Environmental Improvement by Prolonging Clothing Use Period

7/23/2019 Environmental Improvement by Prolonging Clothing Use Period

1/22

1

Towards sustainability in the Textile and Fashion industry, Copenhagen 26-27 April 2011

Environmental improvement by prolonging clothing use period

Kirsi Laitala1,2and Ingun Grimstad Klepp1

1) National Institute for Consumer Research (SIFO), Oslo, Norway

2) Department of Product Design, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway

ABSTRACT

The amount of clothing in circulation has increased steadily the past years. This is anenvironmental challenge which is often overlooked by producers and eco-labellingorganisations that concentrate mainly in the manufacturing phase. Growth in material flowsincreases the need for transportation, storage space as well as the amount of waste.

This paper discusses the possibilities for reducing the material flow by increasing the clothinglife time, which can indirectly reduce the amount of clothing that consumers acquire, and inturn, slow down the circulation pace. To achieve this, complete systems thinking is required,where all the actors in clothes life cycle chain contribute. The aim is to find ways to improvedesign and to produce good quality products that promote more sustainable use, such asgarments that have broader use areas or longer use period based on design that fits the body,and resist changes in trends and appearance.

Results presented here are from a research project From textile waste to material resources ina grave to cradle perspective. The analysis is based on a quantitative consumer survey andqualitative interviews of strategic selection of households in order to find out the reasons

behind clothing disposal decisions, acquisition practices and maintenance habits. Thehouseholds delivered disposed apparel to be tested in the textile laboratory. This way,information of both the social and technical aspects of disposal reasons was collected. Theresults indicate that poor fit, technical quality and taste-related issues dominate reasons forclothing disposal, in addition to situational reasons such as having too many similar garments.These results can be used in helping designers awareness of the common problems that occurduring use and inspire a new design-paradigm.

Correspondence:

Kirsi LaitalaNational Institute for Consumer Research (SIFO)P.O. Box 4682 Nydalen, 0405 Oslo, NorwayE-mail: [email protected]


2/22

2

In Norway, the price of clothing has fallen since the 1995. As a matter of fact, last timeclothing was on the same price level as today was in the 1984 (Andersen, 2007). At the sametime the relative income has increased, thus enabling higher purchase power. This has resultedin higher consumption of clothing, which can be seen in the increased import statistics (Fig.

1). The annual statistics show that the import corresponds to 16.5 kg of clothes per person(Statistics Norway, 2010). At the same time, the amount of textile waste has increased.Textile waste totals 26.8 kg per person, from which 10.5 kg comes from the households (SFT,2008, Statistics Norway, 2010). The rest of the textile waste comes mainly from the servicesector and different industries. Two largest charity organisations collect together 3.6 kgtextiles per Norwegian (Fretex, 2010, UFF, 2010)1. Twenty percent of Fretex collectedclothing is sold in Norway, while 60 percent is exported and sold abroad, mainly to Asia andAfrica. About 4% is used as shoddy and rags, and the remaining 16% is thrown away as waste(Hansen, 2000, Fretex, 2009). However, the garments which are unsuitable for reuse lackcollection and recycling systems, in contrast to the other big waste groups like glass, posterand wet organic materials. Material recycling of textiles is more complicated due to their

complex and heterogeneous consistence including cellulose, synthetic fibres, protein fibresand a range of different chemicals, plastic materials, metals etc. However, some countriessuch as UK do have textile collection systems for material recycling. Most of recycled textilesare down-cycled and used in mattress/upholstery applications, carpet underlay and soundisolations systems in automotives (Morley et al., 2006).

Figure 1: Textile import statistics to Norway (tonnes of clothes)

These constantly increasing amounts of textiles have environmental consequences. Growth inmaterial flows increases the need for transportation, storage space as well as the amount ofwaste. This is an environmental challenge which is often overlooked by producers and eco-

1Fretex is a social enterprise owned by the Norwegian Salvations Army. UFF Norway is part of the internationalHumana People to People Movement.

Import of clothes to Norway

0

10 000

20 000

30 000

40 000

50 000

60 000

70 000

80 000

90 000

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Importintonnes


3/22

3

labelling organisations that concentrate mainly in the manufacturing phase. Therefore,studying consumers clothing acquisition, use and disposal habits are of importance.

Several life cycle assessment (LCA) studies on textiles and clothing show that the use phase isthe most energy-demanding stage of clothing items life cycle (Blackburn and Payne, 2004,

Dahllf, 2004, Madsen et al., 2007). Depending on the energy source, it may also be the mostpolluting phase. However, when discussing possibilities to increase sustainability, the focus isusually on the production phase. If the use period is considered, the attention is drawn tomaintenance, mainly washing and drying (as discussed in Laitala et al., 2011). A LCA studyof one specific product alone does not necessarily emphasise enough the importance oflongevity. Short lifetime increases the need for products to be replaced faster, thus increasingthe environmental load from production and disposal phases. One of the possible ways ofincreasing sustainability within the field of textiles and clothing is to prolong the use period(Klepp, 2001, Fletcher, 2008, Cooper et al., 2010). Therefore, consumers decisions duringuse are crucial and affect the lifetime of clothing.

This paper discusses the possibilities for reducing the material flow by increasing the clothinglife time, which can indirectly reduce the amount of clothing that consumers acquire, and inturn, slow down the circulation pace. To achieve this, complete systems thinking is required,where all the actors in clothes life cycle chain contribute. The aim is to find ways to improvedesign and to produce good quality products that promote more sustainable use, such asgarments that have broader use areas or longer use period based on design that fits the body,and resist changes in trends and appearance. 2Our focus lies in the first R of Reduce, Reuseand Recycle waste management hierarchy, but without forgetting the other two Rs.

