Consumer perception of wood surfaces: the relationship between stated preferences and visual homogeneity

Classification of wood surfaces according to visual appearance by multivariate analysis of wood feature data

“…Yet so far, only a limited number of studies have investigated the aesthetic perception of wood and the relationships between people's preference and visible wood properties (e.g. Broman [1], Bumgardner et al [2], Donovan and Nicholls [3], Nyrud et al [4], Høibø and Nyrud [5], Nicholls and Barber [6]). In various interview studies in Scandinavia, Broman [1] found that differing preferences existed among people and that the most decisive characteristics of a wood surface were the presence of mismatching features and the overall mixture of features.…”

“…Similar to those findings, Nyrud et al [4] concluded that consumers prefer wood surfaces with homogenous visual appearance when they investigated the attributes influencing preference for residential decks made of different wood materials. Høibø and Nyrud [5] studied the relationships between preference and visual homogeneity of wood surfaces. According to their multivariate models, knot properties had a major influence on the perceived homogeneity and thus the attractiveness of a wood surface.…”

Consumers’ perceptions and preference profiles for wood surfaces tested with pairwise comparison in Germany

“…The number of 112 respondents in study I may not be sufficient to represent a realistic range of different 'floor consumers', but helped to explore the sense of similarity among consumers as an exploratory study. In comparison with future studies, the results can be validated also with regard to increased generalizability (Hair et al 2010). A differentiation of the judgement according to social parameters (gender, age, professional background and wood experience) did not reveal significant differences.…”

“…Based on a proximity matrix, MDS calculates Euclidian distances between the tested objects while a number of underlying dimensions are found (Hair et al 2010). To evaluate the model's accurateness, Kruskal (1964) provides as a rule of thumb a stress measure (Stress1) that is minimized by increasing the number of dimensions with 0.4-poor, 0.2-fair, 0.1-good, 0.05-excellent and 0.0-perfect.…”

How do consumers express their appreciation of wood surfaces? Norway spruce floors in Germany as an example

“…'contrast' in Broman (2001), 'harmony' in Sande and Nyrud (2008) and Broman (2001), 'vividness' in Nordvik et al (2009) and (syn. lively) Broman (2001), 'evenness' in Nyrud et al (2008), Høibø and Nyrud (2010) and Broman (2003), 'number of knots' in Wang et al (2004) and Høibø and Nyrud (2010), 'dots' in Broman (1995). The item 'stripes' The first figure represents the results from hierarchical cluster analysis.…”