Next Article in Journal
Transition from Technological Dominance to Total Management in Future Low-Carbon Building Industry
Previous Article in Journal
Performance of Concrete Incorporating Waste Glass Cullet and Snail Shell Powder: Workability and Strength Characteristics
Previous Article in Special Issue
Biophilic Design Application in School Common Areas: Exploring the Potential to Alleviate Adolescent Depression
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Preferences of Design Students in Choosing Wood for Furniture Design in Interiors

by
Indji Derebej
1,*,
Boris Iliev
1,
Dita Starova Qerimi
1 and
Zoran Vlaović
2
1
Department of Architecture and Design, University American College Skopje, 1000 Skopje, North Macedonia
2
Faculty of Forestry and Wood Technology, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2025, 15(13), 2162; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15132162
Submission received: 29 April 2025 / Revised: 27 May 2025 / Accepted: 19 June 2025 / Published: 21 June 2025

Abstract

Matching the most suitable material for furniture design in interiors is a challenging task for designers, as it requires them to perceive the material’s attributes. This issue leads to a quest to understand the designer’s approach to selecting materials for furniture in the design process. Considering the aesthetic, technical, and ecological advantages of wood, this research aims to understand the position of wood material through methodologies used in design studies. Given that wood has been utilized in buildings, interiors, and furniture for centuries, it raises the question of its relevance to the new generation of designers. To investigate this, students of design studies were tasked with creating a product utilizing the knowledge gained regarding the phases of product development and the latest findings related to material assignment procedures. Design process is one that continually incorporates new procedures driven by technological advancements. The innovative approach of Speculative and Critical Design (SCD) can enhance the perception of creative thought; however, a conventional approach provides a reliable foundation that encourages further exploration and adherence to the established phases of design. Material assignment techniques such as Product-Driven Design (PDD) and Material-Driven Design (MDD) also play a significant role in comprehending the material properties and methods of product material allocation. Gaining insight into both product development processes and material assignment techniques can illuminate the role of wood as a material within design studies, particularly among students. This research focuses on comparing the methodologies and assignment techniques derived from the existing literature and studies, centered around a project aimed at understanding the willingness of design students to utilize wood materials. Ultimately, it is disclosed that the students plan to utilize wood as their primary material, in conjunction with traditional methodological approaches, and in accordance with PDD, indicating their focus on the requirements of the product.

