IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i5p1407-d211645.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of Wood Coverage on Building Facades Towards Sustainability

Author

Listed:
  • Hongpeng Xu

    (Key Laboratory of Cold Region Urban and Rural Human Settlement Environment Science and Technology, Ministry of Industry and Information, School of Architecture, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150006, China)

  • Jing Li

    (Key Laboratory of Cold Region Urban and Rural Human Settlement Environment Science and Technology, Ministry of Industry and Information, School of Architecture, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150006, China)

  • Jianmei Wu

    (Key Laboratory of Cold Region Urban and Rural Human Settlement Environment Science and Technology, Ministry of Industry and Information, School of Architecture, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150006, China)

  • Jian Kang

    (Key Laboratory of Cold Region Urban and Rural Human Settlement Environment Science and Technology, Ministry of Industry and Information, School of Architecture, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150006, China
    Institute for Environmental Design and Engineering, The Bartlett, University College London (UCL), London WC1H 0NN, UK)

Abstract

This study explores the acceptance of different wood coverages on building facades with the aim of optimization of materials, and in turn improving overall sustainability. It firstly develops the principal physical variables and evaluation criteria; then, test models are created using an orthogonal design experiment; finally, two evaluation methods are used to comprehensively test acceptance, based on a questionnaire and an eye-tracking study. The results show that: (1) The effects of the amount of wood coverage and the wood patterns are significant, whereas the effect of material combinations is insignificant. (2) The acceptance of building facades is at the highest level when the amount of wood coverage is 65%. (3) The amounts of wood coverage for facades in the range of 35% to 50% are effective when designing the facade of wood buildings, in order to implement the dual targets of saving wood and higher acceptance.