In the following chapter, a short literature review of consumers clothing use and disposalhabits is given.

Some studies have discussed the clothing use phase, both concerning the maintenance habitsand disposal patterns. One of the first published models for clothing consumption wasdeveloped by Winakor (1969). She described the different stages from clothing acquisition todisposal, including use, care and active and inactive storages. According to her, the inactivestorage is a kind of limbo between inventory and discarding. Cluver (2008) has studied thisfurther in her dissertation, concentrating especially on the complex decision making processbetween storage and disposal, and why clothes are kept in storage even though they are nolonger used. According to her study, several factors prompt disposal versus storage indecision making, including calls from charitable organisations, seasonal changes, need ofstorage space, changes in life, and identification of suitable recipients.

Klepp (2001) has studied womens clothing habits and reasons for clothing disposal. Shedivided the disposal reasons in six main categories, which were a further development ofstudies made by Packard (1960) and Strandbakken (1997) concerning consumers productdisposal patterns (Table 1). The results show that technical or quality related obsolescence isgiven as most common reason for clothes disposal, even though a large amount is discardeddue to psychological and situational reasons.

2This paper is a part of a larger research project From textile waste to material resources in a grave to cradleperspective.


4/22

4

Similar research was done by Koch and Domina in Michigan, who studied which differenttextiles disposal methods were used, and why clothes were discarded. One of the mostcommon reasons for finding a new use area for clothing after the use period is not to wasteit. Fit problems were typical reasons for giving away clothing. Damaged clothing was usuallyused as rags or modified and reused (Domina and Koch, 1999, Koch and Domina, 1999).

Table 1: Reasons for disposal of clothes in study of 24 Norwegian women (Klepp, 2001)

Type of obsolescence

Percentage of total

number of registered

reasons

Technical or quality related (The product is worn out, ruined or isuncomfortable in use.)

35%

Psychological (The owner is tired of the product, does not use thatstyle anymore, or clothes seem outdated)

31%

Situational (The owner has developed new needs, such as

changed body size, has other similar clothes and lacks closetspace, or that the clothes have too narrow use area)

19%

Never worn (Product not suitable for purpose. Often bought onimpulse or received as present)

13%

Functional (New and better products have come to the market) 1%

Sentimental (The owner takes the product out of use and keeps itfor other purpose, does not want to use it in order to not to ruin it)

1%

Total 100%

Another study, which included focus group studies and interviews of British younger femalefashion consumers, revealed that most respondents did not have a specific idea of how long

they would keep the clothing (Bristwistle and Moore, 2007). Most kept items as long as theywere wearable and said that they stopped wearing cheap clothing for three main reasons:lower quality, new fashion trend or clothes were bought for one specific occasion. They weremore likely to retain expensive clothing, even if they no longer wore it.

A recent study from the UK revealed that the respondents discarded clothing mainly due tothe condition of clothing, new trends in fashion, lack of space, loss of emotional attachmentand changes in body shape (Cooper et al., 2010).

Several studies on clothing recycling have concentrated on environmental behaviour andattitudes of consumers, recycling habits and hindrances for environmentally friendly

behaviour (Shim, 1995, Daneshvaryet al., 1998, Domina and Koch, 2002, Ha-Brookshire andHodges, 2009). These studies showed that some specific consumer groups are more likely torecycle, and that convenience of recycling plays a central role.

Most of these studies are based on interviews or surveys and not directly related to studies ofdisposed clothing, with the exception of Klepps research. However, her researchconcentrated on 40-year-old women, and therefore a further study involving moreheterogeneous sample and different research methods is needed to answer a broader researchquestion, and to get more detailed data. Research methods that are used here are described inthe following chapter.


5/22

5

Due to the interdisciplinary nature of the project and the complex research theme, data hasbeen collected through different methods, including quantitative survey, qualitativeinterviews, wardrobe studies, as well as laboratory tests. This paper presents results fromsurvey and interviews.

Quantitative information of consumers experiences and opinions concerning clothing use,maintenance routines (washing, drying and ironing), and disposal habits was collectedthrough a survey in Norway. Respondents were recruited though random selection from thephone catalogue, through personal and work related networks as well as publicity in media. Atotal of 546 answers were received. Each quotation from the survey is presented with a codethat gives the gender and age of the respondent. The background variables for the respondentsare presented in Table 2. The distribution of respondents is uneven with evident femaledomination (77%). The age group 25-39 is overrepresented in comparison to the average ofthe adult population, and the youngest and oldest age groups are underrepresented. The

respondents have higher education than the average Norwegian population. The received datais not representative for the whole population, which has been taken that into account whenconclusions are drawn. The results cannot be used for generalizations for the Norwegianpopulation as a whole. However, we still have a large number of respondents that can becompared with each other in the sample, and we can use the sample as an example ofconsumers in Norway. The cases are not weighed.

