Next Article in Journal
Projection of Greenhouse Gas Emissions for the Road Transport Sector Based on Multivariate Regression and the Double Exponential Smoothing Model
Next Article in Special Issue
How Does the Collaborative Economy Advance Better Product Lifetimes? A Case Study of Free-Floating Bike Sharing
Previous Article in Journal
An Evaluation of the Tourism-Induced Environmental Kuznets Curve (T-EKC) Hypothesis: Evidence from G7 Countries
 
 
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

What Affects Garment Lifespans? International Clothing Practices Based on a Wardrobe Survey in China, Germany, Japan, the UK, and the USA

Consumption Research Norway (SIFO), Oslo Metropolitan University, 0130 Oslo, Norway
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(21), 9151; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219151
Received: 24 September 2020 / Revised: 27 October 2020 / Accepted: 30 October 2020 / Published: 3 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Better Product Lifetimes)

Abstract

:
Increasing the length of clothing lifespans is crucial for reducing the total environmental impacts. This article discusses which factors contribute to the length of garment lifespans by studying how long garments are used, how many times they are worn, and by how many users. The analysis is based on quantitative wardrobe survey data from China, Germany, Japan, the UK, and the USA. Variables were divided into four blocks related respectively to the garment, user, garment use, and clothing practices, and used in two hierarchical multiple regressions and two binary logistic regressions. The models explain between 11% and 43% of the variation in clothing lifespans. The garment use block was most indicative for the number of wears, while garment related properties contribute most to variation in the number of users. For lifespans measured in years, all four aspects were almost equally important. Some aspects that affect the lifespans of clothing cannot be easily changed (e.g., the consumer’s income, nationality, and age) but they can be used to identify where different measures can have the largest benefits. Several of the other conditions that affect lifespans can be changed (e.g., garment price and attitudes towards fashion) through quality management, marketing strategies, information, and improved consumer policies.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The clothing industry is one of the highest producers of pollution in the world and causes severe damage to the environment [1,2,3]. While a lot of effort is focused on improving the production phase, there is little done to improve consumer practices (use phase). Existing life cycle assessments (LCAs) of clothing show that decisions made in the use phase contribute significantly to overall environmental impacts [4,5,6,7]. Increasing clothing lifespans is one of the most efficient ways of reducing the environmental impacts of clothing, through reductions in replacement frequency which prevents waste and also reduces production and transport. This has been documented and understood for a long time; for example, the waste hierarchy lists prevention as its top priority [8]. However, there is only limited research that has focused on clothing lifespans and which specific factors affect the length and active wear of a garment, and where potential gains exist.
A better understanding of the various aspects of the use phase of clothing is needed for environmental accounting tools such as LCAs [9], and for the work towards targeted environmental improvements based on relevant policy instruments. There is a lack of systematic, empirical knowledge about the lifetime of garments considering their different characteristics. There is a crucial need to understand how garment lifespans can best be measured, and even predicted, and which properties of clothing influence the garment use, and the related environmental impacts.
The research question in this article is: Which factors contribute to garments lifespans? Initially, we introduce a more precise understanding of lifespans and build on a taxonomy based on previous consumer research on the aspects that impact garment lifespans. This is followed by a methodology section, where data from the international wardrobe survey is introduced, conducted in China, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In the results section, we present survey findings related to various ways of measuring clothing lifespans, and which factors affect the length of the lifespan. We conclude by answering the articles main research propositions, and by identifying which of the areas/impacts identified would benefit from further research.

