See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/310736269

Fashion interest as a driver for consumer textile waste management: reuse,

recycle or disposal: Choice of textile waste management

Article  in  International IJC · November 2016

DOI: 10.1111/ijcs.12328

CITATIONS READS

115 7,341

3 authors:

Sabine Weber Jennifer K. Lynes

University of Waterloo University of Waterloo
4 PUBLICATIONS   125 CITATIONS    39 PUBLICATIONS   1,227 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Steven B. Young
University of Waterloo
81 PUBLICATIONS   2,610 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sustainable Luxury Cases on Circular Economy and Entrepreneurship View project

Youth Leading Environmental Change View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Steven B. Young on 07 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

bs_bs_banner

International Journal of Consumer Studies ISSN 1470-6423

Fashion interest as a driver for consumer textile waste

management: reuse, recycle or disposal
Sabine Weber1, Jennifer Lynes2 and Steven B. Young2
1
School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability (SERS), University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
2
School of Environment, Enterprise and Development (SEED), University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Keywords Abstract
Textile waste, consumer behaviour, fashion
consumption, clothing disposal, swapping, Past studies have considered the impact of fashion on consumer textile disposal behaviour,
take-back. but have focused mainly on drivers of clothing waste. There is a lack of research that
examines consumer attitudes towards fashion and their disposal methods. This study
Correspondence conducted an online survey of 410 people in Ontario, Canada with varying demographic
Sabine Weber, 446 Drake Circle, N2T1L1 characteristics to assess how they currently manage their textile waste including resell,
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. swap, take-back, donation and disposal. Respondents were asked about their fashion
E-mail: sabine.weber967@gmail.com interest and shopping frequency and were assigned a fashion index value. The fashion
index value is not a means of grouping consumers but is instead a continuum to model
doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12328 interest in fashion, with one extreme representing fashion consumers and the other
representing non-fashion consumers. Statistical analysis was then used to establish whether
there is a link between textile waste behaviour and fashion index. The results indicate that
consumers with a high fashion index (i.e. fashion consumers) and consumers with low
fashion index (i.e. non-fashion consumers) manage their textile waste differently. While the
majority of participants donate and dispose of unwanted clothes, fashion consumers are
more interested and more likely to participate in alternative methods (e.g. resell, swap, and
take back) for removing unwanted textiles. Although fashion consumers produce more
textile waste than non-fashion consumers, textile consumption cannot be directly equated
with textile waste since fashion consumers were found to have a lower disposal rate than
non-fashion consumers (38 percent to 50 percent, respectively). The distinct disposal
characteristics of fashion and non-fashion consumers (i.e. interest and willingness to
participate in alternative channels) allows strategies to be tailored accordingly so that the
amount of waste going to landfill can be reduced.

Introduction While many consumers have a strong interest in both cloth-

Over the past few decades clothing has generally become less
expensive for consumers (Rivoli, 2005). Offshore manufactur-
ing has allowed cheaper garments to be made in higher vol-
ume, enabling increased consumption. Currently, 97.7% of all
garments sold in the US are made abroad, with the average gar-
ment costing $14.60 US (The American Apparel & Footwear
Association, 2012). Moreover, there is increased demand for
textiles from consumers who use clothes as a mean to differen-
tiate their personality (Jackson, 2005). This study focuses on
consumer behaviour regarding clothing waste management in
the Canadian context, for which there is currently a paucity of
available data. However, data in the US suggests that in 2011
the average American consumer (based on all people in the US
regardless gender or age) bought 62 garments at a rate of more
than one garment per week (The American Apparel & Foot-
wear Association, 2012).
ing and fashion, eventually each garment purchased will
become unwanted. What a consumer chooses to do with used
garments is the focus of this study. Stall-Meadows and Gou-
deau describe textile waste as ‘unnecessary solid waste’, noting
that ‘every ounce of household clothing and textile items can
be recycled in some way’ (2012, no pagination). Despite the
fact that most fashion textiles are 100% recyclable, the vast
majority (85%) of all textiles in the US end-up in landfills
(Council for Textile Recycling, 2014). Within a 10-year span,
post-consumer textile waste in the US increased 40%, from 8.3
million tonnes in 1999 to 11.3 million tonnes in 2009 and the
Council for Textile Recycling expects this number to increase
further to 16.1 million tonnes by 2019. Over the same period
of time the waste diversion rate has increased only 2% (Coun-
cil for Textile Recycling, 2014).
Past studies on this topic have considered the impact of fash-
ion on consumer textile disposal behaviour, but have focused