1. Introduction

This paper has been developed based on previous research regarding the assignment method of material attributes in product design, driven by the product properties [1,2]. The process is correlated with the Product-Driven Design (PDD) method, initiating the designers to acknowledge the product properties along with the material attributes [1,2]. This method is a process that involves aligning material characteristics, such as smoothness, stiffness, and reflectiveness, with product attributes including functionality, ergonomics, and design [1,2].
Appropriate to material knowledge, designers have been using Material-Driven Design (MDD) when assigning the material to a product. This means that designers generate ideas for the product, based on the material attributes (for example, smoothness, stiffness, reflectiveness, etc.) [3,4]. The fundamental reasoning behind modifying the MDD method for selecting suitable materials for the product is based on analyzing the process of aligning a specific material with the designated product [3,4]. This process involves comprehending the material to identify its distinct characteristics and limitations relative to other materials, achieved through a method of experimentation with the material—an exploratory approach to creation and assessment [3,4].
Cognizant of its fitting requirements, wood has been designated as a focal point of this research due to its engaging activity in buildings, interiors, and furniture design for centuries. The benefit of being perceived as a strong, hard material and moreover having the ability to transform its texture in various environments when being touched, wood plays an important role in design [5]. However, various novel materials labeled as natural and eco-friendly are being introduced constantly in the industry [6,7]. Designers are being confronted regularly by technological development and environmental challenges [8]. The design process is being developed by a constant loop of the aforementioned external effects and designers’ creativity [8,9]. This indicates that designers lead the trends in the design industry; furthermore, their role is oriented towards defining the usage of materials in their projects, interiors, products, and other services. Continual introduction of advanced materials on the market questions the relevancy of wood and other wooden materials for contemporary designers.
Design studies in academia are elaborated according to the design methodology established by academics and design societies [10,11,12,13]. The conventional approach utilized in design studies is elaborated according to the five phases of design, which are empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test [10,11,12,13]. This conventional approach is grounded in the design thinking process, where each stage is detailed with research and reasoning. To keep pace with technological development and external influence, the syllabus is aggregated according to the current findings in academia and practice. Recent findings reveal that different approaches can challenge students’ creativity towards increasing their potential of research, and alternative approaches [1,13,14]. Speculative and Critical Design (SCD) challenges young designers to find new and alternative ideas based on conventional approach practice [13,14]. This methodology urges designers to think outside the box by applying different interpretation and analogy to their design [14]. Using this method expands our imagination to envision possible, probable, and desirable futures by creating narratives and artifacts that illustrate future scenarios, including various seating positions in human body support devices [13,14].
In accordance with the novel methodologies, students in their 6th semester who are engaged in design studies are being motivated to create a furniture element as part of the industrial design course.
Considering the importance of furniture in interior design, these components encompass a wide array of movable items classified into four primary categories: (1) devices that support the human body, (2) surfaces and objects that facilitate various activities, (3) pieces for storage and display, and (4) spatial dividers [15]. For the requirements of this study, a human body support device that aligns with a chair element has been chosen as a project proposal. The history of chair design reflects each period’s culture and demonstrates the evolution of design, manifesting the trends and changes in society [16]. Students have been introduced to chair evolution in design lectures and, for the purpose of this study, asked to choose a famous chair model as a reference model.
Material selection constitutes a critical segment of the design process, as it directly influences the form, function, aesthetics, and sustainability of the final product. Special attention in this study is devoted to the use of wood as a traditional and natural material, which continues to be a dominant choice in chair manufacturing—both for its aesthetic warmth and tactile qualities, as well as for its renewability and recyclability.
Through the analysis of the elaborated design and survey answers, the study seeks to determine whether students consider environmental aspects and the recyclability of materials, whether their choices are driven by the inherent properties of materials—such as the tactile and visual warmth of wood—or by the intended function and use of the final product. These insights are essential for a more comprehensive understanding of the criteria applied by future designers, as well as their potential influence on practices within the fields of interior architecture and design.

2. Materials and Methods

The selected methodologies for product development and the material assignment process are examined, as these two segments, while distinct, are inherently interconnected. The process of developing a product is one aspect, but it often intersects with the material assignment procedure. The investigation centers on determining which approach to product development and material allocation is more advantageous in research studies and serves as the foundation for this analysis.
To comprehend the application of wood in design studies, several segments are examined.
The research, based on an aggregated survey, has statistically presented the responses of design students and subsequently elucidated the key findings in their explanation. This process provides insights into the understanding of material attributes and the willingness to utilize wood, contingent upon the product properties and its material attributes.
The second investigation focuses on comparing the employed product development methodologies and material assignment procedures based on their finalized project models and the explanations provided in the survey. Furthermore, the comparison of the research and results offers an understanding of how students tend to utilize materials within the specified methodologies and material procedures. This finding will contribute to establishing a solid foundation regarding the use of wood as a material in student projects. Overall, it serves as a preliminary idea for further exploration in the realm of defining wood attributes in comparison to those recognized by experts.
The study examines the viewpoints of undergraduate students enrolled in the design program, specifically within the Industrial Design course at the University American College Skopje, North Macedonia, in the Department of Architecture and Design. Considering that these students represent future practitioners and trendsetters in the field of interior and industrial design, their viewpoints and choices can provide relevant insights into future directions in material development and application, including the use of natural materials such as wood.
A total of 19 students in their 6th semester participated in the study. Four students did not complete their project; therefore, they were excluded from the survey.
The average age of the participants is 20.45 years. Detailed demographic data are presented in Table 1. In this research, all participants are from Skopje, North Macedonia and lack any formal design background, as they are currently students in design programs. This commonality suggests that they are all at a similar level of knowledge.
The research was conducted in two phases:
Phase One: Students were asked to develop a chair, identifying a reference example of the product designed by a renowned architect or designer. The selected example is intended to serve as inspiration for the development of their own chair design. The rationale for selecting a renowned designer or architect as a reference model was to comprehend the fundamental characteristics of chairs and to define the essential criteria for their design. Additionally, the lectures have addressed the distinctions between various product development methodologies, including the conventional approach and CSD, along with an explanation of material assignment processes such as PDD and MDD. The teaching material and guidelines have been established as requirements to direct the research towards achieving more precise outcomes.
Phase Two: Students were asked to complete a survey consisting of eight questions, aggregated to investigate the rationale behind their choice of reference example, as well as the criteria they applied in selecting materials for their own designs.
The survey questions (Figure 1) were designed to uncover the students’ thought processes without directly addressing the methodologies employed or the criteria for material selection. The explanations provided by the students often expand upon the outcomes obtained from their project models, outlining the methods employed and the reasoning that informed their choices in product development and material selection.
Informed consent was obtained from all research participants (students). All participants were informed about the aim of the study and possible withdrawal at any stage.