2. Theoretical Background

We build on the theory of clothing lifespans developed by Klepp et al. [10]. In this theory, lifespans are understood as a combination of three different aspects, all three of which have independent value. The three can be measured in the number of years, the number of times used (wears), and the number of users, and will be referred to as lifespan in years, wears, and users throughout the paper. We will further develop a taxonomy of aspects that affect the lifespans based on literature that has studied at least one of the three different aspects of lifespans.
To date, garment lifespans have most commonly been measured by age in years, which is understood as the time a garment is owned, from when it was acquired until it goes out of use or is disposed of [10].
Figure 1 gives a summary of previous literature reviews, from studies that report the lifespan length in years of use [4]. These studies are mainly based on consumer surveys [11,12,13,14,15,16,17] but include some wardrobe and inventory studies [18,19]. Average lifespan including all the garment categories was four years, but it varied greatly between different garments types.
More recent studies have started to use a different unit of measurement to indicate lifespan, which relates to active use of items and the number of times the garment is worn, but there are significantly less of these than those which measure years of ownership. Cooper et al. [14] estimated the total number of wears of five different garment types, estimating that knitwear is worn 111 times, shirts 58 times, jeans 233 times, socks 90 times and t-shirts 83 times. This study was based on estimations and did not include various aspects that impact lifespans. The data indicated that if consumers were asked directly how many times a specific garment was worn (including previous and future wears), the average result was 76 wears. When calculating the number of wears based on reported wearing frequency, the figure was higher; 105 wears.
The number of times a garment is worn, and the related environmental impacts are also linked strongly to garment care, including choices related to laundering, dry-cleaning, drying, and ironing, and their requirements for energy, water, and detergent consumption. Since most research on clothing use is based on consumer studies where the current user reports their personal garment use, it is difficult to get information on the total lifespan of garments which have more than one user. Therefore, the knowledge gained about the number of users is very important for estimating total garment lifespan and impacts [10].
While product type is an important indicator in the lifespan of garments, significant variation exists because of garment characteristics and different user groups. A consumer survey in the UK showed that while the type of clothing was significant, some user groups are more likely than others to keep their clothes in active use longer [13]. These include men, older people, people with lower income, higher socio-economic groups, those with more garments in their wardrobes, and those who purchase longer-lasting clothing intentionally. Consumers’ values were also important, as lower active use is correlated strongly with consumers who place higher importance on fashion and brands, while longer active use phases of clothing correlated with consumers who purchase garments that are better quality and better value for money. Active use also differed depending on the purpose for which clothes are purchased. Formal clothing bought for specific occasions outside of work (such as weddings or funerals) had the longest lifespans measured in years, while casual wear had shorter lifespans.
Gwozdz et al. [16] analysed clothing consumption behaviours in Germany, Poland, Sweden, and the U.S. They found that when differentiating by purchasing behaviour there were five distinct consumer segments. In addition to demographic differences (nationality, gender, and income), other important aspects were consumers’ general lifestyle, values and attitudes towards brands and sustainability, as well as actual reported behaviour related to the acquisition, wearing frequency, maintenance, and disposal. The majority of consumers were those who have lower incomes, acquire most of their clothing from low budget brands and buy few garments in total (e.g., “low-consumption–budget brands”). This segment kept their clothes longer and wore them more times between washes. However, they were also less likely to send their garments for reuse for a second life. On the other end of the scale, consumers in the “high premium” segment purchased more garments, kept them for less time and wore them fewer times between washes. However, their end-of-life (EOL) practices were more likely to be environmentally responsible, as they were more likely to send them for reuse or recycling.
Two similar studies, one conducted in Canada [21] and another in South Korea [22], showed that several indicators influence whether consumers donate or sell clothing for reuse, and these were similar for both countries. The likelihood of reuse decreases if clothing is severely damaged or is a cheap fast-fashion garment instead of a more expensive, designer brand garment, or if the garment is identified as casual wear (jeans or t-shirt) instead of formal wear (dress). Consumers were more likely to mend garments if they are only slightly damaged.
Wardrobe studies of clothing disposed in Norwegian households (including children’s clothing, which was not included in any of the above-mentioned studies) showed that several aspects impacted the average lifespans [12,18]. Children and teens used their clothing for about two years less than adults, and those above the age of 51 used their clothing for the longest, and men kept their clothing longer than women. The way a garment was acquired was important for its lifespan, as items received as gifts were used for less time. Garments intended for reuse were used for less time than those to be put into the rubbish bin. The reason for disposal also influenced the length of the garment lifespan, as those disposed of due to changes in fashion trends or taste were generally kept longer than garments disposed of due to wear and tear. Fibre content was also significant, which was confirmed by a later study where we showed that woollens were used longer, on average, than similar garments made from other fibre types [4].
Research has shown that wear and tear is an important reason for the clothing disposal [23,24,25,26] and that an increase in durability will also extend the potential length of a garment’s lifespan. However, other properties of the products are also significant. Their social value varies, for example, some products have a greater aesthetic value when they are new, while others may remain the same or increase over time. The logic in fashion is that new clothing has a high value that quickly diminishes as they get outdated. Some clothing, like vintage items or folk costumes, can increase in value over time [27,28]. By researching “reasons for disposal”, the impact of such properties on clothing lifespans can be evaluated.
Consumer demographics have a noteworthy impact on the use period of clothing. Children and adolescents have a greater need for new clothes because they are still growing physically, and the situation of their life is often subject to change [29]. Expectations regarding the need for women to vary their clothing between different settings increase the amount of clothing they purchase compared to men [30]. Poor fit is one of the main reasons for the disposal of women’s clothing [23]. Clothing with a flexible fit can be used longer than other clothing [31,32]. This may apply, for example, to knitted versus woven clothing, and other clothing which is stretchy or clothing with inbuilt resizing features.
People with low income report longer clothing lifespans, probably because of the financial restrain on their purchasing decisions. Relationship and employment status can also impact clothing needs. Working life is an area where clothing decisions are important [26], and in many jobs, uniforms are used, which reduces the need for private clothing [33,34]. An important factor for clothing selection is garments for any occasion which requires a particular dress code at a specified place and time (e.g., work or a function such as a wedding) [35]. This includes categories such as sportswear, casual, business-casual, business, and formal [36].
The occasions consumers take part in influences the number of times a garment can be worn. Cooper et al. [31] include examples such as bridal wear, dinner jackets, evening wear, party dresses, and high-quality suits, which are all worn infrequently and stored, unworn, for long periods. The climate of the country users live in also influences the length of the garment lifespan. Seasonal clothing, such as a warm sweater, will have more use opportunities to be worn in colder climates.
Other aspects that can impact garments lifespans include users’ values, mending skills (e.g., repair and alteration) [37], and dressing habits (e.g., active-wear in everyday life). Laundering practices also impact lifespan length, as frequent or inappropriate laundering can cause wear and tear [38] which reduces lifespans [39].
This literature has shown that many aspects impact garment lifespans, but there is a lack of knowledge on how much each factor contributes, and if there is a difference in the importance between them for the different ways of measuring lifespans. We have combined these various factors that influence lifespans (years, wears, and users) to construct a Taxonomy. We will use this to study the factors’ relative importance for significance for longevity. The aspects have been divided into four categories: consumer/user demographics (user), use, garment attributes, and consumer behaviour related to clothing practices (Figure 2). This structuring gives a theoretical starting point for our analysis that is presented in the next section.

