A Catalogue record for th s book s ava lable from the Br t sh L brary. The moral r ... demographic characteristics about the kitchen cabinet closure model and the.
A Critical Review of Social Sciences
Theory and Practice
https://frontpagepublications.com
First published 2018 Frontpage Publications Limited Level 2, 13 John Prince’s Street, London W1G 0JR, United Kingdom
Frontpage Level B, 76 B B Ganguly Street, Kolkata 700012, India
© Ento Organizasyon Prodüksiyon Reklam Yayımcılık
Danışmanlık Hizmetleri ve Ticaret Limited Şirketi
British Library Cataloguing in Publishing Data A Catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library The moral right of the author has been asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the publisher. Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.
ISBN: 978 93 81043 28 8
Printed in India By Sadhana Udyog 76 B B Ganguly Street, Kolkata 700012, India
Typeset by Sonal Mansata 85 Park Street, Kolkata 700016, India
Reasons of Preference in Kitchen Cabinet Door: A Research in Agri Province, Turkey Mehmet Nuri YILDIRIM, Abdurrahman KARAMAN, Sabır ERTEKİN, Esra USLU
INTRODUCTION Housing is an organised pattern of communication, interaction, space, time and meaning. On one hand, it reflects the life-style, behavioural rules, environmental preferences, images, time and space classification of the culture or ethnic group it belongs to, on the other hand, it reflects the essence of the user’s images and thus the personality and distinctiveness of the individual with design and equipment (Gür & Geçkin, 1996). Surveys in this area have shown that the living and service spaces that constitute the active living sections of the home have frequent intervals and the most intensive use, and that the kitchens are located in the first place in terms of importance of these places (Yıldırım, 1999). Kitchen has important functions in that it is one of the main working areas in housing, bringing family members together, maintaining life continuity (Gönen et al, 1990). Therefore, the kitchen is one of the most important places in furniture design. In this context, it is very important for the kitchen to examine the desired details in the direction of the user’s preferences, the satisfaction of the user, the physiological-psychological needs of the user, the determination of the user’s habits, to create aesthetic and functional designs (Efendioğlu, 2001). Many studies have been done on kitchen designs of people with different socio-economic levels in Turkey (İmamoğlu, 1986; Kalınkara, 1990; Sözer, 1990; Zorlu, 1996; Yıldırım, 1999; İlçe, 2001; Balikhanı, 2005; Yeşilkavak, 2007; Atılgan et al, 2012; Tavşan and Küçük, 2013; Ersoy, 2014; Karaman et al, 2016; Karaman et al, 2017). It is a necessity to determine consumer preferences for cupboard closures from kitchen designs considering the effects of physical, mechanical effects and aesthetics, fashion and technology which are influenced by kitchen cabinets. In this context, it is aimed to determine the preferences of the consumers with different sociodemographic characteristics about the kitchen cabinet closure model and the characteristics they sought in Ağrı province centre.
METHOD This study was designed according to the quantitative research method in order
596
A Critical Review of Social Sciences: Theory and Practice
to determine the factors that affect the expectations of the users according to the kitchen cabinet door models. Face to face survey technique was used in the research and the questionnaire was composed of two parts. In the first chapter, (gender, age, educational status, marital status, occupation, monthly income, ownership status and residence age) eight questions were asked to determine the demographic characteristics of the participants. In the second part of the study, the scale used in the study entitled ‘User Preferences in Kitchen Cabinet Cover Model: Banaz District Example’ by Karaman et al (2017) was used to determine which kitchen cabinet doors were preferred by the participants. The scale is composed of 20 items and is designed in the form of 5 common Likert Scale (1: I never agree, 2: I do not participate, 3: I am undecided, 4: I participate, 5: I totally agree). The face-to-face survey technique via the questionnaire form created was applied to the users residing in Ağrı province centre. Consumers residing in the centre of Ağrı province constitute the study. Since the questionnaire was made on the basis of one person from one household, the main mass was determined according to the number of houses in the centre of Ağrı province. The data obtained from the Directorate of Ağrı Municipality Hydraulic Works and the number of main masses was determined to be 13,493. The sample size was determined according to the following formula (Gürleyen, 2005).
(1) n Z P Q N D
= = = = = =
Sample size Confidence coefficient (1.96 for 95%) Probability that the property we want to measure in the community (97%). Probability of not being in the main body to measure Size of main body Accepted sampling error (3% sampling error is foreseen.)
The sample size was calculated as 135 according to the above form and the application was performed with 170 participants because the probability of the questionnaire forms which can damage the reliability and validity of the data set was assessed. However, since no questionnaire form that disrupts the validity and reliability of the data set has been encountered, the evaluations of 170 participants have been taken into consideration. The Cronbach Alpha value of the reliability analysis of the questionnaire used in the research was found to be 0.766. Analysis of the data obtained in the study was made with SPSS 20.0 package programme. Descriptive statistics were used for demographic characteristics and general evaluation of consumers’ kitchen cabinet doors. The Mann-Whitney U
Reasons of Preference in Kitchen Cabinet Door: . . . Agri Province, Turkey
597
test was used to determine whether there was a difference among gender in terms of features of the kitchen cabinet doors.