3. Results

Fifteen (15) students elaborated the project according to the design requirements and completed the provided questionnaire.
In addition, this study has been elaborated into two distinct phases.
In phase one, which involved the selection of a reference example of a seating element designed by a renowned architect or designer, the design students predominantly selected chairs made entirely or partially of wood. Specifically, nine (9) of fifteen (15) participants opted for wooden chairs. This preference indicates a clear tendency towards material continuity in the subsequent phase, wherein students developed their own chair designs inspired by the chosen reference models.
In many cases, the newly designed chairs maintained the same material characteristics as their reference counterparts. Even when alternative materials were introduced—such as upholstered sections for enhanced comfort or metal components for improved structural integrity—wood often remained the dominant or at least a partial material choice, particularly in structural elements.
Among the six participants who remained and did not choose wood as their primary material, polymers (such as plastic) were frequently utilized, along with partially upholstered seating or metal components.
The designed chairs by the students have been presented as 3D-rendered models and gathered in Figure 2 for more effective observation.
Upon completion of the 3D models, students were requested to showcase the chair designs inspired by the selected reference models during their presentations to elucidate their concepts.
The idea behind this approach is to determine whether the trigger point for the chair transformation procedure relies on the conventional approach in academia or SCD. Consequently, an inquiry regarding the inspiration behind their design has uncovered several advantageous aspects. For example, one student articulated that her chair design was inspired by the renowned Domus chair created by Andrea Mangano [17], and she further refined the product using a conventional approach.
Another segment for correlation related to a conventional approach and SCD was the comparison among student projects. A total of 4 out of 15 chair designs were compiled according to SCD, while the remaining 11 were developed using a conventional approach, drawing on knowledge adapted from the literature (as detailed in the Discussion section).
Figure 3 presents the analogy between a student design influenced by a reference model and developed according to a conventional approach and a student model adopted from SCD.
To offer a clear representation of the survey responses, Table 2 presents descriptive statistics alongside the precise count of participants (n) who provided their answers.
The responses of participants have been explained in phase two and elaborated according to the key segments defining their logical thoughts behind their work.
In response to the initial question What sources of inspiration did you draw upon while developing the sketch or drawing for your design? within the broader investigation of the inspiration process during the formation of sketches and design concepts, the analysis reveals a complex network of influences spanning cultural, visual, and functional domains. Some students referred to specific cultural references (n = 4) such as the American “Craftsman” style adapted to a tropical “Tiki” expression, Japanese tradition, or biomorphic forms (n = 1) inspired by animals, including the jellyfish. The impact of digital media (n = 7) was most significant, with social networks like Pinterest, Instagram, and TikTok frequently cited as sources of visual inspiration and current trends in furniture design. In many instances, a synthesis between visual inspiration and constructive functionality was observed—evident in examples where the initial idea was derived from simple geometric shapes or concepts such as multifunctionality, ergonomics, and modern minimalism from interior design magazines (n = 3). Particularly noteworthy is the role of instructors and the value of consultations in guiding and developing initial ideas, as well as the importance of previous exercises and the analysis of existing reference models. This points to an interactive and relational process of design thinking, wherein personal expression is shaped through a dialogue between inspirational sources, functional requirements, and the educational framework.
The analysis of responses to the question What were the key elements during the initial design phase? indicates a conscious and methodical approach to the development of the initial design. Respondents identified function and material characteristics as critical factors. Functionality (n = 9) emerged as the most referenced aspect, especially concerning multifunctional solutions and adaptability. In addition to functionality, the characteristics of materials were significant as essential components in the product development process. Movement in design and ergonomics were the least impactful factors among students during the initial phase of product development (n = 1). Nevertheless, material characteristics were also regarded as potential key factors in the initial phase process (n = 4).
The analysis of responses to the third question How did you select the material(s)? Were you inspired by their inherent properties? reveals respondents’ approach to material selection through the principle of inspiration drawn from the aesthetic and cultural characteristics of certain materials (n = 2). Nevertheless, significant attention was given to the utilization of natural materials (n = 9) in relation to their technical, aesthetic, and ecological characteristics. Respondents demonstrated sensitivity to ergonomics and comfort through the selection of upholstered materials with appropriate properties, such as polyester fabrics and polyurethane foam. In instances where the design called for innovative or visually striking solutions, modern synthetic materials (n = 3) such as acrylic were also employed, selected for their ease of manipulation and visual flexibility. The quality of craftsmanship for precise production was the least preferred among the responses (n = 1).
For the fourth question related To what extent did lectures on materials influence your choice of material? the analysis of the responses indicates that a significant portion of participants deliberately integrated ecological considerations into the design process. Sustainability (n = 3) is approached through multiple strategies, with the selection of natural and renewable materials (material types (n = 4))—such as bamboo, rattan, and wood (especially beech)—playing a central role due to their biodegradability, longevity, and low environmental impact. The responses highlighted the product properties, including technical aspects such as durability or strength (n = 5). Furthermore, the expense of materials has also been factored into these considerations (n = 3).