3. Method

This paper is based on a consumer survey conducted online from December 2018 to January 2019. The survey was administrated by AC Nielsen’s Australian office in cooperation with local branch offices. It focuses on five countries with large clothing markets: China, Germany, Japan, the UK, and the USA, with over two hundred respondents from each country answering a comprehensive, web-based survey on their wardrobe contents. Questions included the number of items owned in specific categories, and for a selection of these items, details such as clothing lifespan, length of active use, wear occasions, materials and laundering practices were also requested. The questionnaire is attached in Appendix A.
The participants were between 18 and 64 years old (working age), representing the different demographics and genders within the surveyed countries based on a pre-stratified sample. The respondent demographics for each country and the average/total are given in Table 1. The data was sorted in two ways, by “per respondent” (N = 1111), and “per garment” (N = 53,461).
The data in China was collected differently to that of the other countries to enable comparison of more similar consumer groups, in terms of living standards, in the five countries, while also using the same design as at the 2012 study [4,11,40]. With this in mind, the data from China was collected from Tier 1 and 2 cities (Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenyang, Taiyuan, Nanjing, Hefei, Fuzhou, Changsha, Chengdu, and Xi’an) instead of the whole country. This led to a lower average age for Chinese respondents. China also has a higher proportion of respondents who work full time and less who are divorced, separated, or widowed.
Yearly income and monthly expenditure on clothing were reported in the local currency, and in the final analysis, they were grouped into three categories (low, medium, and high) based on country trisects. Garment prices were converted to US dollars in the analysis and divided into four categories.
The number of clothing categories assessed in detail in the survey was limited to a list of “focus categories” for males and females. These are listed in Table 2. Item-specific questions were also limited to a maximum of 10 items per focus categories (meaning a respondent only had to answer for ten items per category regardless of how many they actually owned). For selecting which items to answer for, they were asked to try to evaluate a wide variety of items of different materials, or for different occasions. The analysis is based on these garments in focus categories.
The analysis was conducted with SPSS statistical software. Statistical tests for significance given as follows: * p < 0.050; ** p < 0.010; and *** p < 0.001.