FINDINGS The findings of the study on Research on the reasons of preference for kitchen cabinet door in point of gender: model of Ağrı province are given in the following tables. Some demographic characteristics of consumers participating in the survey are shown in Table 1. TABLE 1. Frequency analysis according to demographic characteristics of consumers Gender
f
%
Man
87
51.0
Woman
83
49.0
Age
f
%
18-24
17
10.0
25-34
83
48.8
35-44
60
35.3
45-54
7
4.1
55 and upper
3
1.8
Educational Status
f
%
Not Literate
2
1.2
Primary School
9
5.3
High School
22
12.9
Associate Degree
28
16.5
Bachelor’s Degree
18
10.6
Post Graduate
62
36.5
Doctor’s Degree
29
17.1
Marital Status
f
%
Bachelor
59
34.7
Married
111
65.3
Total Monthly Income Status
f
%
Minimum Wage (in Turkish Lira)
11
6.5
1401-2100 TL
33
19.4
2101-2800 TL
20
11.8
2801-3500 TL
47
27.6
3501-4200 TL
14
8.2
4200 TL and over
45
26.5
598
A Critical Review of Social Sciences: Theory and Practice
Occupation
f
%
Employee
21
12.4
State Official
98
57.6
1
0.6
Retired House Wife
14
8.2
Artisan
7
4.1
Other
29
17.1
Ownership Status
f
%
My Home
50
29.4
Hirer
88
51.8
Public Housing
17
10.0
Other
15
8.8
Residence Age
f
%
0-5 Year
61
35.9
5-10 Year
62
36.0
10-15 Year
30
17.6
15 and over
17
10.0
As shown in the Table 1, 51.2% of the respondents were male and 48.8% were female. It is seen that 48.8% of consumers are composed of 25-34 age group. 35.3% of the age group of 35-44 years; 4.1% is in the 45-54 age group and 1.8% is in the age group of 55 and over. When the frequency distribution of education levels of consumers is examined, 1.2% are not literate; 5.3% are primary school graduates; 12.9% are high school graduates; 16.5% of associate degree graduates; 10.6% licenses; 36.5% are post graduates and 17.1% are doctorate graduates. When the marital status frequency of consumer groups was evaluated, 34.7% were single group; 65.3% are married group. When the total monthly frequency of income of the consumers is examined, it is seen that 65.3% is less than 3,500 TL. When the frequency of working conditions of consumers participating in the survey is considered, 70% of the group is composed of workers and government employees. In terms of ownership status, the vast majority of participants appear to be renting. When it is evaluated as the age of residence, 71.9% of the houses are 10 years or less. It is seen that the door model mostly used by the users is Chip wood/MDF Door and the least used door model is the high gloss door and laminated door model (Table 2). Table 3 shows whether the characteristics, averages, standard deviations and gender differences of the kitchen cabinet doors used by the participating consumers have any differences.
Reasons of Preference in Kitchen Cabinet Door: . . . Agri Province, Turkey
599
TABLE 2. Door model distribution Door Models 1. Profile Door 2. Chip wood/MDF Door 3. Membrane Coating 4. Wood Coating 5. Lacquer Paint Coating 6. Laminated Coating 7. High Gloss Coating 8. Acrylic Coating Total
f 32 53 19 29 10 8 7 12 170
% 18.8 31.2 11.2 17.1 5.9 4.6 4.1 7.1 100.0
TABLE 3. Averages of the searched features in the kitchen cabinet doors and Mann-Whitney U test results Expressions Manufacturer’s recommendation Being branded Long lasting Easy to clean Free from germs and no dust Aesthetics Resistant to chemical substances Resistant to moisture Resistant to warmth Resistant to impacts Resistant to abrasion Resistant to scratching Water resistant More colour and pattern variations Good model and design Being useful Being economical Environmental impact Being under guarantee Ecological
– x 3.36 3.54 4.07 4.00 3.88 3.74 4.19 4.33 4.13 4.12 4.29 4.14 4.40
S 1.15 1.03 0.87 0.71 0.82 0.92 0.73 0.61 0.72 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.64
Man 2.82 2.87 4.23 3.78 3.36 3.21 4.06 4.37 4.17 3.99 3.93 3.89 4.31
3.66
1.03
3.02
3.88 3.83 3.83 4.02 3.89 3.38
0.95 1.04 0.78 1.13 1.22 1.35
3.24 3.13 4.26 3.56 4.52 3.66
Gender Woman 3.90 4.20 3.92 4.22 4.40 4.28 4.31 4.30 4.08 4.25 4.47 4.40 4.48
U 1507.0 72.0 2730.5 2345.5 819.5 1204.5 2875.5 3380.5 3303.5 2957.5 2140.5 2220.5 3200.0
P 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.416 0.292 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.155
4.29
1146.0
0.000
4.52 4.54 3.40 4.48 3.25 3.10
873.0 851.5 1340.5 1234.5 1663.5 2281.5
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
– x : Arithmetic average S: Standard deviation U: Mann-Whitney value p: Significance level (p
