion SP-49, ISSN # 1916-4238.
Niemeier, A. and Dederich, L. (2009). Standardisierung am Beispiel Schweden. In
Schwaner, K. (edit.) (2009). Zukunft Holz. Kap. 6.2 Produktionsverfahren. Hochschule
Bieberach. ftp://ftp.fh-biberach.de/pub/www/IfH/01_Zukunft_Holz/zh_k06.pdf Version
current as of 2010-09-20.
Nordic Wooden Cities (2010). Nordic Wooden Cities – et nordisk samarbejde,
http://nordicwoodencities.com/website4/1.0.4.0/5/1/index.php Version current as of
2010-10-25.
Norske arkitekters landsförbund (2007). Norwegian Wood,
http://www.arkitektur.no/?nid=58419 Version current as of 2010-10-25.
Paper and Wood insights (2010). Puurakentaminen ja puutaloteollisuus,
http://www.metsateollisuus.fi/infokortit/puurakentaminen/Sivut/default.aspx
Version current as of 2010-09-20.
Rug, W. (2006). Entwicklung der Holzhausindustrie. Conference proceeding of the 10.
Holzbautagung Berlin und Brandenburg, 24. Nov. 2006.
http://www.holzbau-statik.de/Holzbau/downloads/Holzbauband_2006_Inhalt_Rug.pdf
Version current as of 2010-09-20.
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 Verlag.
Schauerte, T. (2009a). Wood construction in Sweden from 1994 to 2008. In Hoch-
schule für Architektur, Bau und Holz – HSB (eds.) (2009). 15. Internationales Holzbau-
Forum, Holzbau aus der Praxis – für die Praxis, No. 2, Biel.
Schauerte, T. (2009b). Investigating Consumer Perceptions by applying the Extended
Association Pattern Technique – A Study on Wooden Multistory Houses. Acta Wexionen-
sia, No 194/2009. ISSN 1404-4307, ISBN 978-91-7636-683-7.
4
Read more about this project in Schauerte (2007).
16. Internationales Holzbau-Forum 10
10 Wooden house construction in Scandinavia – a model for europe | T. Schauerte