For the fifth question relating to Did you incorporate an ecological approach into your design? If so, how (e.g., by selecting FSC-certified wood or recycled wood panels)? ten participants (n = 10) also emphasized the functional aspects of sustainability, including modularity, the potential for partial refurbishment (e.g., replaceable upholstery), and the use of recycled or easily recyclable materials such as aluminum, particle board, and acrylic. Some adopted a waste-minimization strategy, emphasizing rational material use and durability-oriented design. This indicates that students were guided to focus on energy conservation during the production process, with the utilization of easily adjustable components in the assembly being one of the strategies employed in the eco-design methodology. While some respondents explicitly stated that they had not incorporated an ecological approach (n = 5), overall, there is a noticeable awareness of sustainable practices, suggesting a positive trend towards ecological consciousness within the framework of design education.
The analysis of responses to the sixth question Which material properties did you consider? (e.g., technical, aesthetic, ecological) reveals a multidimensional approach to material selection, in which respondents considered technical, aesthetic, and ecological characteristics in an interrelated manner. Technical aspects—such as strength, stability, moisture resistance, and ease of transportation—dominate in the selection of materials for the structural components of chairs (n = 9). Notably, wood (beech, oak, bamboo) was frequently identified as the primary ecological material (n = 2), valued for its durability, natural appearance, and ease of processing. Metals and polymers were also mentioned due to their resilience and practicality. From an aesthetic standpoint, students paid attention to texture, color, form, and tactility, aiming to create products that are visually appealing and harmoniously aligned with the intended style (e.g., Japanese minimalism, Tiki aesthetics, or modern interiors) (n = 4). The combination of different materials (e.g., wood and textiles, wood and metal, acrylic, and fabric) was a common strategy for achieving a compelling visual and functional balance.
The next question was based on your experience, what do you consider the most suitable material for a chair, and why? (e.g., is wood preferred due to its strength, natural appearance, and adaptability?). Regarding the selection of the most suitable material for chair construction, the participants revealed a variety of approaches based on factors such as durability, ergonomics, aesthetics, and function. According to the participants, wood (n = 9) stands out as one of the most appropriate materials for chair production, primarily due to its strength and structural integrity, of which oak is favored among six (6) students, beech two (2), and bamboo one (1). Within this context, oak is particularly emphasized as a naturally robust and abrasion-resistant material, making it an ideal choice for product longevity. However, this statement is discussed in the Discussion section yet to be resolved. Wood also offers aesthetic warmth, rendering it appealing for a wide range of interior applications, particularly in domestic environments. In addition, the importance of soft-touch materials such as textiles and leather is underscored, especially when incorporated into upholstered designs. These elements not only enhance the comfort of the chair but also significantly increase its appeal to consumers, who often prefer seating options with surface treatments that provide tactile and sensory comfort during use. Materials such as plastic (n = 3) and metal (n = 3) were also mentioned and practiced among students.
For the last question, If you were to revise your design, what would you change regarding material characteristics? the responses were as follows: Five out of fifteen participants did not respond to this question with a revision, as they were satisfied with the use of the appropriate material. However, 10 participants revealed that they could have tested more different materials with the traditional ones (wood, metal, textile) so they can apply more variety in functionality and aesthetics to their product. Students who selected wood indicated that they would not modify their design based on the use of new ecological materials (n = 5). Those who opted to revise their design and incorporated wood into their chair stated that they could have considered alternative materials, such as upholstery (n = 2). The remaining students who did not initially choose wood indicated that their second choice would also be wood (n = 3).
Overall, the results of the survey are as follows:
Students primarily drew inspiration from digital media, while they were least influenced by biomorphic forms. This indicates a tendency to emulate the trends and works of renowned designers and architects.
Regarding product development, most students typically follow the functional aspects of their product, while only a few focus on ergonomics and movement.
In the aspect of material selection, the majority of students prefer natural materials, adhering to an ecological approach, while only a few demonstrate the potential for precise craftsmanship.
Regarding the impact of lectures on the selection of appropriate materials, the majority of students indicated that the product properties significantly influenced their choices. Conversely, only a small number considered cost and sustainability factors when determining the suitable material.
Regarding the application of an ecological approach, the majority of students took this procedure and its associated processes into account during their product development stages.
When selecting the appropriate material, the majority of students tend to prioritize technical characteristics over ecological attributes.
In response to the key question regarding the most suitable material, students identified wood as their preferred choice, while plastic and metal were deemed the least favorable options.
In the final section of the survey, the majority of students expressed satisfaction with their designs and indicated that they would not make any revisions. However, those students who were inclined to revise their designs highlighted the importance of alternative materials and emphasized the need to explore more environmentally friendly approaches in selecting materials for their products.

