Preferences for Pressure-Treated Wooden Deck Materials
Keywords:
Conjoint analysis, marketing, consumer choice, market segmentation, market sharesAbstract
Environmental regulations and restrictions have increased the need for new treatments of wood for outdoor residential use. Further, new tastes and the growing importance of do-it-yourself retailing have initiated a need for more knowledge in the industry about end-consumer preferences for outdoor wooden products. In this study consumer preferences for different types of outdoor decking were analyzed using the conjoint analysis approach. The results indicate that environmental certification is an important product attribute for many customers, together with price and type of treatment. Service and ready-to-assemble products are of low importance. Significant preference differences between customer subgroups were identified. Conjoint part-worth values were also used to distinguish three consumer segments. Finally, the utilization of the conjoint results for simulation of market shares dynamics for hypothetical products is demonstrated.References
Jonsson R (2005) The end consumer's choice of floorcovering in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom: A comparative pilot study of substitute competition. Wood Sci 51(2):154-160.nKaiser FG, Wölfing S, Fuhrer U (1999) Environmental attitude and ecological behavior. J Environ Psychol 19:1-19.nKärnä J, Hansen E, Juslin H (2003) Environmental activity and forest certification in marketing of forest products—A case study in Europe. Silva Fennica 37(2):253-267.nKorhonen S, Niemelä JS (2003) Strategy analysis of the leading European and North American wood-industry companies in 1998-2001. University of Helsinki Seinäjoki Institute for Rural Research and Training. Seinäjoki, Finland. 91 pp.nKotler P (2000) Marketing management—The Millenium Edition. Prentice hall International, Inc. London, 718 pp.nWittink DR, Cattin P (1989) Commercial use of conjointanalysis—an update. J Mark 53(3):91-96.nKuhfeld W (2005) Marketing research methods in SAS—Experimental design, choice, conjoint, and graphical techniques. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, 857 pp.nLancaster K (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 74:132-156.nLebow S, Foster D, Lebow P (2004) Rate of CCA leaching from commercially treated decking. Forest Prod J 54:81-88.nNicholls DL, Donovan GH, Roos J (2004) Consumer preferences for kitchen cabinets made from red alder: A comparison to other hardwoods. Wood Fiber Sci 36(3):432-442.nOzanne LK, Smith PM (1998) Segmenting the market for environmentally certified wood products. Forest Sci 44(3):379-388.nOzanne LK, Vlosky RP (2003) Certification from the U.S. consumer perspective: A comparison of 1995 and 2000. Forest Prod J 53(3):13-21.nPakarinen T, Asikainen A (2001) Consumer segments for wooden household furniture. Holz Roh-Werkst 59:217-227.nPunj G, Stewart DW (1983) Cluster analysis in marketing research: Review and suggestions for application. J Marketing Res 20:134-148.nRametsteiner E, Simula M (2002) Forest certification—an instrument to promote sustainable forest management? Forest Policy Econ 67:87-98.nReddy VS, Bush RJ (1998) Measuring softwood lumber value: A conjoint analysis approach. Forest Sci 44(1): 145-157.nSAS 1999. SAS Stat User's Guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.nShook SR, Eastin IL (2001) A characterization of the US residential deck material market. Forest Prod J 51:28-36.nSmith PM, Sinclair SA (1989) The Do-it-yourself customer for CCA-treated lumber products. Forest Prod J 39:35-41.nSmith PM, Sinclair SA (1990) The professional contractor/remodeler: Market research for CCA-treated lumber products. Forest Prod J 40:8-14.nStraughan RD, Roberts JA (1999) Environmental segmentation alternatives: A look at the green consumer behaviour in the new millennium. J Consum Mark 16(6):558-575.nTownsend T, Solo-Gabriele H, Tolaymat T, Stook K, Hosein N (2003) Chromium, copper, and arsenic concentrations in soil underneath CCA-treated wood structures. Soil Sediment Contam 12:779-798.nUNECE/FAO (2004) Timber Market Statement—September 2004. http://www.unece.org/trade/timber/mis/market/market-62/unitedkingdom.pdf'>http://www.unece.org/trade/timber/mis/market/market-62/unitedkingdom.pdfnUNECE/FAO (2007) Forest products annual market review 2005-2006. UNECE/FAO, Geneva. 163 pp.nvan Kleef E, van Trijp HCM, Luning P (2005) Consumer research in the early stages of new product development: a critical review of methods and techniques. Food Qual Prefer 16:181-201.nVeisten K (2002) Potential demand for certified wood products in the United Kingdom and Norway. Forest Sci 48: 767-778.nVlosky RP, Shupe TF (2002) Homeowner attitudes and preferences for building materials with an emphasis on treated wood products. Forest Prod J 52:90-95.nVlosky RP, Shupe TF (2004) U.S. homebuilder perceptions about treated wood. Forest Prod J 54:41-48.nVlosky RP, Shupe TF (2005) Manufacturers' perceptions about using treated wood in children's playground equipment. Forest Prod J 55:190-193.nWang QB, Shi GM, Chan-Halbrendt C (2004) Market potential for fine furniture manufactured from low-grade hardwood: Evidence from conjoint analysis in the northeastern United States. Forest Prod J 54(5):19-25.nWeinfurter S, Hansen EN (1999) Softwood lumber quality requirements: Explaining the supplier/buyer perception gap. Wood Fiber Sci 31(1):83-94.nWEIWP 2007. The wood preservation industry. Western European Institute for Wood Preservation. http://www.wei-ieo.org/headframe.htm'>http://www.wei-ieo.org/headframe.htmnAaker D, Kumar V, Day GS (2003) Marketing research, 7th Ed. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY. 774 pp. http://www.apvma.gov.au/chemrev/arsenic_summary.pdf (15 June 2007). http://www.apvma.gov.au/chemrev/arsenic_summary.pdf'>http://www.apvma.gov.au/chemrev/arsenic_summary.pdfnAnderson JC, Jain DC, Chintagunta PK (1993) Customer value assessment in business markets: A state-of-practice study. J Bus Bus Mark 1(1):8-9.nAnderson RC, Hansen EN (2004) The impact of environmental certification on preferences for wood furniture: A conjoint analysis approach. Forest Prod 54(3):42-50.nAPVMA (2005) The reconsideration of registrations of arsenic timber treatment products (CCA and arsenic trioxide) and their associated labels- report of review findings and regulatory outcomes, Summary report. Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, March 2005.nBigsby H, Ozanne LK (2002) The purchase decision: Consumers and environmentally certified wood products. Forest Prod J 52(7-8):100-105.nBrandt JP, Shook SR (2005) Attribute elicitation: Implications in the research context. Wood Fiber Sci 37:127-146.nBroman NO (2000) Means to measure the aesthetic properties of wood. PhD Thesis. Division of Wood Technology, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden.nDiamantopoulos A, Schlegelmilch BB, Sinkovics RR, Bohlen GM (2003) Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation. J Bus Res 56:465-480.nDonovan G, Hesseln H (2004) Consumer willingness to pay for naturally decay-resistant wood products. West J Appl For 19:160-164.nDunn MA, Shupe TF, Vlosky RP (2003) Homebuilder attitudes and preferences regarding southern yellow pine. Forest Prod J 53(4):36-41.nEggert A, Ulaga W (2002) Customer perceived value: A substitute for satisfaction in business market. J Bus Ind Mark 17(2-3):107-118.nEngel JF, Blackwell RD, Miniard PW (1986) Consumer behavior. The Dryden Press, Fort Worth, TX. 633 pp.nEPA (2005) Chromated copper arsenate (CCA). chromated copper arsenate (CCA). Environmental Protection Agency http://www.epa.gov/oppad001/reregistration/cca/index.htm#general'>http://www.epa.gov/oppad001/reregistration/cca/index.htm#generalnEC (2006) Commission Directive 2006/139/EC of 20 December 2006 amending Council Directive 76/769/EEC as regards restrictions on the marketing and use of arsenic compounds for the purpose of adapting its Annex I to technical progress. European Commission. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2006/l_384/l_38420061229en00940097.pdf'>http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2006/l_384/l_38420061229en00940097.pdfnECWI (2004) Roadmap 2010 for the European Woodworking Industries. European Confederation of Woodworking Industries. CEI-Bois. Brussels, Belgium. 34 pp.nEveritt BS, Dunn G (1991) Applied multivariate data analysis. Arnold, London. 304 pp.nFell RD, Thomas J, Hansen E (2006) Evolving consumer preferences for residential decking materials. For Chron 82(2):253-258.nForsyth K, Haley D, Kozak RA (1999) Will Consumers Pay More for Certified Wood Products? J Forestry 97(2): 18-22.nGreen PE, Krieger AM (1991) Segmenting markets with conjoint-analysis. J Mark 55(4):20-31.nForsyth K, Srinivasan V (1978) Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook. J Consum Res 5(Sep):103-123.nHair JF, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, Black WC (1998) Multivariate analysis. Prentice Hall Inc. NY. 768 pp.nHansen EN, Bush RJ, Fern EF (1996) An empirical assessment of the dimensions of softwood lumber quality. Forest Sci 42(4):407-414.nHansmann R, Koellner T, Scholz RW (2006) Influence of consumers' socioecological and economic orientations on preferences for wood with sustainability labels. For Policy Econ 8(3):239-250.nJacobsen B, Evans F (2003) Surface treatment of wood for outdoor use [in Norwegian]. Part 1. Tekniske småskrift. Norsk Treteknisk Institutt (NTI), Oslo, Norway. 37 pp.n
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
The copyright of an article published in Wood and Fiber Science is transferred to the Society of Wood Science and Technology (for U. S. Government employees: to the extent transferable), effective if and when the article is accepted for publication. This transfer grants the Society of Wood Science and Technology permission to republish all or any part of the article in any form, e.g., reprints for sale, microfiche, proceedings, etc. However, the authors reserve the following as set forth in the Copyright Law:
1. All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
2. The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In the case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain Society of Wood Science and Technology written permission as well. However, the Society may grant rights with respect to Journal issues as a whole.
3. The right to use all or part of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, text books, or reprint books.