Table 2: Respondents divided by background variables and compared to Norwegian population

(15 years and older)(Agerskov, 2010, Statistics Norway, 2011)

%

%

23 50

77 50

100 100

A

1524 9 16

2539 48 25

4059 33 33

60+ 9 26

100 100

A

5 271

() 16 411 ( ) 75 27

1

3 61

100 100

A

( ) 78 692

3 31

(, .) 9 273

8 161

3

100

1) Figure gives percent of total population aged 15-74 years.2) Figure gives percent of total population aged 16-74 years3) Figure gives percentage of pensioners (retired or disabled) of total population above the age 16


6/22

6

A strategic sample of 16 households was selected for a qualitative study to collect detailed

information of households clothing material flow. The households collected all clothes takenout of use and filled in a list of their clothing acquisitions throughout the six months. Duringthe second interview, the list of clothing acquisitions and all disposed clothing items weregone through (wardrobe study, for detailed method description see Klepp and Bjerck,Unpublished). For each disposed item, the following details were registered (when available):

-User-Disposal reason(s)-Age of the garment-When it was used the last time-How much it had been used and for what-Means of disposal

The respondents were selected from volunteers that had agreed to be contacted based on thequantitative survey conducted earlier. The intention was to interview people with differentbackgrounds and life situations. The background variables of the main respondents are listedin table 3. The respondents had varied economic situations and varying levels of interest inclothes, fashion and environmental issues. In addition to the main respondents of eachhousehold, three of the cohabitants were interviewed, two female and one male, resulting in19 interviews. Some of the children were close by during the interviews and sometimesparticipated in the discussion. Together with the children and other family members, a total of35 people were included in to the registration of in and outgoing clothing.

Table 3: Main respondents background variables

Sex FemaleMale

133

Age 20-3435-4950+

862

Family No childrenParents with small childrenParents (adult children)

772

Relationship status Single/living alone

Living with partner

6

10Area of living West Oslo

East OsloOther cities

538

Education Below college levelCollegeUniversity

169

Employment situation WorkingStudent4Retired

1231

3Three of them only work part time4All three students had part time jobs


7/22

7

Because the chosen research method requires a lot from the participants, it was important tofind benevolent respondents. The distribution of respondents is by no means representative ofthe population, but is a strategically selected sample (Eneroth, 1984). There is evident femaledomination, the younger age groups are overrepresented and the respondents have higher

education than the average Norwegian population. During the recruitment phase, several menand elderly were contacted, and some were willing to participate, but left the study afterwardseither due to illness or other reasons. We believe that this wide chosen selection criteria givesmaterial that is suitable to discuss the projects research questions.

A semi-structured interview guide was used, where the topics were fixed, but not the order orwording of the questions. The questions were formulated in a manner that made therespondents describe and reflect on their experiences as a conversation. The interviews wererecorded, transcribed, coded and analysed with ATLAS.ti software. The clothing wascategorised and analysed with Excel and SPSS software. All quotations from the interviewsare given with age and a fictional name of the respondent.

As the next step, the clothing that was collected will be studied further in the textilelaboratory. The products taken out of use due to technical reasons such as wear and tear orchanges in appearance will be analysed in order to see which test methods could reveal theseweaknesses and to quantify the technical quality. Based on these results, it will be possible tosuggest minimum limits for these properties, which will be useful in the selection of materialsfor production. By combining the knowledge from interviews with laboratory tests,information on both the social and technical aspects of clothes can be revealed and we will beable to discuss the relationship between these two aspects of clothing consumption. The focusis on the reasons for the disposal decisions, and what could be done to increase the lifespan ofthe products.

In this article, we will discuss some key findings related to the disposal reasons. This will bedone by comparing the groups of consumers, children, women and men. Because thetechnical analysis of the discarded clothes has not yet been done, the specific questions relatedto technical obsolescence will be discussed in later publications.

In the following, the survey results are presented together with some findings from theinterviews. First, we discuss the respondents environmental interests and the considerations,followed by clothing disposal habits and reasons.

We were interested in respondents interests in three areas; environment, clothing, andfashion. The answer distribution of respondents that were either quite or very interested inthese matters is presented in Figure 2. Majority of both men and women were most interestedin environment. Women said they were in average more interested in clothes and fashion thanmen were. Both genders were on average more interested in clothes than fashion. Youngerrespondents are more interested in fashion and clothes than the older ones, but there is nosignificant difference between the age groups concerning environmental interest. Theinterviews gave similar indications. Almost everybody said they were interested in

environment. They gave examples of their everyday life, such as how they sort waste, dontpurchase more than needed, or used public transport when possible. Interest in clothes and


8/22

8

fashion varied more, and in general the informants were more interested in clothes thanfashion, as they wanted at least to feel comfortable and appear professional at work or school.Markus, 42, described how his interest had changed during the years Well, I'm quite averageinterested in clothes. It's not like I just buy something to keep me warm (laughs a little). Alittle more than that. [...] I was more interested before we got children. Now you dont have

time for that. [] I think my style now is just more casual/classic. I was maybe more fashionconscious before. I felt that clothes went out of fashion. I do not feel that things are going out

of fashion now. So now I rather buy clothes that might remain in a way longer than... I do not

buy the most fancy, the trendiest. Because I'm 42 years old, so... That would be morepathetic. Still, Markus would mainly buy brand clothing and the oldest clothes he used wereonly about 3-5 years old. Heidi, 32, described her opinion of fashion: No. I am not interestedin fashion other than that I follow to see when clothes that I like come in fashion again

(laughs a little). [...] It can go two years without me buying anything, besides for underwear,

because everything is just awful colour and everything (laughs a little). Could be a longperiod in between when my style is in fashion. She described using a lot of clothes that were10-15 years old.