3.1. Building Models for Regression Analysis

3.1.1. Dependent Variables

Based on our theoretical approach (Section 2), we constructed dependent variables for measuring lengths of clothing lifespans by number of years, the number of wears and number of users [10]. The first variable, “DEP1-Years”, indicates the total garment age measured in years, and is based on the survey question, “When did you buy or acquire this clothes item or accessory?”. Answers varied from, “in the last 6 months” to “more than 30 years ago” (coded as 3 months, and 35 years, respectively). For estimating the total lifespan, the average current age is multiplied by two. This way of estimating the possession span will not be correct for the individual garments, but it will be a close estimate for the average of the total number of garments.
The second variable, which measures the number of wears “DEP2-Wears”, is based on two survey questions: “How many times have you worn this item?” and “How many times do you expect to wear this item in the future?” The highest response category, “more than 200 times” was coded as 250 wears. When the current and planned number of wears were combined, the values of this variable vary from between 0 and 500 wears. These two ways of measuring lifespans were analysed with a hierarchical (sequential enter method) multiple regression.
The third variable is based on the number of users, including garments that have had a previous owner, or that owners plan to deliver for reuse. These two dependent variables are thus “DEP3a-Preowned” and “DEP3b-Planned reuse”. These are based on questions about the method of acquirement and the planned disposal method (sell or donate). As these variables are binary, we chose to use a binary logistic regression to analyse the impact of various predictors.

3.1.2. Independent Variables

Independent variables are introduced in 4 blocks based on the theoretical background. The first block represents garment specific properties (variables 1–3), the second is the demographics of the user (variables 4–9), followed by garment use (variables 10–15), and finally the general clothing practices of the user (variables 16–22). For categorical variables, dummy coding was used to be able to compare each level of a variable to the omitted (reference) level. The reference category was chosen based on it being the most common value, or in cases where this was not applicable, as the one with lowest lifespan values. For simplicity, ordinal variables with more than five categories were treated as numeric (nominal) variables. This applies to variables 11, 19, and 22. Appendix B includes descriptive statistics for these variables.
In the linear regression analysis in models 1 and 2 the predictors were coded and entered as follows:
  • Type of garment (suits, trousers/pants, skirts/dresses, t-shirts/polos/singlets, jumpers/pullovers, blazers, overcoats, scarfs/pashminas, thermal underwear, or sportswear. Socks and stockings were used as the reference group).
  • Fibre content (wool and wool blends, silk, synthetics, regenerated cellulose, or unknown fibre content. Cotton and cotton blends were used as the reference group).
  • Garment price (10–39 USD, 40–99 USD, and over 100 USD. Reference group are those which cost below 10 USD).
  • Gender (0 = male, 1 = female).
  • Age group (30–49 years and 50–64 years compared to reference group 18–29 years).
  • Nationality (German, Japanese, UK, and USA. China were used as the reference).
  • Employment status (0 = non-working, student or part time, 1 = working full time).
  • Marital status (0 = single, divorced, separated, 1 = married/living with partner).
  • Income in three groups, trisects of each country (middle and high compared to low income).
  • Wearing frequency (number of wears per year) (based on how often the garment was worn either whole year-round or seasonally).
  • Laundering frequency (number of wears before laundering) (0 = after every wear, 1 = after every 2–3 wears, 2 = after every 4–5 wears, 3 = after every 6–10 wears, 4 = after every 11–19 wears, 5 = after every 20–29 wears, and 6 = after every 30 or more wears).
  • Occasion used (work, formal social occasion, casual social occasion, training/doing sports, religious, sleeping, gardening/painting/other dirty household chores, not in active use, or other/unknown occasion. Everyday use and around the home used as the reference group).
  • Preowned (0 = no previous owner, 1 = garment had previous owner)
  • Assumed disposal reason (the style is not in fashion anymore, it doesn’t fit me properly, I don’t like the colour or style anymore, not enough space in my wardrobe for new items, I don’t need the garment anymore, other/unknown reason. General wear and tear were used as a reference group).
  • Planned disposal method (donate to charity, give to friends/family, recycle at home, sell, other/unknown. Put in the rubbish bin was used for reference).
  • Monthly expenditure on clothing (broken into three groups—middle and high, where low expenditure is the reference).
  • The number of new clothing items purchased last year (from less than 5 to over 50, coded as from 2.5 to 70).
  • Wardrobe size (number of garments, varied from 35 to 663).
  • Fashion interest (measured based on the level of agreement to the statement “I change fashion by season”—from 0 = completely disagree up to 4 = completely agree).
  • Has repaired or sewn clothing last 12 months (0 = no, 1 = yes).
  • Sewing skills (measured in two ways: “Can use sewing machine”—0 = no, 1 = yes, or “Can sew by hand”—0 = no, 1 = yes).
  • Purchase priorities (respondents had to evaluate 11 garment attributes when buying smart casual or formal wear—rated from completely unimportant (0) to most important. The highest grade (6) applies if the factor was chosen as most important for both garment categories. The aspects included were fashion, price, fit, fabric quality, fibre content, country of manufacture, design/style, sustainable/environmentally friendly production, ethical production, colour, and designer brand).
This gives 71 variables in total. Due to this high number, we used the adjusted R2 to estimate the model fit.
The same order is used in the logistic regressions for DEP3a and DEP3b with some exceptions. The variable “preowned” was not included in “DEP3a-Preowned”, and the variable “planned disposal method” is not included in “DEP3b-Planned reuse”, as the dependent and independent variables are based on the same question. Garment age in years and the total number of wears were introduced as predictors in the third block instead.
During the development of models, variables that did not contribute significantly to any of the regressions, or had high collinearity, were excluded. The robustness of the models was tested with model variation by adding, removing, and changing some of the regressors. Examples of these changes included removing variables that were no longer significant in the final block of the models, adding variables that were initially excluded due to their small contribution, changing nominal variables to categorical variables and vice versa (such as wardrobe size in trisects for small/average/large instead of number of garments), and using different reference groups for categorical variables (such as fashion as disposal reason instead of wear and tear). These changes did not impact largely to the core regressions coefficients that retained their direction. The adjusted R2 of models 1 and 2, and pseudo R2 values (Cox and Snell and Nagelkerke values) of models 3a and 3b changed on average 1.3 percentage points, and 1.7 percentage points at most. This indicates sufficient structural validity.

