Skip to Main Content
U.S. Forest Service
Caring for the land and serving people

United States Department of Agriculture

Home > Search > Publication Information

  1. Share via EmailShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on Twitter
    Dislike this pubLike this pub


    This technical note describes consumer preferences within selected demographic categories in two major Pacific Northwest markets for six domestic wood species. These woods were considered for construction of four furniture pieces. Chi-square tests were performed to determine species preferences based on gender, age, and income. Age and income were statistically significant (with a stronger effect for age); gender was not significant. Older respondents preferred oak while younger respondents preferred spruce. Cherry was preferred by respondents in higher income categories and oak by respondents in lower income categories. Maple was preferred by younger male respondents, while birch was preferred by lower income males. Lastly, red alder was found to have lower preference among females in higher income categories. Such information is useful for considering the role that species choice can play in the development of customized products by the domestic furniture industry.

    Publication Notes

    • Check the Northern Research Station web site to request a printed copy of this publication.
    • Our on-line publications are scanned and captured using Adobe Acrobat.
    • During the capture process some typographical errors may occur.
    • Please contact Sharon Hobrla, if you notice any errors which make this publication unusable.
    • We recommend that you also print this page and attach it to the printout of the article, to retain the full citation information.
    • This article was written and prepared by U.S. Government employees on official time, and is therefore in the public domain.


    Nicholls, David; Bumgardner, Matthew. 2007. Evaluating selected demographic factors related to consumer preferences for furniture from commercial and from underutilized species. Forest Products Journal. 57(12): 79-82.

    Related Search

    XML: View XML
Show More
Show Fewer
Jump to Top of Page