Figure 2: Percentage of respondents that answered they are either quite or very interested inenvironmental questions, fashion, and clothes divided by gender (N=284)

To combine the environmental considerations with clothing consumption, we asked thesurvey respondents into which degree they considered clothes environmental consequencesduring the different life phases. These results are presented in Figure 3. The answers aredifficult to interpret, because we have not separated between the considerations and theactions. When respondents have answered that they do not think environment at specificsituation, it might mean several things:

1. They do not think or act for environment

2. They do think but do not act3. They do not think but do act (possibly of other reasons)

74%

48%

67%67%

21%

32%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

(


9/22

9

Case 2 is demonstrated by comment I always feel a bit guilty when I throw away instead ofgiving away, but the convenience wins. It is easier to throw away (female, 28). She isreflected and does think the consequences, but does not act on it. Case 3 is demonstrated bycomment I line dry all clothing, so I do not think about the environment then. (male, 18).

This respondent does the environmentally correct thing, but probably has other reasons forthis practice and does not consider it as an environmental action. However, the results doshow that the environmental considerations are mainly connected to the end of use periodwhere the clothes are either given or thrown away, whereas least consideration is given toclothing purchase.

Figure 3: To a which degree do you consider clothes' environmental consequences during thefollowing situations (N=285)

In the interviews, the respondents were more aware of the purchase phase and when asked forWhat do you connect with sustainable clothing consumption?, they often spontaneouslyanswered themes related to purchase, such as to buy only what you need, to use products untilthey are worn out, and to look for ecological cotton instead of regular. This might be relatedto the question setting, where word consumption was used, and is often related to purchase.There were great variations between the respondents consideration, and some for examplesaid that they did not have any such considerations, as they only used what was needed, andnot more.

There was variation in level of knowledge concerning the theme. This was especially visiblein whether the respondent considered all natural fibres automatically better for theenvironment than synthetics, or if they knew that conventional cotton production haddetrimental consequences for the environment.

0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %

'

:

'


10/22

10

Many informants told they avoided using tumble drier, but often for other reasons than theenvironment, for example economical to save electricity, to save clothing from abrasion, orbecause they just did not have one. Many respondents were aware that it is more economicalto fill the washing machine, and they often said they did it (but usually not completelypacked). When it comes to disposal phase, most respondents said they gave clothes to charity

or friends, and seldom throw garments in garbage. Many respondents said they were not goodenough in throwing away clothing, and were just collecting it, and often suffered from lack ofstorage space.

The survey respondents were asked for their clothing disposal habits and frequency of givingor throwing away clothing. Most common frequency was once or twice a year, which oftenwas related to spring and autumn cleaning, when summer and winter clothes are rotatedbetween storages. Men reported to dispose clothing more seldom than women.

Figure 4: Reported clothing disposal frequency (N=482)

Next questions concerned where the clothing is disposed to after the use period. Figure 5 isvalid for clothing that is not worn out but no longer used, whereas figure 6 indicates thedisposal methods for worn out or damaged clothing. Most of usable clothing is given tocharity organisations or friends or family. Many respondents also ment that they usually useclothing until it is worn out. Selling garments is not that common. Very few admittedthrowing usable clothes to garbage, whereas this is the main disposal method for damagedclothing. Many also intend to repair the clothing, if possible. About 11% of repsondents gavedamaged clothing to charity, even the Norwegian charity orgnaisations specify that they onlywant to receive undamaged garments. The interviews revealed that almost everybodydelivered sometimes used clothing to charity or friends. Many of them felt bad about clothing

that could not be delivered to recycling, and were hoping alternative ways to dispose theseitems instead of just binning them.

1%

9%

22%

48%

12%

7%

1%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

10

510

34

12


11/22

11

Figure : Disposal and recycling methods for clothing that is not worn out (N=482)

Figure 6: Disposal and recycling methods for clothing that is worn out or damaged (N=482)

0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %

?

0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %

?


12/22

12

Similar results were found in a recent representative survey conducted in Norway (Fig. 7)(Laitala et al., 2011 Forthcoming). It is more common to give clothing to friends or charitythan to receive or buy used clothing. The difference in giving and receiving clothing fromfriends can be partly explained that the most common type of clothing inherited is childrensclothing, and the adult respondents may give it away but did not answer that they used it by

themselves. Also, a large portion of clothing that was never used was often inherited. Womenwere more active than men in all the other categories of the figure 7, besides throwing useablegarments into trash.

Figure 7: Percentage of positive answers to question Within the past year, have you done anyof the following? (N=1124)

Younger survey respondents were more likely to buy second-hand clothing. This was also

seen in the interviews, where the elder informants more often connected hygiene problems toused clothing. Pia, 59, explains that she never buys second-hand clothing: I cannot imaginebuying clothes that are used before, that people who I do not know have used. But I can

receive used clothes from my daughter. Olivia, 67, was not as much against the idea, butwould hardly ever buy something I hardly ever buy used clothes. I've given up. For onething, I think these second-hand stores are often expensive.... I go by there from time to time

to take a look, and I bought some children's clothes for my grandchild. But not for myself. [...]I often think that when the fabric is used and it gets warm again, I have the impression that it

smells a bit sweat. [] Even though it is clean, especially if there are synthetic fibers in it,

you get the smell. You may only feel it by yourself, but.