4. Results

4.1. Garment Lifespans Measured in Years

The average current garment age (including all focus categories) was 2.6 years, indicating that total expected lifespan is likely to be double, 5.2 years (N = 46,857 garments). This estimation includes only the current user (not previous owners if the garment was preowned or would be reused).
A significant regression model was found (F (71, 22,525) = 91.941, p < 0.001), with an adjusted R2 of 0.222, which indicates the model explains 22.2% of the variation in garment lifespans measured in years. The contribution of each block is presented in Table 3. The first model (garment information only) explains 5% of the variation. By adding demographic information about the user, the rate increases to 11.6% (ΔR2 = 0.066), and by adding use related variables, the rate increases to 17.4% (ΔR2 = 0.059). Finally, by including user’s clothing practices, the rate increases to 22.2% (ΔR2 = 0.049). Therefore, all four blocks contribute significantly and add between 4.9 and 6.6 percentage points to the final model. The demographics of the user come out as the largest contributor mainly due to the importance of national differences, but the disparities between the four blocks are not that large indicating that all four aspects are important.
The individual variables’ contribution to the final, complete model (Block 4) is evaluated based on part correlations and standardised beta values. The model shows that the ten most important single predictors are:
  • Number of wears before laundering: Garments that are washed less frequently (worn more times before washing) have longer lifespans. Those that are washed less often than after every 30 wears have lifespans of up to 4.8 years longer than those washed after every wear.
  • Nationality (country): Clothing is kept for a shorter time in China than in the other included countries. The difference is largest when compared to Japan where clothing is kept longest (2.7 years longer), followed by the US (2.4 years), Germany (2.2 years) and finally the UK (1.8 years). However, Chinese respondents include only those living in large cities and do not represent the average Chinese citizens.
  • Wardrobe size as the number of garments: For every ten garments increase in garments owned, the total average clothing lifespan increases by one month.
  • The number of new clothing items purchased in the last 12 months: For every ten additional items purchased per year, the expected lifespan is reduced by five months, which is the opposite to those with large wardrobes, indicating greater purchases being associated with higher turnover.
  • The number of times worn during an active year of wearing: Increase in wearing frequency decreases the lifespan measured in years, on average 10 more wears reduces the garment lifespan by 2 months.
  • Fashion interest: The more strongly the respondent reacted to the statement “I change fashion by season” (0 = completely disagree, 4 = completely agree), the shorter the clothing lifespan (each step reduced lifespan by 7.8 months). Those that completely agree have garment lifespans 2.6 years shorter than those that disagree with the statement completely.
  • Garment price: Garments at low mid-range pricing (10–39 USD) are used almost 5 months longer than the lowest groups (below 10 USD), those at higher mid-range (40–99 USD) 10.5 months longer, and the most expensive garment group (over 100 USD) are used 2 years longer than the cheapest garments.
  • Occasion: The most common garment use category was the reference group of garments used as “every day and around the home”. Garments for all other occasions have longer lifespans, besides workwear, but the difference between workwear and everyday clothing is not significant after controlling for other variables. Garments used for dirty household chores were the oldest reported, followed by those no longer in active use.
  • Likely disposal reason: When the users were asked to indicate the most likely reason for disposal of specific garments, wear and tear was the most common (about half). Therefore, this category was used as a reference. Garments that are no longer needed are kept the longest (difference 2.1 years longer), followed by those that are to be disposed of due to lack of space (nine months longer). Garments that do not fit are about 8 months older and those which the user dislikes are about six months older. Garments to be disposed of due to fashion are about three months older, but this difference is not significant in the final model.
  • Monthly spending on clothing: The more money spent on clothing the shorter the garment lifespan (lowest trisect is 1.2 years longer than the highest, and 6 months longer than the middle trisect).
Many other variables also contribute significantly. Older consumers generally have older garments, with those aged over 50 keeping 1 year 3 months longer (on average) than garments belonging to the youngest age group (18–29).
The fibre content of garments also contributes significantly. Cotton was used as the reference, as the highest portion of garments in the study were made of cotton, and they have the shortest average lifespan. Silk garments have the longest lifespans (2.2 years more than cotton), followed by wool (1.2 years longer than cotton), and lastly, man-made fibres (synthetics 5.5 months more and regenerated cellulose fibres 9.7 months more than cotton).
These are not average descriptive statistics for the groups compared, but part of a regression where all the other reported variables are included and controlled for. They will change based on which variables are included in the final model.
Variables that do not contribute significantly to the final model are retained for comparison of the variables between the different models. This can be justified, as we wish to control for background variables such as gender, avoid omitted variables bias, and because there are no high correlations between the variables in the model (all Pearson’s correlations below 0.7). The level of collinearity is low (highest VIF 3.1), largest Cooks’ distance of 0.005, and only 0.8% of cases have standard residual above 3.