International Journal of Consumer Studies 41 (2017) 207–215 207

C 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Choice of textile waste management
on product attributes as drivers of clothing waste (Domina and
Koch, 1999; Klepp, 2001; Hibbert et al., 2005; Birtwistle and
Moore, 2007; Lang et al., 2013). Other studies have considered
how the environmental attitude of a consumer influences waste
disposal behaviour (Shim, 1995; Bianchi and Birtwistle, 2012;
Joung and Park-Poaps, 2013). This study extends this previous
research by, first, examining Canadian consumers’ fashion dis-
posal behaviour and, second, drawing connections between dis-
posal behaviour and an individual’s level of interest in fashion.
More specifically, we focus on consumers in Canada’s largest
province – Ontario. This paper explores whether consumers in
Ontario that have been identified as having a high fashion inter-
est manage their unwanted clothing differently than consumers
identified as having a low fashion interest. Developing a strong
understanding of which consumers divert or dispose of their
textile waste can be used to develop strategies to shift the con-
sumer behaviour to reduce the amount of textiles going to
landfills.
Environmental impacts of textile waste
The US Environmental Protection Agency reports that about
5% of waste in US landfills is textile waste (US EPA, 2014).
This number is thought to be similar in Canada but there are
currently limited data available. A waste audit conducted by
the Resource Recovery Fund Board (RRFB) in 2012 in Nova
Scotia, Canada reported that textile waste accounted for 10%
of the waste stream (Jensen, 2012). However, the waste genera-
tion and diversion situation in the US and Canada is similar
and can be compared. For example, the annual per capita gen-
eration of waste in the US is 734 kg with a waste diversion
rate of 34% (United States Environmental Protection Agency,
2013) compared to 725 kg in Canada with a 32% diversion rate
(Statistics Canada, 2014).
Landfilling is the dominant form of waste management in
North America, and the environmental fate of textiles in landfills
depends on fibre material. Textile materials based on natural
fibres such as cotton and bamboo will eventually biodegrade,
however, as with other biodegradable materials, through the pro-
cess of biodegradation they may produce acid leachate, methane,
nitrogen gases and hydrogen sulphide (Tammemagi, 1999; Li
et al., 2010). Conversely, synthetic fibres such as nylon and
acrylic may undergo slight degradation, but the bulk of material
will remain in landfills indefinitely (Li et al., 2010). The more
desirable option is to keep textiles out of the landfills. Textile
waste is not generally considered a ‘problem’ in waste manage-
ment because, although materials are made with a range of
chemicals (Nielsen and Schmidt, 2014), they are generally not
considered toxic, in that they do not raise problems in the same
way as batteries, tires or light bulbs. As a result, most municipal-
ities do not collect textiles, leaving collection to charity organi-
zations and private companies. In doing this, municipalities
overlook two important aspects of textile waste: (1) the low
degree to which local residents are willing to bring unwanted
clothing to recycling stations or donation depots (Shim, 1995;
Domina and Koch, 2001; Ha-Brookshire and Hodges, 2009; Lai-
tala et al., 2009; Morgan and Birtwistle, 2009), and (2) the high
volume of textiles that actually end up in landfills.
208
S. Weber et al.
How consumers divert and dispose of
unwanted garments
Past studies have demonstrated that consumers determine disposal
and recycling channels based on convenience and accessibility; in
other words, the proximity of textile recycling stations and dona-
tion depots play a deciding factor in whether garments are
recycled, donated or thrown into the waste stream (Shim, 1995;
Domina and Koch, 2001; Ha-Brookshire and Hodges, 2009; Mor-
gan and Birtwistle, 2009; Laitala, 2014). In general, consumers
are aware that gently-used garments should be donated to char-
ities. However, they may not be aware of the value of fibres to
the recycling industry, nor that this value extends beyond whether
the garment itself is reused or not (Stall-Meadows and Goudeau,
2012). As a result, many consumers throw their used clothes in
the waste stream because of stains, damage or signs of wear and
tear (Laitala, 2014). This wastes the potential fibre value of gar-
ments. Regardless of the product, the final decision to dispose of
an article of clothing and the choice of disposal channel remains
the choice of the consumer.
With the rise of consumerism, the significance of garments
has shifted from clothes with a physical function towards fashion
with an emotional value (Fletcher, 2008). Whereas clothing was
once dictated by seasonal need, such as warmer clothing and
multiple layers in winter, fashion has developed towards phases
independent of season. This impulse can be seen in the need
people have to find the appropriate outfit for every occasion.
‘Fast fashion’ consumers, which Bhardwaj and Fairhurst (2010,
p. 165) describe as ‘throw-away fashion’, represent the peak of
fashion consumption. Such people are highly fashion conscious,
interested in fashion and adapt to fashion trends more quickly
than other fashion consumers (Morgan and Birtwistle, 2009).
Fast fashion consumers are also identified as individuals who
keep their garments for a very short period. This is confirmed by
Goudeau (2014, p. iv) who concluded that: ‘respondents dis-
posed of fast fashion apparel at a faster rate than non-fast fash-
ion’. Presumably then, fast fashion consumers, which are
consumers with a high fashion interest, manage their textile
waste differently than fashion or non-fashion consumers, which
have a medium to low level of fashion interest.
Jacoby et al. (1977, p. 26) describe different factors that
influence a consumer’s choice to manage unwanted textiles in
three categories:
1. Psychological characteristics of the decision maker (e.g. per-
sonality, attitude or social conscience);
2. Intrinsic factors to the product (e.g. condition, age, style or ini-
tial cost); and,
3. Situational factors extrinsic to the product (e.g. finances, stor-
age space or fashion change).
The final decision to manage an unwanted garment will be
made by the consumer; hence, textile waste remains a consumer
affair. The consumer will decide whether the garment can still
be worn, is good enough for donation, or if it is ready for waste
disposal. While Shim (1995) examined how the environmental
attitude of consumers influences management of textile waste,
Bianchi and Birtwistle (2012) compared consumers from regions
with different levels of industrialization and choice of disposal
channels. It is still unclear whether fashion interest has an influ-
ence over which channels a consumer will choose to manage
International Journal of Consumer Studies 41 (2017) 207–215
C 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
S. Weber et al. Choice of textile waste management