4. Discussion

This research has outlined the techniques for product development and a material assignment process. The methods employed are intended to enhance the educational progression in design studies, enabling students to improve their product development skills. It is noteworthy that the methods and procedures discussed have been compiled through a project focused on furniture design, primarily utilizing wood as the material [5,19].
According to Daalhuzien [19], it is essential to employ methods and procedures that can be systematically organized within an activity framework, thereby enabling the enhancement in their capabilities or the representation of their own or others’ actions. The described methods and procedures provided insights into wood as a material, based on the employed techniques. The primary emphasis has been on identifying a pattern of wood utilization according to the applied methods and procedures. During the course of this study, certain limitations arose that affected the overall quality of the research.
The small sample size of 15 students affected the outcomes without yielding definitive results. However, conducting the research in two distinct phases offered insights into the students’ design approach and observing the wood usage. This study was structured in two phases, allowing for the interpretation of results based on the design process that culminated in a 3D-modeled work, as well as the responses gathered from the administered survey.
To comprehend the relationship among SCD, a conventional approach, PDD, and MDD, the first column of Table 3 provides a general description derived from the existing literature. The results pertaining to these four methodologies are categorized in the second column.
The analysis of the methodologies and procedures contributed to the definition of the project’s 3D models and their categorization based on wood usage. In terms of product development methodology, four students employed CSD, which involved varying the standard seating height to explore different seating positions. Conversely, eleven students adhered to a conventional approach, focusing on standard dimensions and seating positions during product development.
The key findings from the results phase indicated that the majority of students prefer to remain within their comfort zones, showing a reluctance to explore new functionalities, shapes, colors, and materials. Considering the conventional approach that encompasses design phases and strategies, students tend to select elements, shapes, details, and materials that are already prevalent in the industry. In relation to their survey responses, greater emphasis has been placed on functionality, details, cost, and production rather than on innovation. This observation prompts an additional aspect of the study that focuses on wood material and its role in the chosen product development methodology.
In the aspect of material assignment procedure, the conducted survey indicated that there are variable approaches among students when selecting the appropriate material for their product. The approach for material usage is mostly triggered by the reference model from the chosen designer and there are variable answers revealing that students used the product properties (e.g., functionality, sustainability) or material attributes (e.g., the technical attributes such as strength and aesthetics of wood).
Additionally, during the presentation of their 3D-modeled products, most students indicated that the assignment of materials occurred after the initial concept and product characteristics were established. This perspective suggests that students develop their products during the first and second phases of the design process. Typically, in their presentations, most students focused on researching the material properties, seeking reference models that align with the characteristics of their products.
Regarding the utilization of wood materials in the methods and procedures, the research has uncovered several significant findings that suggest a pattern in the usage of the aforementioned material.
Most of the students have been following the reference model and made transformations to the details of their design, meaning that they have adapted them according to the requirement of a conventional approach. According to their answers on the survey, the technical attributes (e.g., strength, durability) and the ecological advantage have been the most dominant part in choosing wood. In this section, students typically engage with lectures that focus on the technical aspects related to production operations, energy efficiency, and an ecological perspective. However, the knowledge of students is not on the level of those designers with a professional background. Related to answers affiliated to the seventh question, students are not familiar with the advantages and disadvantages of different wood types at this point of their knowledge. For example, oak is particularly emphasized as a naturally robust and abrasion-resistant material, making it an ideal choice for product longevity. In any situation, the designer must also consider the physical properties of a specific type of wood when selecting the material or when crafting the components of the chair to achieve the desired visual effect.
To effectively utilize the SCD method, students must develop a deeper understanding of various material types to explore different forms, shapes, scenarios, and applications. While a conventional approach serves as a foundation for design studies, the introduction of innovative methods can stimulate students’ comprehension of commonly used materials in interior design, particularly materials like wood.