4.2. Garment Lifespans Measured in Number of Wears

We asked the respondents to estimate the number of times they had worn the garment, and how many times they assumed they would continue wearing it. On average, the items had been worn 34.8 times and were assumed to be worn 46.3 times more in the future, giving a total of 80 wears.
A significant regression equation was found (F (71, 20,002) = 94.330, p < 0.001), with an adjusted R2 of 0.248, which indicates that the model explains 24.8% of the variation. The first model (garment properties) explains only 3% of the variation in the number of wears of garments. By adding demographic information about the user, the explanation rate increases to 6.1% (ΔR2 0.035). Further, by adding information about the use, the explanation increases significantly to 21% (ΔR2 0.150). Finally, by including user’s clothing practices, the explanation rate increases to 24.8% (ΔR2 0.039). Therefore, block 3 (garment use) is by far the most significant contributor, while other blocks explain about 3–4% of the variation in garments wears.
As this model includes the same independent variables as the first model, the collinearity statistics are the same. However, this model has a slightly higher share of residuals, as 1.9% of cases have a standard residual above three. Cooks distance is only 0.002, so we assume that these cases do not cause problems to the model.
When looking at the contributions of the individual variables in the final model (block 4) where all variables are included and controlled for, the most important single predictors are:
  • Wearing frequency per year: This is the most important predictor of the total number of wears, as expected.
  • The number of wears before laundering: The estimated lifespan reported as the number of wears increases by 16 for each higher bracket reported. Garments that are washed after each wear are used 94 times less than those that are washed less often than after every 30 wears.
  • High garment price: Garments that cost over 100 USD are estimated to be worn 31 times more than those that cost under 10 USD.
  • Clothing purchase priorities: Largest contributions can be seen from those that evaluate fabric quality as important, as the difference in the number of wears between those that evaluate it from completely unimportant to most important is up to 38 wears. Other priorities that contribute positively to a larger number of wears are price and garment fit, which both contribute 33 additional wears, followed by prioritising of design/style (19 wears). The opposite effect can be seen on those that report that brand is important, and they wear garments 33 wears less than those that respond that brand is completely unimportant to them. Other priorities that contribute negatively to the number of wears are importance of fashion (30) and fibre content (10).
  • Nationality: Compared to Chinese respondents, those from Germany and the UK use their garments 22 times more, US 8 more wears, and Japanese 6 more wears, after having controlled for other variables.
  • Occasion: Garments used at formal social occasions are used 24 fewer times than those worn at home. Garments used the most times are those for sleeping (16 times more than home wear), followed by home wear. Other occasions that contribute significantly to the model are garments used at religious occasions (−16), not in active use (−12), casual social occasions (−12), and workwear (−7). Clothing used for dirty household chores or clothing for sports do not contribute significantly.
  • Garment type: Socks and stockings are reported to be worn most times, and in comparison, all other included garment groups are worn fewer times; suits—34, blazers—29, skirts/dresses—20, jumpers/overcoats—20, scarves—16, trousers—14, thermal underwear—11, sportswear—7. The difference in the number of wears between socks and t-shirts/polos/singlets is no longer significant when other variables were included in the model.
  • User’s age: This is a significant contributor, indicating that and 50–64 years old use their clothing 14 times less than those below 29.
  • Sewing skills: Those that report knowing how to sew use their clothing 12 more times than those who do not know how. Surprisingly, the impact is opposite for those that say they have repaired or sewn clothing the past 12 months, as they have on average 12 wears less.
  • Disposal reasons: Garments that are assumed to be disposed of due to wear and tear are worn the most times. Garments to be disposed of due to changes in fashion are worn at least times (−17 wears). This is followed by lack of space (−15 wears), dislike (−12 wears), and those no longer needed (−6 wears).
Other variables also contribute significantly (Table 4). Women wear garments 10.8 times less than men. This difference was larger before the introduction of the other predictors to the model. Those that spend more money on clothing per month wear it fewer times.