Many of the informants below 40 were positive to using second hand clothing, even thoughmost of them seldom bought something. The main obstacles were described as finding thecorrect size, the longer time that was needed in looking for suitable clothing, the storelocations, and the high clothing prices. A few young female informants were regular second-hand clothing shoppers. These informants looked for special treasures in vintage stores orinternet. Barbara, 25, was not satisfied with how most second-hand stores selected their saleitems, and preferred to shop used clothes only in a few specific stores. She described her usedclothing purchase reason as It is of course to find something that is completely unique, andsomething a little bit more distinct.[] And it happens that you find something very specialand very different in second-hand stores. Especially the ones that I have as my favorites,

which are very good at choosing things that are... whether it's vintage designer brands; very

exclusive things, that are old and things which may be collectibles or have gone out or... Orjust old stuff that's fine, without any particular brand.

11%

18%

35%

36%

50%

77%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

,


13/22

13

The survey respondents were asked for their opinion on what would need to be different intheir clothing in general for them to use them longer (Fig. 8). Several readymade answering

options were given and the respondents could either agree or disagree with them, or suggestother alternative answers. Some of the main reasons given here were a combination oftechnical and quality related aspects, unsuitable fit and the situational/psychological/socialreasons. Fashion and demands for appearance in work scored low. This will be discussed laterin chapter 4.3.4.

Figure 8: Agreement to different statements of what would be needed for the respondents tokeep using their clothing longer.

During the six months project period that the 16 households were followed, 619 garmentswere taken out of use and registered. Each participant stopped using on average 18.4garments. However, these figures do not include all items that the respondents stopped using.Some childrens clothing had been placed in storage when it became too small, to pass onlater for younger siblings or for sentimental reasons. In addition, one of the respondents had tomove to a smaller place on very short notice, and had to dispose of a large amount of clothing(about 4 large garbage bags). Therefore, the registered clothes give indication of normalroutines related to clothing disposal, whereas the unregistered disposals may reflect thedisrupted routines that occur during changes in life, such as moving.

The respondents gave up to five different disposal reasons per garment. All of these wereregistered and categorised to 63 different categories, which were then grouped according totable 4. Some respondents were very clear on why they stopped using the garments, whereas

others had problems giving the exact reasons.


14/22

14

Table 4: Grouping of given clothing disposal reasons

Size and fit issues

-Too small (grown out of it)-Too small (always been)-Too big (lost weight)

-Too big (always been)-Fit, waist-Fit, hips-Fit, bust-Fit, length-Fit, collar-Fit, shoulders-Fit (general or not specified)

Functional shortcomings

-Does not fall nicely-Rolls up-Unpractical

-Uncomfortable (physical)-Static-Itches-Too warm-Too cold-Functional failure-Material not good-Too wrinkled or would need ironing

Changes in garments

-Hole or rift

-Broken seam or other sewing failure-Threads drawn out-Colour change (fading)-Yellowing-Discoloration (bleeding from othergarments)-Sweat spots-Soiling spots-Print faded-Dimensional changes-Pilling-Fuzzing-Worn out-Washed out-Material has become thin-Fabric become harder-Lost elasticity-Spirality-Felting-Sweat odour-Broken zipper

-Bra underwire broken or bent-Broken decorations-Buttons missing or not working-Failed mending or repair

Fashion or style changes

-Fashion change or outdated

-Own style changed-Change in life situation-Bored with the garment

Situational

-Does not fit with other clothes-No occasions to use it-Have several similar or better garments-Does not use that type of garments

Taste related unsuitability

-Not own style-Dislike of colour-Dislike of pattern or print-Dislike of design or shape

Other or unknown

-Missing pair-Someone else needed it

-Other-Unknown

When interpreting the results we must keep in mind the methodological weaknesses that someknowledge of disposal causes was second-hand information. Parents always gave reasons fortheir childrens clothing disposal. In these cases reasons like dislike of colour is usually theparents dislike, not the childs. In addition, four wives were interviewed about theirhusbands clothing disposal and one husband on his wifes clothing disposal. Men buy their

own clothing to a lesser extent than women, and they also purchase less frequently for others(Laitala et al., 2009). Doing the laundry and management of the wardrobe are the most


15/22

15

female-dominated household chores(Klepp, 2005). This means that women in general aregood respondents on men's clothing consumption. At the same time, this raises somemethodological problems. We will have to assume that women might portray men as moreirresponsible, immature consumers than themselves. This difference fits into the picture ofincompetent homemaker that women portray and the men accept (Kaufmann, 1998, Klepp,

2005). Another weakness of the material is that fewer men participated, and they stoppedusing on average fewer clothing items, which makes the statistical basis weaker.

Table 5: Seven most common disposal reasons for different types of garments

Shirt, top or sweater

1. Too small (grown out of it)2. Have several similar or better garments3. Hole or rift4. Worn out5. Fit - length

6. Dimensional changes7. Dislike of design or shape

Trousers, jeans or shorts

1. Too small (grown out of it)2. Worn out3. Hole or rift4. Too big (always been)5. Have several similar or better garments

6. Soiling spots7. Fashion change or outdatedSkirt or dress

1. Too small (grown out of it)2. Fit (general or not specified)3. Have several similar or better garments4. Dislike of design or shape5. Does not use that type of garments6. Own style changed7. Worn out

Jacket

1. Too small (grown out of it)2. Have several similar or better garments3. Broken zipper4. Not own style5. Fashion change or outdated6. Worn out7. Too big - always been

Overall or body

1. Soiling spots2. Too small (grown out of it)3. Have several similar or better garments4. Broken zipper5. Fashion change or outdated6. Hole or rift7. Material not good

Underwear

1. Lost elasticity2. Discoloration (bleeding from other

garments)3. Hole or rift4. Too small (grown out of it)5. Dislike of design or shape6. Too small (always been)7. Worn out