5. Conclusions

This study acknowledges certain limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. Although we proceeded with a limited sample of 15 students, it is important to note that the initial group comprised 19 students, underscoring the importance of the project’s timeline and the execution of the survey. The time frame designated for this process was 3 weeks.
This research is in its preliminary stages and is intended to lay the groundwork for subsequent studies. The main goal is to understand students’ thought processes related to design aggregation and the distribution of materials to products. This initial investigation specifically aims to examine how younger individuals perceive wood as a material in design studies.
The task for chair design has been conducted for the industrial design course and it refers to students who know only basic types of materials and production methodologies.
Notwithstanding the constraints identified in this study, it successfully provided insights into the essential principles concerning students’ perceptions of wood materials via the processes of product development and material assignment:
  • The majority of students are inclined to prioritize technical attributes over the aesthetic qualities of the wood.
  • The impact of digital media on established reference models significantly affects students regarding functionality, design, ergonomics, and material choice.
  • The ecological characteristics or natural qualities also significantly influence the selection of materials.
  • The majority of students generally adhere to the principles of the conventional approach and PDD, which implies that they evaluate the material assignment process according to the product’s functionality, form, and other specifications.
  • The previously mentioned statement encourages the use of wood as a preferred material among many students, as indicated by the referenced models. This suggests that, in digital media, wood is predominantly recognized as a material for chairs.
Derived from the findings in the Discussion part, further study is oriented towards analyzing the usage of wood in SCD methodology. Bearing in mind the requirement for creativity and innovation in design, the blending of traditional materials such as wood in SCD is needed and provocative. The knowledge and the application experience of wood would be a benefit for young designers when designing with new analogies and concepts for the future. An additional asset in this procedure would be extra experience with novel materials when combining different materials with wood.
Further study related to the findings in the Discussion part is aimed towards revealing the methodology of material usage among experienced designers and their attitude towards wood. Bearing in mind the experience in both methodologies (conventional approach and SCD), the transformation of wood in their design gives valuable information on design evolution. The analogy among inexperienced and experienced designers in wood applications would contribute to defining the possibilities of wood material application in architecture, interiors, and design.
This study indicated that students are enthusiastic about incorporating wood into their furniture product designs within a conventional approach, which involves defining product attributes in the initial phase of the process. This reasoning promotes the use of materials in a more conventional manner, where reference models from existing industry designs shape their thought processes. The subsequent step would involve a project that exclusively utilizes SCD to explore the potential of their designs from a more innovative and possibly futuristic perspective. This approach would facilitate a clearer understanding of wood usage in various scenarios, correlating it with the insights of seasoned designers.