4.3. Number of Users

We do not have complete data for the number of users for each garment, as we only asked how it was acquired and how it is planned to be disposed of. We do not know if garments have had more than one previous owner, and whether the items delivered to reuse will be actually reused, and by how many more users.
Most garments were purchased new (75%), followed by those received as presents (10%). There were 3.7% that were received from someone else who no longer wanted them, and another 3.7% were bought second-hand. Less than 2% were self-made/tailored. This indicates that 7.4% of garments were pre-owned.
The most common disposal choice was planning to donate to charity (34%), followed by disposal to the rubbish bin (30%), give to family/friends (11%), recycle at home (8.4%), and only 4.8% were planned to be sold. This indicates that half of the garments are planned to have subsequent users. Combining these results, 4.3% of garments are likely to have three users.

4.3.1. Preowned Garments

A binary logistic regression model was built for evaluating which variables contribute most to the model that predicts whether garments are preowned or not (Table 5). The overall model indicates a good fit (chi-square value 2266.01 with 77 degrees of freedom, p < 0.001, N = 18764), which was confirmed with the Hosmer and Lemeshow Test (p > 0.05). The model explains between 11.4% and 36.0% of the variations when estimated with pseudo R2 values (Cox and Snell and Nagelkerke values). The model identifies 95.5% correctly, which is a minor improvement from the zero block which identified 95.3%. However, the true positives identified by the model increased from 0 to 58%.
The single most significant predictor for garments having previous owners is the price. That is, garments that cost over 100 USD are 46 times less likely to be preowned than those that cost less than 10 USD. This is understandable, as most second-hand garments are cheaper than new ones, and about half of the preowned garments in the study were hand-me-downs from friends and family, which are often given for free.
After that, nationality is the second most important predictor. The Chinese have the lowest rates of preowned clothing, and the odds of a garment being pre-owned are 20 times higher for Americans than the Chinese, followed by 12 times for Brits, 6 times for Japanese, and 4 times for Germans.
The third most important predictor is the type of garment. Coats are most likely to be second-hand (15 times more likely than socks/stockings), followed by jackets, jumpers, skirts/dresses, pants/trousers, suits, sportswear, scarfs, t-shirts, and finally thermal underwear which is still 3.5 times more likely to be preowned than socks.
When it comes to fibre content, there is a significant difference between cotton and wool products, and cotton and synthetics. Woollen garments are the most likely to have been preowned (1.7 times more likely than cotton), while synthetics are 1.5 times less likely to be purchased second-hand than cotton garments.
User’s age is also a significant predictor. Those above 50 are about 3 times less likely to have second-hand clothing than those below 30.
The difference between the lowest and highest income groups is also significant. Those with the highest income are 1.4 times less likely to have preowned clothing than those in the lowest income group. Differences between the middle and lowest group are not significant.
As expected, garments that are washed less often are more likely to be preowned. This is likely to be related to the types of garments, as outerwear is reused more often than next-to-skin products.
Most of the use occasions do not contribute significantly when compared to home wear, but clothing for dirty household chores are about 2.7 times more likely preowned.
Furthermore, the reason garments are assumed to be disposed of contributes significantly to the model. Preowned clothes are 2.2 times more likely to be disposed of due to fashion changes, 1.6 times more likely due to poor fit, and 1.4 times more likely due to dislike of style/colour than due to wear and tear.
The likely disposal route contributes significantly to the model, and preowned clothes are 2.6 times more likely to be sold again, and 1.4 times more likely to be given to friends/family than to be put in the rubbish bin at home.
Users that change fashion by the season are more likely to have preowned clothing.
Having repaired or made clothing in the last 12 months increases the chances of having preowned clothing by 2.1. This seems logical, as having older clothes increases the chances of them having to be repaired.
Users’ priorities in clothing acquisition have a significant but minor impact on the model. Those that give high priority to fashionable clothing are 1.3 times less likely to have preowned garments, whereas those that prioritize sustainable production are 1.2 times more likely to have second-hand clothing.
Garment age in years, number of times worn and wearing frequency all contribute significantly to the model, but the impact is minor (odds ratio close to one).
Predictors that do not contribute significantly to the final model include gender, employment and marital status, monthly spending on clothing, sewing skills, and size of the wardrobe.