Socks

1. Hole or rift2. Worn out

3. Too small (grown out of it)4. Colour change or fading5. Lost elasticity6. Material has become thin7. Missing pair

Stockings or leggings

1. Hole or rift2. Too small (grown out of it)

3. Worn out4. Broken seam or other sewing failure5. Material has become thin6. Material not good7. Failed mending or repair

Nightwear or bathrobe

1. Have several similar or better garments2. Too small (grown out of it)3. Worn out4. Fit (length)5. Hole or rift6. Does not use that type of garments7. Dislike of colour

Accessories (gloves, hats, scarves etc)

1. Have several similar or better garments2. Too small (grown out of it)3. Hole or rift4. Material not good5. Missing pair6. Functional failure7. Broken decorations


16/22

16

Table 5 lists the seven most common disposal reasons for each type of garments. The firstfour clothing types all have the same main reason, the clothing has become too small. Anothercommon reason have several similar or better garments demonstrates the large amount ofclothes in circulation. Respondents often have more than they need of some garment types,

and therefore dispose of the ones that are considered mediocre.

Worn and worn out were common expressions to describe clothing that had changedappearance without exactly describing the changes. Skirts and dresses had in general fewerchanges due to use than other garments, and were disposed of due to fit, size and designissues.

Many jackets and overalls are disposed of due to broken zippers. In the underwear category, alarge number of discoloration and elasticity loss is partly related to one respondents washingload that was destroyed due to a blue sock at 90 C white wash and the following bleachingattempt. Socks and stocking are mainly used until there are holes or rifts on them, or at least

until they are very worn out and thin.

In line with earlier research results as presented earlier, some of the main reasons for clothesdisposal are a combination of technical and quality related aspects, unsuitable fit and thesituational/psychological/social reasons (Domina and Koch, 1999, Koch and Domina, 1999,Klepp, 2001, Bristwistle and Moore, 2007). The large number of clothing that has become toosmall may largely be based on childrens clothing, so in the following chapter, the results ofchildrens and adults clothing are compared.

In the 1950s, children were described as slitvargen when it comes to clothing consumption,an expression meaning that the children wore out the clothing like wolfs (Berggren Torell,2007). However, in our material childrens clothing is mainly disposed because it has becometoo small (Fig.9 and Table 7). In other words, they outgrow more clothes than wear outclothes. Or at least, that is what the parents say. The childrens garments may be worn out aswell, but on these clothing items it is most obvious to give too small as a disposal reason,than listing all the other reasons in addition. This must be viewed in the context of the age ofthe children, as well as the total number of clothes the kids have.

Adults disposed mostly due to changes in the garments. Almost half of the reasons given wererelated changes such as holes, wear and tear, dimensional changes and colour changes.

Adults clothing was also disposed more due to personal taste related issues than childrensclothing. The unknown category on children and teens is relatively high, as the respondentswho were parents to teenagers often did not know the exact reasons for why teenagers stoppedusing their clothing. These teenagers were not available for interviews.


17/22

17

Figure 9: Disposal reasons for children and teens and adults

Table 7: Top 10 single reasons for clothing disposal. Separate for children and adults

Children and teens Adults

Too small (grown out of it) 40 % Hole or rift 12 %

Hole or rift 9 % Worn out 8 %

Have several similar or bettergarments

8 % Have several similar or bettergarments

6 %

Soiling spots 7 % Dislike of design or shape 4 %

Worn out 4 % Too small (grown out of it) 4 %

Fashion change or outdated 3 % Fit (length) 4 %

Unknown 3 % Dimensional changes 4 %

Dislike of design or shape 2 % Colour change or fading 3 %

Pilling 2 % Lost elasticity 3 %Too big (always been) 2 % Too small - always been 3 %

The most important finding of the comparison between men and women is perhaps the factthat the results are so similar (Fig. 10). There are few studies that systematically comparewomen's and men's clothing consumption. The way this issue is often discussed gives animpression that the differences are very large, and the similarities are thus easily overlooked.However, this does not mean that there are no differences.


18/22

18

Figure 10: Clothing disposal reasons for women and men

The main difference is that women in much greater extent than men - more than twice as often- have problems with fit and sizes. We were already aware of this problem through a priorstudy on clothing sizing, which showed that women experienced more problems in findingclothes that fit, and that womens trousers had more variations in the relationship between

sizes and labelling (Laitalaet al., 2009). Also the fact that womens clothing more often hastighter fit makes them more sensitive to changes in body size than mens clothing. Anotherimportant difference is that men are more concerned with functional aspects than women. Tobe able to understand these figures better we must go into what type of clothing men andwomen have disposed of, also study in detail the reasons behind.

About 18 % of all registered garments had never been used or only used once or twice. Thiscorresponds well with the study of the disposal of clothing among 40-year-old women inNorway in 2001 (Klepp, 2001). In that study, not used at all was 13% of listed disposalreasons and 19% of the reasons by the number of garments. All the women in the study

disposed of clothing they had never used. It is also evident in our material that the way clothesare acquired has an impact on whether they are used or not. Most the unused clothes weregifts or inherited clothing items from family and friends. This means that the receiver has verylittle control over what she/he is given. In addition came clothing that was not tried on beforepurchase, or that was bought on sale.

