A comparative analysis of consumer attitudes on the use of wood products in Slovenia and Croatia;Analiza uporabe drvnih proizvoda u Sloveniji i Hrvatskoj

Drvna Industrija

Volumn 63, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 71-79

  Kuzman, Manja Kitek ^a   Motik, Darko ^b   Bičanić, Kristina ^b   Vlosky, Richard P ^c   Oblak, Leon ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA   (Slovenia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZAGREB   (Croatia)

^c Louisiana State University Agricultural Center   (United States)

Author keywords

Consumers; Croatia; Furniture industry; Market potential; Public opinion; Slovenia; Timber construction

Indexed keywords

CONSUMERS; CROATIA; FURNITURE INDUSTRY; MARKET POTENTIAL; PUBLIC OPINIONS; SLOVENIA; TIMBER CONSTRUCTION;

FORESTRY;

WOOD PRODUCTS;

ATTITUDINAL SURVEY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR; MARKET SYSTEM; PERCEPTION; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY; TIMBER INDUSTRY; WOOD;

CONSUMERS; CROATIA; FORESTS; FURNITURE; MARKET RESEARCH; RANDOM PROCESSES; SLOVENIAN; WOOD PRODUCTS;

CROATIA; SLOVENIA;

EID: 84863503478     PISSN: 00126772     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5552/drind.2012.1129     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. rious years. https://www.cia. gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/
2. Eurostat Statistical books. 2011: Forestry in the EU and the world, A statistical portrait, pp.13-88.
3. Forest Products Statistics 2004-2008. 2009: Timber Bulletin, ECE / TIM / BULL / 62 / 2, analysed by M. Piškur, Surveying and Mapping Institute of Slovenia, 2011.
4. Jelačić, D.; Mat'ova, H.; Bičanić, K. 2010: Perception of Corporate Identity in Croatian and Slovakian Wood Processing and Furniture Manufacturing Companies. Drvna industrija, 61 (2):103-110.
5. Kitek Kuzman, M.; Medved S., Vratuša S. 2010: Evaluation of Slovenian contemporary timber construction. Drewno, 53 (183): 85-100.
6. Kitek Kuzman, M. 2009: Potential of Wooden Building in Slovenia. In: Kitek Kuzman (Ed.): Building with Timber, Challenge and Opportunity for Slovenia. University of Ljubljana, Biotechnical Faculty, Ljubljana, pp. 212-218.
7. Kreuter, F., Presser, S., Tourangeau, R. 2008: Social Desi rability bias in CATI, IVR, and web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72 (5): 847-865 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn063.
8. Motik, D.; Kusa, A.; Jazbec, A.; Jelačić, D. 2004: Comparision of furniture demand in Croatia and Slovakia. Forest Product Journal, 54 (12): 85-89.
9. Tykkä, S. et al. 2009, Development of timber framed fi rms in the construction sector-Is EU policy one source of their innovation? Forest Policy and Economics 12: 199-206.
10. Petersen, A. K.; Solberg, B. 2005: Environmental and economic impacts of substitution between wood products and alternative materials: a review of micro-level analyses from Norway and Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics 7: 249-259 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00063-7.
11. Premrov, M. 2008: Timber frame houses. In: Handbook 1, TEMTIS project, (Educational materials of designing and testing of timber structures), Ostrava: VŠB-tu, Fakulteta stavební, pp. 1-15.
12. Zbašnik-Senegačnik, M.; Koprivec, L., Kresal, J., 2011: Contemporary building skin: architecture-based survey of techniques and building technologies. Prostor (Zagreb), 19(1): 240-251.
13. ***www.hrsume.hr