Author Contributions

Methodology, I.D.; data curation, B.I.; writing—original draft, I.D. and B.I.; supervision, D.S.Q. and Z.V.; validation; D.S.Q. and Z.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The Ethics Committee for Evaluation and Approval of Scientific Research adopted the following on 13 May 2025 with ID NO. 19-353/1.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all research participants (students). All participants were informed about the aim of the study and possible withdrawal at any stage.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to convey our appreciation to the students who took part in this study: Bojana Damchevska (1), Elena Gjorgjievska (2), Sandra Gruevska (3), Ivana Nikoloska (4), Matej Popovski (5), Mihaela Zdravkovska (6), Todor Tanov (7), Martina Trajcevska (8), Marija Kuzmanovska (9), Filp Murdzeski (10), Kaja Marija Milovanovik (11), Gorjan Gjurikj (12), Maksim Aleksovski (13), Veda Kovakevikj (14), and Ivana Ristikj (15).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Derebej, I.; Previously Selim, I. Material Information Platform for Designing Environmentally Friendly Products. Doctoral Dissertation, Ss Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  2. Derebej, I.; Previously Selim, I. Material Information Platform for Environmentally Designing Friendly Products. In Materials Experience 2, 1st ed.; Karana, E., Rognoli, V., Pedgley, O., Eds.; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2021; pp. 183–187. ISBN 9780128192443. [Google Scholar]
  3. Karana, E. Meanings of Materials. Doctoral Dissertation, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  4. Karana, E.; Pedgley, O.; Rognoli, V. Materials Experience. Fundamentals of Materials and Design; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  5. Li, H.; Zhang, Z. Cultural and creative product design based on biology characteristics of wood. Wood Res. 2018, 63, 525–532. [Google Scholar]
  6. Material ConneXion. Available online: https://www.materialconnexion.com/ (accessed on 5 April 2025).
  7. Materially. Available online: https://www.materially.eu/en/mcx-library-insights/ (accessed on 5 April 2025).
  8. Dagdanova, M.B. The future of design: Trends and possible aspects. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 751, 012042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hernandez Ramirez, R.; Ferreira, J.B. The Future End of Design Work: A Critical Overview of Managerialism, Generative AI, and the Nature of Knowledge Work, and Why Craft Remains Relevant. She Ji J. Des. Econ. Innov. 2024, 10, 414–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Freddi, A.; Salmon, M. Design Principles and Methodologies; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cross, N. Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design, 3rd ed.; John Wiley and Sons: Chichester, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  12. World Design Organization. Available online: https://wdo.org/ (accessed on 10 April 2025).
  13. Johannessen, L.K.; Keitsch, M.M.; Pettersen, I.N. Speculative and critical design—Features, methods, and practices. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Engineering Design, Delft, The Netherlands, 5–8 August 2019. [Google Scholar]
  14. Noel, L.A. Dreaming Outside the Boxes that Hold Me In: Speculation and Design Thinking as Tools for Hope and Liberation against Oppression. J. Futures Stud. 2022, 26, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Introduction to Furniture Design. Available online: https://catalogimages.wiley.com/images/db/pdf/9781118090787.excerpt.pdf. (accessed on 10 April 2025).
  16. Huang, J. The Global Evolution of Chair Design: A Reflection of Cultural and Aesthetic Changes. Front. Art Res. 2025, 7, 20–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Andrea Mangano. Domus Bookshelf Chair. Available online: https://www.homecrux.com/8-unique-chairs-with-built-in-bookcase-for-bookworms/268/ (accessed on 18 April 2025).
  18. Mister Wils Chair. Available online: https://misterwils.eu/servey-folding-wooden-chair/ (accessed on 18 April 2025).
  19. Daalhuizen, J. Method Usage in Design. Doctoral Dissertation, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2014. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Example of questionnaire in the study.
Figure 1. Example of questionnaire in the study.