The reasons registered here were only based on what the respondents said. In some cases, itwas obvious that there were more reasons behind the disposal decisions than what was saidaloud. Many adult women do not want to admit their reason for disposal being purely fashion

(Storm-Mathisen and Klepp, 2006). Instead, they want to be perceived as sensible, rationalconsumers who are confident in their choices and style. Fashion and brand items are


19/22

19

associated with the youth and uncertain consumers that havent found their own style yet(Klepp and Storm-Mathisen, 2005). It is therefore to be expected that fashion is not reportedas disposal reason that often, even if it might be an underlying reason. Instead of saying itdirectly, the respondent can emphasize that the clothing is too narrow or wide, even if therehas not been any changes in the clothing or body size, the only difference being the

fashionable fit (Klepp, 2001). The material revealed two main scenarios when the fashionchange was given as disposal reason. The first was mothers of teenage daughters, whoassumed that their daughters had stopped using some garments due to trend changes. Thesegarments were usually quite new, about a year old. The other cases were clothing items thatwere about 8-20 years old, and referred to as outdated. For these clothes, it is possible that lasttime they were used they were less obsolete and that other reasons than fashion were moreimportant at that time (Klepp, 2004). Many clothing items laid years unused in the wardrobesbefore the owners decided to dispose or recycle them.

A more detailed analysis of fashion as the disposal reason therefore requires that the givendisposal reasons are considered in combination with changes in garments and their owners.

We are planning an analysis which combines the expressed reasons with the technical analysisof the clothes.

Technical problems related to wear and tear are an important reason for disposal. Thissuggests that there is much to be gained from technical improvements, especially if combinedwith improvements in the way the clothes are used. Another important reason, size and fitproblems, is related to the mass production of clothing where grading for different sizes andbody types is problematic, when a few ready-to-wear sizes are supposed to fit a large part ofthe population. The adaptation to the body is a great design challenge especially on womens

clothing. Few ready-to-wear items fit well and close to the body and at the same time areflexible enough for changes in weight and body shape. In addition, better labelling and bettercorrespondence between women's actual bodies and the available clothes would contributepositively. Men's clothing requires good technical solutions and comfort, as well as clothingthat has good flexibility when it comes to changes in style and fashion.

When it comes to children's clothing, it will also be important to make the clothes lesssensitive to changes in body size, and to find good solutions to reduce the number of clothesin circulation. Fewer and better clothes will contribute to facilitate the management ofclothing, and to reduce the environmental impacts. Many parents said that clothing usuallylasted one or maximum two seasons before it became too small. There were only a fewexceptions to this, one being an African dress that could be worn both short and long, andtherefore lasted for four years (Fig. 11). However, childrens clothing was more ofteninherited, and the clothes that were not worn out therefore often had more than one useralready before they were delivered to charity or disposed.

There are numerous possibilities for designing more sustainable clothing. Doing so, demandsfor functional, symbolic and superior requirements have to be addressed. The information wehave on use and disposal of clothing can in theory be used for improved design. Better qualitymust be combined with fewer clothes by each owner so that the technical improvements canresult in reduced consumption and decreased environmental impact. Dislike towards wasting

clothes suggests that there is a motivation to change this consumption pattern. The positiveopinions on recycling and using second-hand clothing among younger respondents indicate


20/22

20

that there is a potential to increase this share. Improving the sorting systems of second-handclothing could help to overcome the problems several respondents had with having to use toomuch time in finding suitable second-hand clothing.

Figure 11: African dress that the girl could use from age three to seven before she outgrew it

Improved knowledge among designers on the actual clothing consumption, combined withbetter knowledge among consumers about textiles quality and mending techniques could leadto significant improvements as increased lifetime. When moving along the waste managementhierarchy from reduce and reuse to recycling, another option for reducing the totalenvironmental impact is to design for simpler material recycling. This may in some cases bemore suitable solution for some specific products where long life time may not be as desired.An example of this is health care, where the high hygiene demands can make use ofdisposable products more desirable than the otherwise needed disinfection process of longerlasting products.

The authors would like to thank the Norwegian Research Council and Orkla ASA forfinancing the project From textile waste to material resources in a grave to cradleperspective This paper is part of the four-year project that was started in 2009 and includes aPhD project for the first author. Project is led by National Institute for Consumer Research inNorway. It has relevant textile chain stakeholders as partners, including textile recyclingcompanies Fretex (The Norwegian Salvation army) and UFF (Humana People to People),clothing and detergent producers (Norrna Sport and Lilleborg), Nordic initiative Clean &Ethical Fashion (a project under Nordic Fashion Association called NICE), Department ofProduct Design of Norwegian University of Science and Technology, and three designschools (University of the Arts London, Oslo National Academy of the Arts and the Swedish

School of Textiles).


21/22

21

Agerskov, U (2010), Nordic statistical yearbook 2010, vol. 48 [Kbenhavn], NordiskMinisterrd.

Andersen, E (2007), Rimeligere klr og teletjenester. Oslo, Norwegian statistics. Available

from: http://www.ssb.no/samfunnsspeilet/utg/200702/08/index.html [Accessed29.07.2010].

Berggren Torell, V (2007),Folkhemmets barnklder: diskurser om det kldda barnet under1920-1950-talen. PhD. Gteborgs universitet.

Blackburn, R S & Payne, J D (2004),Life cycle analysis of cotton towels: impact of domesticlaundering and recommendations for extending periods between washing. GreenChemistry, 6,G59-G61.

Bristwistle, G & Moore, C M (2007), Fashion clothing where does it all end up?International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 35,210-216.

