Consumer Preferences for Kitchen Cabinets Made from Red Alder: A Comparison to Other Hardwoods


  • David L. Nicholls
  • Geoffrey H. Donovan
  • Joseph Roos


Secondary manufacturing, consumer preferences, red alder, furniture, cabinetry, willingness to pay, Alaska


In Alaska, red alder (Alnus rubra Bong.) is an abundant but commercially underutilized species despite having properties suitable for higher value products, including furniture and cabinetry. However, it lacks the name recognition of more traditional hardwoods. Our research measured the effect of this lack of familiarity on consumer preferences for red alder products, allowing the development of more effective marketing strategies for the species. Our study was conducted in two West Coast market—Seattle, WA, and Anchorage, AK, where attendees at home shows were surveyed about their preferences for cabinet doors made from several different species: cherry (Prunus spp.), red oak (Quercus rubra), hickory (Carya spp.), maple (Acer spp.), and three red alder doors with different levels of stain. Two measures of consumer preference were used: relative popularity (percent of time chosen as favorite), and willingness to pay (the price premium consumers were willing to pay for their favorite versus second favorite door). Maple and cherry doors were overall the most popular doors, as measured by percent of time chosen as favorite. Cherry and red oak showed large increases in popularity when their species names were known, whereas all other species declined in popularity (based on chi-square evaluations). All three alder doors declined in popularity when their names were known, with heavy-stained alder exhibiting the steepest decline. Estimates of mean willingness to pay ranged from $15.70 for moderate-stained alder to $39.30 for maple, suggesting that consumers are willing to pay a significant price premium for their favorite door. With the exception of oak and cherry, doors that were chosen as favorite more (less) often, commanded a higher (lower) price premium. Therefore, doors that are more popular have potential advantages in achieving higher market shares and greater price premiums. Results suggest that when marketing red alder products little, if any, emphasis should be placed on the red alder name; rather emphasis should be placed on red alder's visual characteristics.


Brunner, C. et al. 1996. The effects of edging severity on cut-stock production from red alder lumber. Forest Prod. J.46(7/8):56-61.nBumgardner, M., and S. Bowe. 2002. Species selection in secondary wood products: Implications for product design and promotion. Wood Fiber Sci.34(3):408-418.nBumgardner, M., R. Bush, and C. West. 2000. Beyond yield improvement: Selected marketing aspects of charactermarked furniture. Forest Prod. J.50(9):51-58.nBush, R. J., S. A. Sinclair, and P. A. Araman. 1991. Determinant product and supplier attributes in domestic markets for hardwood lumber. Forest Prod. J.41(2): 33-40.nCINTRAFOR. [N.d.]. An assessment of the PNW hardwood lumber industry, CINTRAFOR fact sheet 38. (internet reference).'>http://www.cintrafor.orgnDonovan, G. H., and D. Nicholls. 2003a. Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for character-marked cabinets from Alaska birch. Forest Prod. J.53 (11/12): 27-32.nDonovan, G. H., and D. Nicholls. 2003b. Estimating consumer willingness to pay a price premium for Alaska secondary wood products. Res. Paper PNW-RP-553. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.nDonovan, G. H., and H. Hesseln. 2003. Consumer willingness to pay for a naturally decay resistant wood product. Western J. Appl. Forestry [in press].nEvans, J. E., J. F. Senft, and D. W. Green. 2000. Juvenile wood effect in red alder: Analysis of physical and mechanical data to delineate juvenile and mature wood zones. Forest Prod. J.50(7/8):75-87.nFell, D. 2002. Consumer Visual Evaluation of Canadian Wood Species. Forintek Canada Corp.nHanemann, M. 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am. J. Agric. Econ.67(3):332-341.nLoomis, J. B. 1988. Contingent valuation using dichotomous choice models. J. Leisure Res.20(1):46-56.nNicholls, D., and G. Donovan. 2002. Alaska birch makes the grade. Wood & Wood Prod. Mag. November 2002. Pp. 83-85.nOlah, D., R. Smith, and B. Hansen. 2003. Wood material use in the U.S. cabinet industry 1999 to 2001. Forest Prod. J.53(1):25-31.nOzanne, L. K., and R. P. Vlosky. 1997. Willingness to pay for environmentally certified wood products: A consumer perspective. Forest Prod. J.47(6):39-48.nPark, T., J. B. Loomis, and M. Creel. 1991. Confidence intervals for evaluating benefits estimates from dichotomous choice contigent valuation studies. Land Economics67(1):64-73.nSmith, J. H. G. 1968. Growth and yield of red alder in British Columbia. Pages 273-286 in J. Trappe, J. F. Franklin, R. F. Tarrant, G. M. Hansen, eds. Biology of alder. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR.nTarrant et al. 1994. Red alder and the Pacific Northwest. In D. E. Hibbs, D. S. DeBell, and R. F. Tarrant, eds. The biology and management of red alder. Oregon State University Press: ix-xi. Corvallis, OR.nU.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1999. The wood handbook—Wood as an engineering material. Gen. Tech. Rep. FPL-GTR-113. Madison, WI: USDA, Forest Serv., Forest Prod. Lab. 463 pp.nU.S. Census Bureau. (internet reference).'> Department of Commerce (internet reference).'>http://dataweb.usitc.govnvan Hees, W. 2003. Personal communication. (17 April 03).nVeisten, K. 2002. Potential demand for certified wood products in the United Kingdom and Norway. For. Sci.48(4):767-778.nWashington Hardwoods Commission. 2003. Logs Processed Summary. [unpublished spreadsheet]nWipfli, Mark S. et al. 2002. Managing young upland forests in Southeast Alaska for wood products, wildlife, aquatic resources, and fishes: Problem analysis and study plan. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-558. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. September 2002.n






Research Contributions