Introduction
In a previous study, the evaluation structure of Japanese design professionals and laymen for interior wood were investigated. In consequence, 4 types of evaluation structures and the tendency of the evaluation were revealed. Following the study, the tendency of the evaluation of Finnish design professionals and laymen for interior wood were investigated through the analysis of the evaluation structure in this study.
Material & Method
This study also included 12 different wood samples (4 different species: Finnish spruce: Picea abies, Finnish pine: Pinus sylvestris, and heartwood and sapwood of Japanese cedar: Cryptomeria japonica and 3 different finishing: plain surface, wax coating and oil finishing). This research was also conducted using evaluation grid method. As a first step, 40 participants (10 people each from architect, interior designer, normal worker and student) divided wood samples into 5 groups according to their preference of the interior wood for living space. Following that, each group was evaluated and the factors for the evaluation was asked until the participants stopped answering. From the result of the interview, 7 core categories and 33 detailed categories were obtained as the evaluative elements. These elements were analyzed by mathematical quantification theory class III and cluster analysis. Based on the result of the analysis, the evaluation structures were investigated.
Result & Discussion
According to the result from cluster analysis, 5 clusters were obtained. The 1st and 5th cluster were consisted of design professionals. In the 1st cluster, the needs for characteristic and adaptive wood to surroundings were observed. The feature in 5th cluster was seen as originality and functionality of wood. On the other hand, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th cluster were by laymen. In the 2nd cluster showing the tendency of normal worker, the feature was regarding familiarity and harmony of wood. In the 3rd cluster mainly consisted of students, the students evaluate ordinariness and visual aspect of wood. The feature of 4th cluster common in the laymen was ordinariness and physical aspect of wood.
As a result, the tendency of the evaluation structure was clearly divided by the design professionals and laymen in case of Finland. The features of the structure for the professionals were observed as calmness by the condition of grain pattern and added value for space by natural aging and versatility of wood. The difference between architects and interior designers was that architects paid more attention to durability and quality. In addition, architects respected versatility of wood in space. On the other hand, interior designers emphasized harmony of wood with light including the natural aging aspect. Both architects and interior designers also put the value on environmental friendliness of wood. The features of the structure for the laymen were related to harmony with surroundings by familiarity of wood, modernity by novel color and safety by naturalness of wood. The feature of the evaluation structure by the students was on novelty of wood by visual aspect. The normal workers, on the contrary, required comfortability by the harmony and familiarity.
Conclusion
Considering the difference between the professionals and laymen, 5 types of evaluation structures were revealed. The clear differences were seen in the structures of the professionals and laymen. In a future study, a comparative study on the evaluation structure of Japanese and Finnish design professionals and laymen will be conducted to examine the effective measures for utilization of domestic wood and guideline to design wooden architecture.