Cluver, B G (2008),Consumer Clothing Inventory Management. Oregon State University.Cooper, T, Fisher, T, Hiller, A, Goworek, H & Woodward, S (2010), Excessive speed/short

lives - Attitudes to clothing longevity and disposal. In: F Ceschin, C Vezzoli & JZhang, eds. LeNS conference Sustainability in design: NOW!, Bangalore, India, 728-737.

Dahllf, L (2004),LCA methodology issues for textile products. Gothenburg.Daneshvary, N, Daneshvary, R & Schwer, R K (1998), Solid-Waste Recycling Behavior and

Support for Curbside Textile Recycling. Environment and Behaviour, 30,144-161.Domina, T & Koch, K (1999), Consumer reuse and recycling of post-consumer textile waste.

Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 3,346 - 359.Domina, T & Koch, K (2002), Convenience and Frequency of Recycling: Implications for

Including Textiles in Curbside Recycling Programs. Environment and Behavior, 34,216-238.

Eneroth, B (1984), Hur mter man "vackert"?: Grundbok i kvalitativ metod Stockholm,Stockholm Akademilitteratur.

Fletcher, K (2008), Sustainable fashion & textiles Design JourneysLondon, Earthscan.Fretex (2009), Hva blir tyet til? Oslo,

http://www.fretex.no/modules/module_123/proxy.asp?iDisplayType=2&iCategoryId=73&iInfoId=10089&mid=136[Accessed 28.05.2009].

Fretex (2010), Faktaark. Oslo, http://www.fretex.no/stream_file.asp?iEntityId=595[Accessed12.10.2010].

Ha-Brookshire, J E & Hodges, N N (2009), Socially responsible consumer Behaviour?Exploring Used Clothing Donation Behaviour. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal

27,179-196.Hansen, K T (2000), Salaula: The World of Secondhand Clothing and ZambiaChicago, The

University of Chicago Press.Kaufmann, J-C (1998),Dirty linen: couples and their laundry London, Middlesex University

Press.Klepp, I G (2001), Hvorfor gr klr ut av bruk? Avhending sett i forhold til kvinners

klesvaner. Oslo.Klepp, I G (2004), Farlige farger Norsk antropologisk tidsskrift, 15,227-240.Klepp, I G (2005), Demonstrations of feminine purity the meaning of cleanliness and the

growth of laundry. In G Hagemann & H Roll-Hansen (eds.) Twentieth-centuryhousewives. Meanings and implications of unpaid work Oslo: unipub Oslo Academic

press.Klepp, I G & Bjerck, M (Unpublished), Out of the closet.


22/22

22

Klepp, I G & Storm-Mathisen, A (2005), Reading fashion as age: Teenage girls and grownwomens Accounts of Clothing as Body and Social Status. Fashion Theory: The Journalof Dress, Body and Culture 9,323-342.

Koch, K & Domina, T (1999), Consumer Textile Recycling as a Means of Solid WasteReduction. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 28,3-17.

Laitala, K, Boks, C & Klepp, I G (2011), Potential for environmental improvements inlaundering. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35,254-264.

Laitala, K, Hauge, B & Klepp, I G (2009), Large? Clothing size and size labeling.Copenhagen, 2009:503.

Laitala, K, Klepp, I G & Boks, C (2011 Forthcoming), Clothing consumption: Consumers'environmental attitudes and actions.ESA 2011.

Madsen, J, Hartlin, B, Perumalpillai, S, Selby, S & Aumnier, S (2007),Mapping of Evidenceon Sustainable Development Impacts that Occur in Life Cycles of Clothing: A Report

to DEFRA. London.Morley, N, Slater, S, Russell, S, Tipper, M & Ward, G D (2006), Recycling of Low Grade

Clothing Waste. Prepared for Defra Aylesbury, UK.

Packard, V (1960), The status seekersLondon, Longmans.Sft (2008), Mer avfall skal gjenvinnes Oslo, Climate and Pollution Agency. Available from:

http://www.sft.no/artikkel____42346.aspx[Accessed 03.03.2008].Shim, S (1995), Environmentalism and Consumers Clothing Disposal Patterns: An

Exploratory Study. Clothing and Textiles Research journal, 13,38-48.Statistics Norway (2010), National economy and external trade: Table 03064: Imports, by

country, two-digit SITC and mode of transport (tonnes). Articles of apparel andaccessories. Oslo, http://statbank.ssb.no//statistikkbanken/default_fr.asp?PLanguage=1[Accessed 30.08.2010].

Statistics Norway (2011), Folkemengd, etter alder og fylke. 1. januar 2011. Prosent [Oslo],Statistics Norway. Available from:http://www.ssb.no/emner/02/01/10/folkemengde/tab-2011-02-24-02.html [Accessed10th March 2011].

Storm-Mathisen, A & Klepp, I G (2006), Young Fashion and Adult Style: How Teenage Girlsand Grown Women Accounts for the Impact of Style and Fashion on Their PersonalClothing Practices. Ethnologia Scandinavica. A journal for Nordic ethnology, 36,91-106.

Strandbakken, P (1997), Produktlevetid og produktkultur: En underskelse avforbrukeroppfatninger. Lysaker.

Uff (2010), 22,5 millioner kg CO2 spart i 2009: Ombruk av 1 kilo ty sparer miljet for 4,1kilo CO2. Oslo, http://www.uffnorge.org/Articel.asp?NewsID=74 [Accessed

12.10.2010].Winakor, G (1969), The Process of Clothing Consumption. Journal of Home Economics 61,629-634.

Documents

Environmental Improvement by Prolonging Clothing Use Period