unwanted garments. Previous studies have found that a person’s (Statistics Canada, 2013); (Giroux, 2014). The sampling
fashion interest is dependent on age and gender (Tigert et al., method targeted a balanced distribution of respondents with
1976; Morgan and Birtwistle, 2009; Lang et al., 2013) and Mor- respect to gender and age. The sample intended to include all
gan and Birtwistle identified the disposal choices of young fast income levels, respondents with different marital status, and
fashion consumers (throw unwanted garments into the waste, consumers from rural and different sizes of urban regions,
donate, swap or resell them). We extend this research to relate but we did not seek a representative distribution of these
fashion interest to the choice of disposal channel. demographic factors. The survey was run through a professio-
nal online survey provider. Out of 422 persons contacted, 12
Channels for clothing reuse, recycling respondents withdrew without answering any questions and
and disposal 410 adults participated, providing a positive response rate of
97%.
Literature on the range of channels for textile disposal gener-
The questionnaire consisted of three parts. The first section
ally mention resale, donation, reusing and discarding (Joung
determined respondent demographics (see Table 1), the second
and Park-Poaps, 2013; Lee et al., 2013). This study adopts a
part was used to determine a person’s fashion interest, i.e.
Canadian waste management perspective, which does not view
whether respondents were fashion or non-fashion consumers
these as disposal channels since the term disposal can only be
(see Table 2), and the third part of the survey asked how
applied to products that end up in landfills or are incinerated.
respondents manage their textile waste (see Table 3). Finally,
Disposal in this context does not include recycling or compost-
respondents were given descriptions of hypothetical garments,
ing. Instead, reuse, recycling and disposal are channels for con-
exhibiting varying degrees of wear and use, and asked to select
sumers to manage unwanted garments.
from a variety of reuse, recycle and disposal options. Partici-
New social awareness about textile waste has prompted
pant decided what they would do with heavily-used socks;
retailers to offer ’take-back’ programs that allow consumer to
clean used underwear; jeans with rips or holes in the front or
return old clothes, but according to Laitala (2014), most studies
the seams; a sweater that has lost its colour; a suit or dress that
do not mention take-back programs as a distinct channel to
is out of fashion; a shirt with stains; a winter coat with a bro-
manage unwanted clothing. Another new phenomenon is swap-
ken zipper; an unworn t-shirt; and an expensive wool coat, suit
ping. This channel offers new possibilities for consumers to get
or dress that is no longer worn but shows signs of use.
rid of their clothes by meeting with other consumers to
Since fashion consumers have a higher fashion consumption
exchange old garments. Though swapping was included in the
and ultimately more unwanted garments (Lang et al., 2013),
study of Lee et al. (2013), it too is often overlooked. It is diffi-
one aim of the study was to determine whether fashion interest
cult to say if swapping is a new way of shopping or a new
is connected to the choice of reuse, recycle or disposal channel.
method of recycling and reuse. To clarify this issue, this study
Fashion attitude was determined by asking individuals about
treats swapping as an option to manage textile waste. In most
their interest in fashion. A review of previous empirical
swap events any leftover clothes are donated to charity, and
research on this topic revealed that there are several variations
therefore if a swap participant is not able to find clothes to
on the development of a fashion scale, including differences in
swap, they are at least able to rid themselves of old clothes.
the type of parameters used to identify the degree of a person’s
This study considers personal reuse (e.g. handing clothes
fashion interest (see Morgan and Birtwistle, 2009; Tigert et al.,
down to a family member or friend, or wearing clothes for
1976; Lang et al., 2013). In this study, the fashion scale is a
manual work) or repurposing (e.g. reusing clothes as cleaning
continum which models interest in fashion, with one extreme
rags) as a kind of extended personal use and not as a channel
representing fashion consumers and the other representing non-
for reuse, recycle or disposal. Other researchers see this prac-
fashion consumers. The responses of each participant were
tice differently and treat passing on clothes to a friend as a dis-
used to assign them an index on this scale, referred to as a
posal method (Shim, 1995; Birtwistle and Moore, 2007; Joung
fashion index. Though not identical in approach, previous stud-
and Park-Poaps, 2013; Lee et al., 2013).
ies share traits and features to our fashion scale. The present
In summary, five channels are identified for consumers to
study built on the fashion scales developed by Tigert et al.
manage unwanted clothes: reselling, take-back, swapping,
(1976), Morgan and Birtwistle (2009) and Lang et al. (2013)
donating and disposal. The options are similar in that they
using a combination of questions derived from these studies.
involve the consumer relinquishing control of their garments,
An individual’s fashion index value was based around 16
but differ in terms of compensation the consumer receives and
statements ranked on a five-point Likert response format, with
in the amount of time involved with each channel. This study
the highest possible value of five (strongly agree) and the low-
examines fashion interest as a driver for consumer choice of
est value of one (strongly disagree). The value was calculated
reuse, recycle and disposal channels.
by adding all points from the 16 statements, thus the maximum
sum for the fashion scale was 80. Concepts of continuousness
Research methods and equal intervals between points underlie this scale, therefore
Data was collected through an online survey in February meeting assumptions recommended by Grace-Martin (2008) for
2015 for participant’s resident in the Province of Ontario, the use of parametric statistical procedures in combination with
Canada. Along with being the most populous province in Likert scales. As such, the fashion scale is considered as a set
Canada, encompassing nearly 40% of the total population of ordered categories appropriately analysed using parametric
(approximately 13 500 000 people), Ontario has the greatest statistical methods, such as mean, Pearson correlation, t-test,
amount of residential waste, with 9.8 million tonnes in 2010 and ANOVA.

International Journal of Consumer Studies 41 (2017) 207–215 209

C 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Choice of textile waste management S. Weber et al.

Table 1 Respondent’s demographics

Age ranges Women percent Men percent Total both gender

15–24 years 8 9 17
25–34 years 10 7 17
35–44 years 9 7 16
45–54 years 11 7 18
55–64 years 7 10 17
above 65 6 9 15
Total 51 49 100

Income groups Income distribution percent

Less than $10 000 per year 11

Between $10 000 and $34 999 25.1
Between $35 000 and $49 999 16.2
Between $50 000 and $74 999 17
Between $75 000 and $99 999 12.3
Between $100 000 and $149 999 7.9
Between $150 000 and $199 999 6.1
Between $200 000 and $249 999 1.9
Above $2 50 000 2.6

Type of residential environment Percent

A rural area, in a village with a population below 1000 inhabitants 7

In a town or city above 1000–3 999 inhabitants 4
In a town or city between 4000 and 9 999 inhabitants 7
In a town or city between 10 000 and 49 999 inhabitants 10
In a city between 50 000 and 99 999 inhabitants 10
In a city between 100 000 and 499 999 inhabitants 22
In a city with 500 000 inhabitants and more 40

The resulting fashion index was then used to categorize
respondents as ‘fashion’ or ‘non-fashion’ consumers along the
response continuum. The distinction between the two groups
was made using a simplified version of Rogers’ diffusion of
innovations model (2003). Rogers’ model traditionally consists
of five types of ‘adopters’, categorized on the basis of innova-
tiveness – ranging from ‘innovators’ to ‘laggards’ (Rogers,
2003, p. 281). For the purposes of this study we have chosen to
simplify these to two main categories for consumer fashion
interest. Respondents of the survey who were categorized as
fashion consumers correspond to the highest 84% of the distri-
bution, while non-fashion consumers correspond to the lowest
16% of the distribution.
Table 2 shows an overview of all the sixteen statements used
in the survey and the literature source from which they were
derived. We created questions that are not sourced, in order to
replace the reverse coded questions from Lang et al. and to
complete the categories. Our questions are based on the litera-
ture review and the study of Morgan and Birtwistle (2009).
Results
Fashion scale
In order to test differences between gender, age and income
with regard to the fashion scale, t-tests and analysis of variance
were conducted. The results show major differences exist among
consumers in Ontario regarding their fashion index values.
Applying Rogers’ Diffusion model (2003) to the distribution of
the indexes of survey participants, fashion consumers have a
fashion index value from 1.2 to 5, while non-fashion consumers
have a value from 1 to 1.2. Therefore, the value of 1.2 can be
seen as a threshold between fashion and non-fashion consumers.
Gender
The results of a t-test suggest that women ( x 5 2.8115,
N 5 208) have a significantly higher fashion scale than men
x 5 2.5127, N 5 200; t-test: P 5 0.008, df 51, t 5 2.7). This
(
result corresponds with results offered by Tigert et al. (1976),
who found major differences between men and women in terms
of fashion involvement, and Lang et al. (2013) who demon-
strated that women in the US are more fashion-trend sensitive
than men.
Age range
The results of an analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicate a sig-
nificant difference between age groups with regard to the fash-
ion scale (N 5 409; F 5 24.4; df 5 5; P < 0.0001). Younger
respondents have higher values on the fashion scale. The result
corresponds with Lang et al. (2013), who found a similar corre-
lation between age groups and their fashion trend sensitivity.
This result also corresponds with the findings of Morgan and
Birtwistle (2009), who pinpointed young consumers as fast-
fashion consumers.

210 International Journal of Consumer Studies 41 (2017) 207–215

C 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
S. Weber et al. Choice of textile waste management

Table 2 Mean and SD of each fashion statement (N 5 410)

Questions asked to identify a person’s fashion index value Mean SD

1. I seek out new fashion trends and I spend a fairly high proportion of my income and time on fashion. 2.55 1.32
2. ’I read the fashion news regularly and try to keep my wardrobe up-to date with fashion trends’ 2.57 1.33
(Tigert et al., 1976, p. 49).
3. ’I usually try to be different from others by wearing fashionable clothing’ (Lang et al., 2013, p. 711). 2.79 1.26
4. ’I am interested in shopping at fashion specialty stores rather than department stores for my 2.77 1.32
fashion needs’ (Lang et al., 2013, p. 711).
5. ’I am usually the first among my friends to buy the latest clothing styles’ (Lang et al., 2013, p. 711). 2.53 1.27
6. ’Compared to my friends, I own more of the latest fashion styles’ (Lang et al., 2013, p. 711). 2.66 1.23
7. I think I am a trendsetter and my clothes are very fashionable. 2.86 1.24
8. ’I am usually the first to know the latest fashion trends’ (Lang et al., 2013, p. 711). 2.63 1.24
9. ’Friends regard me as a good source of fashion advice’ (Lang et al., 2013, p. 711). 2.8 1.28
10. ’I like to buy new clothing early; just when the fashion trend comes out begins’ (Lang et al., 2013, p. 711). 2.67 1.26
11. I follow the fashion styles of celebrities and I find they influence my fashion purchasing habits. 2.44 1.3
12. ’I often influence the types of clothing styles my friends buy’ (Lang et al., 2013, p. 711). 2.62 1.25
13. I usually buy clothing because I am thrilled by a new fashion trend. 2.68 1.31
14. ’I buy new clothing often, even if I do not need it’ (Lang et al., 2013, p. 711). 2.67 1.36
15. I am not concerned if clothing is practical or timeless, and can still be worn in the next season. 3.13 1.27
16. ’I purchase new clothing more often than my friends’ (Lang et al., 2013, p. 711). 2.7 1.30

Income Take-back programs

While the findings of Morgan and Birtwistle (2007) revealed
that there is no correlation between fashion innovativeness and
annual household income (2007), the results of an analysis of
variance (ANOVA) in this study show that income influences
the fashion scale significantly (N 5 367; F 5 2.1; df 5 8;
P 5 0.033). However, further analysis through a Scheffe test
revealed that the differences are not significant between specific
income levels.
Comparing waste habits of consumers with high
and low fashion interest
Decisions and motivations to use different channels to manage
unwanted clothing (resell, swap, take-back, donation and dis-
posal) vary depending on one’s fashion index.
ANOVA results suggest that there is a significant difference
between respondents being interested in tack-back programs
and their fashion index (P< 0.001; df 5 4; F 5 16.17). A post
hoc Scheffe test indicates that the respondents are split into
two groups: the group with a higher fashion index thinks take-
back programs are a great idea and may even know a retailer
who offers this opportunity. Respondents in the second group
have a lower fashion index and think nobody wants their old
clothing, and have likely never heard about this possibility.
Surprisingly, some women with a higher fashion index have
responded that they think take-back programs are too compli-
cated. People with a high fashion index typically shop more
often than people with a lower fashion index, so it should be
easier for these consumers to take a garment back to a retailer
than for those who shop only once or twice a year.

Swapping
An ANOVA test suggested that there is a significant difference
between respondents who have visited a swap event and their
fashion index (P < 0.001; df 5 4; F 5 17.391). A post hoc
Scheffe test indicated that the respondents of this study are split
into two groups: those with higher fashion scale who know
what swapping is and have or would like to visit a swap event,
vs. those with low fashion scale who have no interest in swap-
ping or do not know what it is. Thus, while swapping might be
a new way to manage unwanted clothing, it is strongly suited
for people with a higher fashion scale. Morgan and Birtwistle
(2009) confirm this finding by reporting that some young fash-
ion innovators have used swapping to exchange clothes with
friends. Nonetheless, the high interest in swapping suggests that
swapping could be a desirable approach to help manage textile
waste.
Resell
ANOVA results suggest a significant difference between a
respondent’s fashion index and their openness to reselling gar-
ments (F 5 26.9; df 5 4; P < 0.0001) and a post hoc Scheffe
test indicates that in order to successfully resell a used garment,
a person should have a high fashion index.
Donate
The results of an ANOVA test suggest that there is no signifi-
cant difference between knowledge of where respondents can
donate and their fashion index (F 5 0.454; df 5 5; P < 0.810).
The results of a Chi-square test indicate that there is no signifi-
cant difference between men and women with regards to
knowledge about donation boxes (Chi2 5 2.5; df 5 5;
P 5 0.776). Further, a Chi-square test was used to analyse
whether age has an effect on donation site awareness. The
results indicated that there is no significant difference between

International Journal of Consumer Studies 41 (2017) 207–215 211

C 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Choice of textile waste management S. Weber et al.

Table 3 Respondents’ channels to manage unwanted garments

Have you ever visited a swap event? Mean

I don’t know what this is 2.3

No, I haven’t and I have no interest 2.3
No, I haven’t but I would like to visit one. 3.0
Yes, I have but I didn’t like it 3.4
Yes, I have and I liked it 3.3
What do you think about bringing your used clothing back to a retailer and receiving some incentives for them? Mean
I think this is too complicated 2.6
I have never heard about this possibility 2.1
I don’t think anybody wants my old clothing 2.0
I think this is a great idea, but I don’t know a retailer who offers this opportunity 2.7
I think this is a great idea 3.1
Have you ever re-sold a garment in a second-hand store or online? Mean
I often practise this; I think it works very well 3.4
I have tried and it worked 3.3
I have tried, but it either didn’t work or I don’t find it’s worth the time 2.9
I have never tried, but maybe I should 2.6
I have never tried and I have no interest in doing so 2.0
Considering distance and accessibility, how convenient is your nearest donation spot? Mean
I know a few places and at least one is very convenient for me to reach. 2.7
I know where a donation box or a store is and it is reasonable to reach. 2.6
I know at least one place, but it is not very convenient to reach. 2.8
I don’t know where to donate my clothes, but I would like to know. 2.5
I don’t know where to donate my clothes, and I don’t care. 2.7
I don’t need a donation station, I can call a charity and they will pick up my clothing 2.4
Choose the most applicable answer, why do you throw some of your clothing into the waste? Mean
There seems to be no other option. I never thought about doing anything else with them. 3.2
It is the most convenient way. It’s too much time and effort to drive around donating clothes. 3.4
I want to get rid of my clothes immediately. 3.5
I don’t think my old clothes have any value. I throw them out when they are out of fashion 3.0
I don’t want anybody to wear my old clothes. 3.3
When I eventually decide to throw my clothes away, they are in such a bad condition that nobody could wear them anymore. 2.3
Respondents planned the use of the following reuse, recycle and disposal channels to manage their unwanted garments. Percentage
Donate 50
Dispose 25
Resell 8
Swap 4
Take-back 4

younger and older respondents with regards to donation knowl-
edge (Chi2 5 32.5; df 5 25; P 5 0.143). Clothing donations are
not dependent on gender, age or fashion index.
For the sample of respondents in this study, 50% of all gar-
ments were targeted for donation; however, this is dependent
on convenience and accessibility of donation locations. This
constraint is confirmed by other researchers (Domina and
Koch, 2002; Birtwistle and Moore, 2007; Laitala and Boks,
2012). It should be noted that a survey only assesses self-
reported behaviour reflecting the intended behaviour and not
the actual behaviour (Fishbein and Azjen, 1975). Therefore, a
50% donation rate may not accurately reflect reality, and these
findings can be seen as a tendency.
Disposal
The ANOVA results suggest that there is a significant differ-
ence between respondents’ disposal attitudes and their fashion
index (F 5 15.611; df 5 5; P < 0.0001). A post hoc Scheffe test
suggests differences between the groups: individuals with a
lower fashion index will decide to throw their clothes away if
they are in such poor condition that nobody could wear them
anymore; whereas individuals with higher fashion index will
dispose of their clothes to landfill, given that there seems to be
no other option, it is the most convenient means, and given
they want to discard their clothes immediately.
There is a major difference between fashion and non-fashion
consumers. For those with low fashion index, the reason for
not donating is a perceived lack of value in the garments, while
for those with a high fashion index the issue is more one of
convenience and time. This distinction is important because
it shows how the consumer groups need to be addressed
differently.
Discussion
The results indicate that consumers with a high fashion index
(i.e. fashion consumers) and consumers with a low fashion

212 International Journal of Consumer Studies 41 (2017) 207–215

C 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
S. Weber et al. Choice of textile waste management

Table 4 Overview how consumers with lower and higher fashion scale participate in different reuse, recycle and disposal channels (source: authors)

Channels Test Consumers with a lower fashion scale Consumers with a higher fashion scale

Swapping ANOVA (P < .0001) - don’t know what swapping is - have no inter- - have visited a swap event and liked it, - would
est in swapping like to visit one
Take-back ANOVA (P < .0001) - never heard about this possibility - think - think take-back programs are a great idea and
nobody wants their old clothing have participated
Resell ANOVA (P< .0001) - have never tried and no interest in doing so - I often practice this, I think it works very well
Donate ANOVA no significant difference
Disposal ANOVA (0 < .0001) -clothes are in such bad condition nobody could - the most convenient way - want to get rid of
wear them anymore clothes immediately

Figure 1 Relationship between a consumer’s

fashion index and his or her potential textile
waste.

index (i.e. non-fashion consumers) manage their textile waste
differently. All consumers, regardless of their fashion interest,
share a willingness to donate their unwanted clothes, and the
overwhelming majority of all respondents (nearly 92%) know
where to donate them. When given a set of hypothetical gar-
ments in various states of use, respondents planned to donate
on average 50% of these garments. While donation is widely
practiced among all consumers, so too is disposal. The pre-
existing assumption is that as fashion consumption increases
the rate of textile disposal also increases (Lang et al., 2013);
however, perhaps surprisingly, our results indicate that people
with a higher fashion index are less likely to dispose of clothes
than those with a lower fashion index. Only fashion-interested
consumers are willing to participate in alternative methods for
removing unwanted clothes: reselling (with 6% of participants
engaged), swapping (3%), or take-back (3%) (see Table 3).
Although the degree to which alternative channels are used is
low, their use nonetheless reflects a desire to not dispose of
garments to landfill. This behaviour is reflected in the differing
disposal rates, which is proportionally higher in non-fashion
consumers than fashion consumers (50–38% respectively). In
other words, one’s fashion index plays a role in one’s tendency
to textile disposal. Notably, our results indicate that as fashion
consumption increases only the total amount of garments dis-
posed of will increase, not the tendency of an individual to
’throw-away’ more of their clothes to landfill disposal. This is
a new finding.
A conceptual model (Fig. 1) shows the relationship between
consumer fashion index and potential textile waste.
The model illustrates how the textile consumption and poten-
tial level of waste increases as fashion index increases (the top
line). Regardless of fashion index, consumers donate about half
of their unwanted clothes, thus diverting the amount of textiles
disposed (second line from the top). The threshold between non-
fashion consumers and fashion consumers occurs around a fash-
ion index of 1.2. Beyond this point fashion consumers become
increasingly interested in reselling, take-back and swapping their
clothing. Each of these channels leads to further reductions in
textile waste disposal. We estimate they can divert a maximum
of about 12% of potential waste (third line from the top). This
model shows textile consumption cannot be directly equated to
textile waste. It might be more accurate to say instead that
increased consumption will increase the volume of unwanted
garments, but not the tendency to ’throw-away’ clothes.
High fashion consumers reduce their textile disposal by 62%
through their engagement in alternative channels, while non-
fashion consumers achieve about 50% diversion. This means
that for every 100 articles of clothing purchased a fashion con-
sumer will dispose of 38 items to landfill; whereas a non-
fashion consumer will dispose of 50 garments. However, fash-
ion consumers purchase more clothes than non-fashion consum-
ers, so the total volume of disposed clothing will nonetheless
remain higher for fashion consumers than non-fashion consum-
ers. Nevertheless, the higher volume could be offset with an

International Journal of Consumer Studies 41 (2017) 207–215 213

C 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
Choice of textile waste management
increase in the use of alternative channels, especially since at
present their use remains relatively limited (12%).
Conclusion
Donation is well established and according to our study results
appears to be a social norm among all consumers in Canada.
However, participation in clothes swapping, take-back, reselling
and disposal are dependent on a person’s fashion index. We
suggest that it is necessary to understand fashion consumers
(and fast fashion consumers in particular) not simply as unman-
ageable producers of textile waste, as they are often treated in
academic studies (Birtwistle and Moore, 2007; Morgan and
Birtwistle, 2009; Bhardwaj and Fairhurst, 2010). This forms an
unnecessarily negative picture of people engaged in fashion.
Although non-fashion consumers might dispose of fewer
clothes, because they purchase less and keep their garments
longer, it does not mean that they manage their unwanted gar-
ments in a more sustainable way. Our results indicate that those
with a higher fashion index are more aware about the value of
their clothes and more likely to try to retain that value for
themselves and for others. While fashion consumers may
become bored by their old clothes and seek new garments for
pleasure rather than for need, there are possibilities (e.g. swap-
ping) that can moderate consumption of new garments.
Although this study did not examine how respondents define
the value of their unwanted garments, whether it is by purchase
price or emotional attachment, it is clear that fashion consum-
ers are more willing than non-fashion consumers to do some-
thing other than simply throw out unwanted garments. This
may be because more fashionable clothes require greater
investments in time, effort and money to attain, so fashion con-
sumers are more invested in them and more willing to find a
channel other than the municipal landfill.
Fashion consumers show a stronger interest in what to do with
unwanted clothes. One thing that appears consistent, regardless of
the fashion index, was the desire to donate unwanted clothes.
While donation can allow all consumers to contribute to waste
reduction, there is great potential for enhancing waste reduction
by targeting fashion consumers and promoting alternative avenues
like clothing take-back, reselling and swapping. More research is
necessary to understand how municipalities, retailers and consum-
ers can foster these opportunities. Creating and encouraging alter-
native waste management channels offer significant opportunity
to shift the behaviour of fashion consumers away from fashion
disposal and towards more sustainable alternatives.
References
Bhardwaj, V. & Fairhurst, A. (2010) Fast fashion: response to changes in
the fashion industry. The International Review of Retail, Distribution
and Consumer Research, 20, 165–173.
Bianchi, C. & Birtwistle, G. (2012) Consumer clothing disposal behav-
iour: a comparative study. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
36, 335–341.
Birtwistle, G. & Moore, C. (2007) Fashion clothing–where does it all end
up? International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 35,
210–216.
Council for Textile Recycling. (2014) Abingdon. URL http://www.
weardonaterecycle.org/about/issue.html (accessed on 17 February 2014).
214
S. Weber et al.
Domina, T. & Koch, K. (1999) Consumer reuse and recycling of post-
consumer textile waste. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Manage-
ment, 3, 346–359.
Domina, T. & Koch, K. (2001) Textile recycling, convenience, and the
older adult. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences: From
Research to Practice, 93, 35–40.
Domina, T. & Koch, K. (2002) Convenience and frequency of recycling
implications for including textiles in curbside recycling programs.
Environment and Behavior, 34, 216–238.
Fishbein, M. & Azjen, I. (1975) Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behav-
iour: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley, Read-
ing, MA.
Fletcher, K. (2008) Sustainable Fashion and Textiles Design Journeys.
Earthscan, London.
Giroux, L. (2014) State of Waste Management in Canada. Giroux Envi-
ronmental Consulting, Kanata, Ontario.
Goudeau, C.V. (2014) Ready to Tear? A study on Fashion and Consumer
Disposal Behavior. Doctor, Oklahoma State University.
Grace-Martin, K. (2008) Can Likert Scale Data Ever be Continuous. Arti-
cle Alley, Ithaca, NY.
Ha-Brookshire, J.E. & Hodges, N.N. (2009) Socially responsible con-
sumer behavior? Exploring used clothing donation behavior. Clothing
and Textiles Research Journal, 27, 179–196.
Hibbert, S.A., Horne, S. & Tagg, S. (2005) Charity retailers in competi-
tion for merchandise: examining how consumers dispose of used
goods. Journal of Business Research, 58, 819–828.
Jackson, T. (2005) Motivating Sustainable Consumption. A Review of
Evidence on Consumer Behaviour and Behavioural Change. A Report
to the Sustainable Development Research Network, Surrey: Centre for
Environmental Strategies, Surrey, UK.
Jacoby, J., Berning, C.K. & Dietvorst, T.F. (1977) What about disposi-
tion? The Journal of Marketing, 41, 22–28.
Jensen, J. (2012) Waste Audit Services Project Final Summary Report. In
Resource Recovery Fund Board (ed. by I.N.S). Halifax.
Joung, H.M. & Park-Poaps, H. (2013) Factors motivating and influencing
clothing disposal behaviours. International Journal of Consumer Stud-
ies, 37, 105–111.
Klepp, I.G. (2001) Hvorfor går klær ut av bruk [Why women stop using
clothes?]. Avhending sett i forhold til kvinners klesvaner Lysaker,
SIFO Rapport. Oslo, Norway: Statens Instittut for Forbruksforskining.
Laitala, K. (2014) Consumers’ clothing disposal behaviour–a synthesis of
research results. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38, 444–457.
Laitala, K. & Boks, C. (2012) Sustainable clothing design: use matters.
Journal of Design Research, 10, 121–139.
Laitala, K., Hauge, B. & Klepp, I.G. (2009) Large? Clothing Sizes and Size
Labeling (No 503), Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lang, C., Armstrong, C.M. & Brannon, L.A. (2013) Drivers of clothing
disposal in the US: an exploration of the role of personal attributes and
behaviours in frequent disposal. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 37, 706–714.
Lee, J.Y., Halter, H., Johnson, K.K. & Ju, H. (2013) Investigating fashion
disposition with young consumers. Young Consumers: Insight and
Ideas for Responsible Marketers, 14, 67–78.
Li, L., Frey, M. & Browning, K.J. (2010) Biodegradability study on cot-
ton and polyester fabrics. Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics,
5, 42–53.
Morgan, L.R. & Birtwistle, G. (2009) An investigation of young fashion
consumers’ disposal habits. International Journal of Consumer Stud-
ies, 33, 190–198.
Nielsen R. & Schmidt, A. (2014) Changing Consumer Behaviour
Towards Increased Prevention of Textile Waste: Background Report
(No 927). Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.
Rivoli, P. (2005) The Travels of a T-Shirt in the Global Economy. John
Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
International Journal of Consumer Studies 41 (2017) 207–215
C 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
 S. Weber et al.
Rogers, E.M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations [Online]. Free Press, New York.
Shim, S. (1995) Environmentalism and consumers’ clothing disposal pat-
terns: an exploratory study. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal,
13, 38–48.
Stall-Meadows, C. & Goudeau, C. (2012) An unexplored direction in
solid waste reduction: household textiles and clothing recycling. Jour-
nal of Extension, 50, 5RIB3.
Statistics Canada. (2013) Population by year, by province and territory
[Online]. URL http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/
cst01/demo02a-eng.htm (accessed on September 2014).
Statistics Canada. (2014) Waste disposal per capita [Online]. URL http://
www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/envir32b-eng.
htm (accessed on September 2014).
International Journal of Consumer Studies 41 (2017) 207–215
C 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
V
View publication stats
Choice of textile waste management
Tammemagi, H.Y. (1999) The Waste Crisis: Landfills, Incinerators, and
the Search for a Sustainable Future. Oxford University Press,
New York.
The American Apparel & Footwear Association. (2012) AAFA Releases
Apparel Stats 2012 Report [Online]. Arlington, VA The American
Apparel & Footwear Association. URL https://www.wewear.org/aafa-
releases-apparelstats-2012-report/ (accessed on October 2014).
Tigert, D.J., Ring, L.J. & King, C.W. (1976) Fashion involvement and
buying behavior: a methodological study. Advances in consumer
Research, 3, 46–52.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2013) Textiles
[Online]. Washington, D.C. URL http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/
nonhaz/municipal/msw99.htm (accessed on 18 February 2014).
215