Suggested Citation

  • Hongpeng Xu & Jing Li & Jianmei Wu & Jian Kang, 2019. "Evaluation of Wood Coverage on Building Facades Towards Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-12, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:5:p:1407-:d:211645
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/5/1407/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/5/1407/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elena Reutskaja & Rosemarie Nagel & Colin F. Camerer & Antonio Rangel, 2011. "Search Dynamics in Consumer Choice under Time Pressure: An Eye-Tracking Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 900-926, April.
    2. Kelvin Balcombe & Iain Fraser & Eugene McSorley, 2015. "Visual Attention and Attribute Attendance in Multi‐Attribute Choice Experiments," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(3), pages 447-467, April.
    3. Russo, J Edward & Leclerc, France, 1994. "An Eye-Fixation Analysis of Choice Processes for Consumer Nondurables," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(2), pages 274-290, September.
    4. Amos Arieli & Yaniv Ben-Ami & Ariel Rubinstein, 2011. "Tracking Decision Makers under Uncertainty," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 3(4), pages 68-76, November.
    5. Nadine May & Edeltraud Guenther & Peer Haller, 2017. "Environmental Indicators for the Evaluation of Wood Products in Consideration of Site-Dependent Aspects: A Review and Integrated Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-31, October.
    6. Alicia Rihn & Hayk Khachatryan & Benjamin Campbell & Charles Hall & Bridget Behe, 2016. "Consumer preferences for organic production methods and origin promotions on ornamental plants: evidence from eye-tracking experiments," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(6), pages 599-608, November.
    7. Shenghan Li & Huanyu Wu & Zhikun Ding, 2018. "Identifying Sustainable Wood Sources for the Construction Industry: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-14, January.
    8. Campbell, Benjamin L. & Behe, Bridget K. & Khachatryan, Hayk & Hall, Charles R. & Dennis, Jennifer H. & Huddleston, Patricia T. & Fernandez, R. Thomas, 2013. "Incorporating Eye Tracking Technology and Conjoint Analysis to Better Understand the Green Industry Consumer," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150431, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Gerrit Antonides, 2017. "Sustainable Consumer Behaviour: A Collection of Empirical Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-5, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dushan Fernando & Satheeskumar Navaratnam & Pathmanathan Rajeev & Jay Sanjayan, 2023. "Study of Technological Advancement and Challenges of Façade System for Sustainable Building: Current Design Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-33, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hayk Khachatryan & Alicia Rihn & Ben Campbell & Bridget Behe & Charles Hall, 2018. "How do consumer perceptions of “local†production benefits influence their visual attention to state marketing programs?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 390-406, March.
    2. Martinovici, A., 2019. "Revealing attention - how eye movements predict brand choice and moment of choice," Other publications TiSEM 7dca38a5-9f78-4aee-bd81-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Ellen J Van Loo & Carola Grebitus & Rodolfo M Nayga & Wim Verbeke & Jutta Roosen, 2018. "On the Measurement of Consumer Preferences and Food Choice Behavior: The Relation Between Visual Attention and Choices," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 538-562, December.
    4. Hayk Khachatryan & Alicia L. Rihn & Benjamin Campbell & Chengyan Yue & Charles Hall & Bridget Behe, 2017. "Visual Attention to Eco-Labels Predicts Consumer Preferences for Pollinator Friendly Plants," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-14, September.
    5. Fiedler, Susann & Hillenbrand, Adrian, 2020. "Gain-loss framing in interdependent choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 232-251.
    6. Michel Wedel & Rik Pieters & Ralf Lans, 2023. "Modeling Eye Movements During Decision Making: A Review," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 88(2), pages 697-729, June.
    7. Zhang, Xumin & Khachatryan, Hayk & Gao, Zhifeng, 2020. "Using Mixed Logit Based Models to Control Attribute Nonattendance in Choice Experiments," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304547, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Meißner, Martin & Oppewal, Harmen & Huber, Joel, 2020. "Surprising adaptivity to set size changes in multi-attribute repeated choice tasks," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 163-175.
    9. Erlend Dancke Sandorf & Danny Campbell, 2019. "Accommodating satisficing behaviour in stated choice experiments," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(1), pages 133-162.
    10. Neuhofer, Zachary & McFadden, Brandon R. & Rihn, Alicia & Wei, Xuan & Khachatryan, Hayk & House, Lisa, 2020. "Can the updated nutrition facts label decrease sugar-sweetened beverage consumption?," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    11. Dutta, Rohan, 2020. "Gradual pairwise comparison and stochastic choice," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 15(4), November.
    12. Matthew P. Taylor, 2017. "Information Acquisition Under Risky Conditions Across Real And Hypothetical Settings," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(1), pages 352-367, January.
    13. Huddleston, Patricia T. & Behe, Bridget K. & Driesener, Carl & Minahan, S., 2018. "Inside-outside: Using eye-tracking to investigate search-choice processes in the retail environment," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 85-93.
    14. Peter Stüttgen & Peter Boatwright & Robert T. Monroe, 2012. "A Satisficing Choice Model," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 878-899, November.
    15. Polonio, Luca & Coricelli, Giorgio, 2019. "Testing the level of consistency between choices and beliefs in games using eye-tracking," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 566-586.
    16. Guidon Fenig & Giovanni Gallipoli & Yoram Halevy, 2018. "Piercing the 'Payoff Function' Veil: Tracing Beliefs and Motives," Working Papers tecipa-619, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    17. Stephanie M. Smith & Ian Krajbich & Ryan Webb, 2019. "Estimating the dynamic role of attention via random utility," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 97-111, August.
    18. Chavez, Daniel & Palma, Marco & Collart, Alba J., 2016. "Eye Tracking to Model Attribute Attendance," 2016 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2016, San Antonio, Texas 230011, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    19. Savannah Wei Shi & Michel Wedel & F. G. M. (Rik) Pieters, 2013. "Information Acquisition During Online Decision Making: A Model-Based Exploration Using Eye-Tracking Data," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(5), pages 1009-1026, May.
    20. Zuschke, Nick, 2020. "The impact of task complexity and task motivation on in-store marketing effectiveness: An eye tracking analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 337-350.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:5:p:1407-:d:211645. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.