Buildings 15 02162 g001
Figure 2. Renders inspired from reference models of students’ chairs. Note: The authors of the drawings are listed in the Acknowledgments section.
Figure 2. Renders inspired from reference models of students’ chairs. Note: The authors of the drawings are listed in the Acknowledgments section.
Buildings 15 02162 g002
Figure 3. Comparison of student chairs. (a) Design influenced by a reference model (Mister Wils Chair) [18], (b) student chair design influenced by SCD. Note: The authors of the drawings are listed in the Acknowledgments section as author no. 8 and no. 11.
Figure 3. Comparison of student chairs. (a) Design influenced by a reference model (Mister Wils Chair) [18], (b) student chair design influenced by SCD. Note: The authors of the drawings are listed in the Acknowledgments section as author no. 8 and no. 11.
Buildings 15 02162 g003
Table 1. Participants’ characteristics.
Table 1. Participants’ characteristics.
MaleFemaleTotal
Participants51015
Age min (years)19.320.2
Age max (years)20.921.4
Age average20.120.820.45
Table 2. Participants’ answers.
Table 2. Participants’ answers.
Questions
What sources of inspiration did you draw upon while developing the sketch or drawing for your design?What were the key
elements during the
initial
design phase?
How did you select the
material(s)? Were you inspired by their
inherent properties?
To what
extent did
lectures on materials
influence your choice of
material?
Did you
incorporate an
ecological
approach into your design? If so, how?
Which
material
properties did you consider?
Based on your
experience, what do you consider the most suitable material for a chair, and why?
If you were to revise your design, what would you change
regarding
material
characteristics?
Participants’ answers
Digital
media
(n = 7)
Function
(n = 9)
Modern synthetic
(n = 3)
Material types
(n = 4)
Yes
(n = 10)
Technical
(n = 9)
Wood
(n = 9)
Revise
(n = 10)
Interior
design
magazines
(n = 3)
Ergonomics
(n = 1)
Natural material
(n = 9)
Product
Properties
(n = 5)
No
(n = 5)
Aesthetic
(n = 4)
Plastic
(n = 3)
I wouldn’t
revise it.
(n = 5)
Cultural references
(n = 4)
Movement
(n = 1)
Aesthetic value
(n = 2)
Sustainability
(n = 3)
Ecological
(n = 2)
Metal
(n = 3)
Biomorphic forms
(n = 1)
Material characteristics
(n = 4)
Potential for precise craftsmanship
(n = 1)
Cost
(n = 3)
Table 3. The comparison between SCD, conventional approach, MDD and PDD.
Table 3. The comparison between SCD, conventional approach, MDD and PDD.
Literature FindingsStudent Projects and Survey Analysis
SCDDesigning the product based on alternative scenarios and focusing on the product scenario [13].Four students utilized SCD to represent various seating arrangements or to convey associative meanings related to nature.
Conventional
approach
Designing the product based on five phases of design, which are empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test [12].Eleven students utilized a conventional approach following the five phases of product development.
PDDDesigning the product based on the product properties and assigning the material afterwards [1,2].Five students designed the chair based on the idea/concept and product properties.
MDDDesigning the product based on the material attributes [3,4].Four students designed the chair based on the material attributes.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Derebej, I.; Iliev, B.; Qerimi, D.S.; Vlaović, Z. Preferences of Design Students in Choosing Wood for Furniture Design in Interiors. Buildings 2025, 15, 2162. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15132162

AMA Style

Derebej I, Iliev B, Qerimi DS, Vlaović Z. Preferences of Design Students in Choosing Wood for Furniture Design in Interiors. Buildings. 2025; 15(13):2162. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15132162

Chicago/Turabian Style

Derebej, Indji, Boris Iliev, Dita Starova Qerimi, and Zoran Vlaović. 2025. "Preferences of Design Students in Choosing Wood for Furniture Design in Interiors" Buildings 15, no. 13: 2162. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15132162

APA Style

Derebej, I., Iliev, B., Qerimi, D. S., & Vlaović, Z. (2025). Preferences of Design Students in Choosing Wood for Furniture Design in Interiors. Buildings, 15(13), 2162. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15132162

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop