4. Discussion
This section first discusses the findings from this study focusing on how they are related to the existing research, starting with approaches to and context for upcycling, then factors influencing upcycling, and key influencers. It next discusses the prioritised interventions in terms of effectiveness of similar interventions reported by previous research, and implications for implementation of the interventions. It then links the study results to transition theory and discusses scaling up upcycling in both consumption and production domains. It suggests how upcycling should be understood to achieve effective scaling up and what practical steps are next required for scaling up. The section finishes by discussing limitations of the study and suggesting recommendations for future research.
Overall, the findings on approaches to and the context for upcycling corroborated past study results from the areas of upcycling, sustainable consumer behaviour, sustainable fashion, craft and the maker movement, suggesting that UK citizens’ approaches to and the context for upcycling could be broadly understood within these areas. As common upcycling materials, wood, furniture, metal, electronics, fabrics and (plastic) packaging as revealed in our study (
Section 3.1.1) have been addressed in other existing studies, with wood and fabrics appearing most frequently [
22,
71,
108,
114,
115,
116]. Online shops or networks such as eBay, Gumtree, Freecycle or Freegle as frequently used source of materials (
Section 3.1.1) have been described as useful sites for buying and selling (or disposing and sourcing for free) used materials, typically in households [
22,
108,
117,
118] or fashion industries [
39,
119,
120]. Skips and charity shops (
Section 3.1.1) are well-known sources of used materials amongst individual makers [
22,
108] and in the fashion industry [
121,
122]. Material selection criteria as project requirement, potential value, financial saving, quality, personal preference and ease of use (
Section 3.1.1) have been reported in other studies [
108,
123]. The common usages of upcycled products (i.e., home DIY, gift-giving, selling) (
Section 3.1.1) have been recounted in existing literature on craft and maker movement [
124,
125,
126,
127]. The predominant use of home for upcycling (
Section 3.1.2) is in line with traditional and contemporary home-based craft [
128,
129]. Collaboration with appropriate experts (both online and offline) (
Section 3.1.2) has been found at the intersection of digital and material practise of craft [
130] and in maker communities [
131].
Perceived benefits of upcycling revealed in this study (
Section 3.1.3) were to the individual (practical and psychological/emotional) or environment. Individual benefits have been known to be a common motivator for pro-environmental behaviour [
102] or sustainable lifestyles [
103]. Some findings are also similar to upcycling determinants identified through reviewing the literature on craft, DIY and maker movement [
21]. The social factors revealed in this study (
Section 3.1.3) (e.g., social norm of being environmentally conscious, and occupational and relationship roles) confirm that norms and roles are other common motivators for pro-environmental behaviour [
102,
103]. Both positive and negative emotions experienced through upcycling (
Section 3.1.3) support Gauntlett’s [
132] argument that everyday creative activities (e.g., upcycling) arouse a range of emotions, including excitement, frustration and mostly a feeling of joy. The current and childhood activities related to upcycling (
Section 3.1.3) showed the continuity and repetition of similar activities over time. Habits, in the study of pro-environmental behaviours, are portrayed as either challenges to overcome or change (e.g., energy use for lighting) [
81,
102,
133] or something to be encouraged to be developed in early years and nurtured and maintained during one’s lifetime (e.g., waste separation) [
134]. The latter applies to the habitual behaviours related to upcycling (
Section 3.1.3). The facilitating conditions for upcycling revealed several external barriers and facilitators (
Section 3.1.3). Such external, practical limits to choosing certain behaviour as well as negative perceptions on ‘green’ lifestyles (i.e., not for the majority) are known barriers to any pro-environmental behaviour [
102]. In general, the findings on factors influencing upcycling were mostly similar to those influencing pro-environmental behaviour or sustainable lifestyle except for habits.
The results of logistic regression analyses (
Section 3.2.1) demonstrated that upcycling is the type of behaviour driven by intention and is strongly influenced by attitude and subjective norm without intention–behaviour gap or an attitude–behaviour gap. (Intention–behaviour gap means the situation where people do not take action in spite of their high intention. Attitude–behaviour gap means the situation where people do not take action regardless of their positive attitudes towards the behaviour. These gaps between intention and behaviour or between attitude and behaviour have been reported for some forms of sustainable behaviour [
135,
136,
137,
138,
139,
140].) The substantial influence of the subjective norm on intention and behaviour supports existing research on sustainable food consumption [
141,
142] or waste recycling [
143,
144]. Our finding that females aged over 30 appear more inclined to engage in upcycling (
Section 3.2.2) may be in line with the long history of women’s domestic art, craft and home improvement [
145,
146]. This implies that upcycling is a long-lasting common behaviour, suggesting a historical study for further research.
Other studies have reported on the effectiveness (or success or failure) of interventions similar to those that our study suggests should be prioritised (
Section 3.4). For example, in the case of the two short-term high priority interventions (
Section 3.4.1), mass-media campaigns have been reported to be effective in changing behaviour, most notably for health-related behaviours [
147,
148,
149]. The positive impact of new media interventions (e.g., websites, social networking sites) has been shown by several studies, again for health-related behaviours [
150,
151,
152]. Such existing studies have focused on short-term campaigns rather than, for example, long-term TV shows or YouTube channels. Considering the reported high effectiveness of combinations of different media with integrated strategies [
151], any future media intervention should take this into account. While provision and improvement of community workshops such as Hackspace or Makerspace has not yet been reported as an effective intervention for behaviour change, it could be effective, according to the social practice theory [
153,
154]. (Social practice theory argues that there are three elements of practice: Material (infrastructures, objects, tools), competence (knowledge and embodied skills) and meaning (socially shared meanings, cultural conventions and expectations) [
154,
155]. Community workshops that provide materials, tools, space and expertise would contribute to material and competence.)
Considering the four short-term medium priority interventions (
Section 3.4.2), an upcycling centre could benchmark Retuna, the world’s first recycling mall in Eskilstuna, Sweden [
156], or Seoul Upcycling Plaza, the world’s largest upcycling cultural complex space in Seoul, South Korea [
157]. Provision of stable material suppliers has also been identified as one of the particularly significant supports for scaling up small upcycling businesses in the UK [
64]. The closest example of improved materials provision service could be waste banks [
158] embedded in an existing waste collection system with online platforms such as Freecycle or Freegle. Government procurement (or public procurement) has been proven for its effect on stimulating innovation [
159,
160] and driving the market success of innovations [
161]. Community events have been used and proven to promote and change healthy or sustainable behaviours such as handwashing [
162] or cycling [
163]. Some studies also reported that community events are more effective than mass media campaigns [
164]. The potential pitfall could be the possibility that community events attract individuals already committed to upcycling or other sustainable behaviours such that they merely use the event to gain positive feedback for their lifestyle choices [
165].
Regarding the three long-term priority interventions (
Section 3.4.3), financial intervention has been proven to be effective for many cases, including microenterprise development [
166], operation of business incubator system [
167] and green supply chain management [
168]. Subsidy is the most conventional form of financial intervention [
169] and it has expanded the scales of some renewable energy sources (e.g., wind and solar power) and accelerated their development [
170]. The risk is overcapacity (i.e., increased production without increased demand) [
170]. The Swedish government’s VAT reduction on repair could be a good benchmark [
171]. Grants for research or initiatives are a typical way of encouraging and facilitating development of particular knowledge, practice or collaboration [
172,
173,
174]. The impact of education on behaviour change has been reported as prominent in changing health-related behaviours [
175,
176,
177], yet there is also a recognition that interventions relying principally on education have largely failed to achieve considerable and sustainable results for behaviour change [
178]. When it comes to environmental education, Boyes and Stanisstreet [
179] claim that the effect depends on a type of behaviour and many studies have indeed reported both cases with either positive impact or no significant difference [
179,
180,
181,
182].
Regarding multiple actors to implement each intervention (
Table 5), transition theory acknowledges that a transition process involves multiple actors [
183,
184,
185]. Managing transitions towards a pre-defined goal such as scaling up upcycling is very challenging for a single actor to pursue due to the interdependence amongst multiple actors and autonomous developments in the socio-technical landscape [
186]. A multi-actor or multi-stakeholder approach is therefore recommended for transition management [
187], with multi-level governance involving interactions between multiple actors at strategic, tactical and operational levels [
188,
189]. For example, the contemporary transition process towards renewable and sustainable energy in the Netherlands has been occurring around the local networks of energy initiatives and other local organisations such as schools, the municipality and local economic actors (e.g., shops, restaurants, farms) in partnership with regional intermediary organisations, national networks, governmental agencies and incumbent companies, bringing in knowledge and opportunities [
190].
The prioritised interventions, when implemented successfully by the coordinated efforts of multiple actors, could scale up upcycling in both consumption and production domains. In the consumption domain, buying new products (for both initial and replacement purchases) is the current regime. When the interventions are implemented, the effects may include creating a niche-cluster (
Section 1.2) such as local networks of passionate hobbyists and activists for upcycling and associated activities (e.g., simple repair or reuse). Such a niche-cluster could develop into a niche-regime (e.g., regional or national networks and social movement). Another effect could be on landscape, changing the consumption culture and people’s worldviews towards upcycling. The dynamic interactions between the growing niches, the changing landscape and the current regime could eventually lead to a new regime of upcycling in which ordinary consumers will often upcycle used or waste materials on a regular basis, and purchase upcycled goods for everyday needs (
Figure 7).
In the production domain, producing new products from new, virgin materials is the current regime. There are, however, already some niche-clusters such as the Ellen MacArthur Foundation [
30] that bring together scientists and companies to promote a circular economy. Another niche-cluster is online networks or platforms to bring together SMEs based on upcycling craft such as Upcycled Hour [
191]. When the interventions are implemented, these niche-clusters could develop into niche-regimes such as regional, national or international networks of companies and academic institutions for industrial symbiosis [
192] and knowledge transfer, or retailers of upcycled products. Scaling up interventions could also change the production culture and worldviews towards production based on used materials, components and products. The development of niches, along with the changing landscape, could enable the current regime players (i.e., mainstream manufacturers) to adjust their operations such that upcycling becomes a mode of production (business as usual) or upcycling-based SMEs to grow sufficiently to provide mainstream consumers with everyday goods (
Figure 8).
Upcycling is currently a niche behaviour (or practice) and ‘a spectrum of upcycling’ seemingly exists. Some authors argue that upcycling is strictly deconstructing waste products and reconstructing them into new products. Others believe that upcycling is improved (or value-added) recycling through which the quality of materials is often degraded. Some claim that upcycling is any creative process that could give a second life to any used materials, components or products. In order to achieve effective scaling up of upcycling in both consumption and production domains, the term upcycling needs to be understood and communicated as an umbrella concept that incorporates all understandings within this spectrum. Particular processes should be seen as a means to the end, upcycling. In this way, a greater number of niches can work together to form niche-clusters and develop into niche-regimes, ultimately becoming a new regime.
In order to ensure that various upcycling processes (e.g., creative forms of reuse, repair, refurbishment, upgrade, remanufacturing, recycling) escape the niche-cluster level, the skills involved in each process should not be based solely on retrograde skills in the modern world (e.g., manual repair and refurbishment). The upcycling processes should become more data driven, machine-based and specialised for higher efficiency, effectiveness and relevance to modern industrial processes.
As a next step, the prioritised interventions could be prototyped, piloted and monitored (for process and outcome) for feeding learning into large-scale implementation. The two short-term high priority interventions (
Section 3.4.1), therefore, should be the first to be prototyped and piloted by any actors aiming to scale up upcycling. The four medium priority interventions for the short term (
Section 3.4.2) might also be considered for prototyping and piloting simultaneously with (or after) the two high priority interventions. The three long-term priority interventions (
Section 3.4.3) could be widely communicated with lobbying activities to influence key decision makers in the government and educational institutions.
When it comes to limitations of this study, the results from the interview and survey studies may not be generalisable to the overall UK population due to the purposive sampling used and limited sample size. The generalisability is restricted by the geographic and demographic focus of the study, and therefore findings and practical implications are applicable only to the UK context. Another limitation in interviews was that some questions based on the behaviour model used technical language about each factor instead of more understandable wording (e.g., asking if any “self-concepts” are involved in participants’ motivation instead of, for example, “What sort of people might participate in upcycling?”). This means that potentially more interesting and valid answers may not have been attained. Moreover, some participants may not have been aware of the factors influencing their behaviour. A limitation in the survey is that factors used to explain upcycling behaviour (as frequency of past behaviour) may not predict future behaviour. Further, the semi-Delphi results are based on the opinions of a certain group of experts, but other experts may reach different conclusions and recommendations.
Considering the limited, focused scope of this research, further studies on upcycling could be conducted concerning: (a) Upcycling as practice rather than behaviour based on different theoretical frameworks such as social practice theory [
154]; (b) upcycling as behaviour but focusing on different behaviour domains other than sustainable behaviour such as community participation or mental health; (c) upcycling in countries other than the UK; (d) development of interventions for scaling up upcycling at the EU level or international level; (e) exploration of a wider cultural context behind upcycling behaviour/practice; (f) commercial perspectives of upcycling—the profitability of different product categories and scalability of the businesses; and (g) measuring the net environmental impacts of upcycling. The most interesting future research would be action research on the process of prototyping and piloting the recommended interventions for scaling up upcycling. It would aim not only to measure its impact on scaling up but also to report the lessons learned during the process.