4.3.2. Planned Reuse

A binary logistic regression model was built for evaluating which predictors contribute to the likelihood of garments being delivered for reuse (Table 6). Overall model indicates a good fit (chi-square value 7440.89 with 73 degrees of freedom, p < 0.001, N = 18764). The model explains between 32.7% and 43.9% of variations when estimated with pseudo R2 values (Cox and Snell and Nagelkerke values). The model is 77% correct, which is a significant improvement from the zero block that identified 56.6% correctly.
The Hosmer and Lemeshow test showed a poor model fit (sig < 0.05), but as it has been discussed by several authors [41,42] that the test is less suitable for large data sets and may reject model incorrectly. Therefore, the logistic regression was repeated with five random subsets of the cases, and the Hosmer and Lemeshow Test showed a good model fit in all five cases (p > 0.05).
The most important predictor in the model for reuse is the type of garment. Socks/stockings are least likely to be delivered for reuse, while coats are most likely (10 times higher odds). These are followed by jumpers, jackets, skirts/dresses, scarfs, suits, trousers, t-shirts/polos, sportswear, and finally thermal underwear.
Clothing price is another of the most important predictors for reuse. Garments that have cost over 100 USD are almost four times more likely to be intended for reuse than garments that cost less than 10 USD.
Nationality is also a significant predictor for reuse. Clothes in Japan are least likely to be delivered for reuse (almost five times less likely than in China), while clothing in Germany, UK, and the US are about twice as likely to be sent for reuse than in China.
Concerning garments’ fibre content, the only significant difference can be seen between cotton and wool, as woollen garments are slightly more likely to be sent for reuse (1.2 times more).
Based on the assumed disposal reason for garments, their condition contributes significantly to whether they will be passed on to the next user. Garments disposed of due to wear and tear are the least likely to be sent for reuse (except for group the that had unknown disposal reasons). Garments disposed of due to changes in fashion trends are most likely to be sent for reuse, followed by garments disposed of due to lack of space, dislike of colour or style, or poor fit. The odds of reuse are about twice as high for disposal reasons other than wear and tear.
User’s age group is also a significant predictor. Clothing owned by those over 50 is 1.7 times less likely to be sent for reuse than clothing from those below 30.
Gender is also significant, but with only a minor contribution. In the final model after other variables were controlled for, men’s clothing is 1.2 times more likely to be sent for reuse than women’s clothing.
Those working full time are slightly less likely to send clothing for reuse than students, part-time workers, or other non-working people. The effect of income is minor, and the difference between the lowest and highest income groups is not significant.
Compared to home wear, clothing for dirty household chores or sleeping are less likely to be sent for reuse, while clothing for religious occasions is most likely to be reused, although this is a very small clothing group. This is followed by clothing for formal social occasions and workwear.
If a garment was preowned it increases the odds of it also being sent for reuse by 1.3.
Garment age in years and number of wears are also significant, but the contributions are minor, with slightly less likelihood for reuse for older and more worn garments.
The amount of money spent on clothing is a significant predictor. Those in the highest spending group are 1.3 times more likely to send clothing for reuse than those in the lowest spending group.
Sewing skills have only a minor contribution, but interestingly in two different directions. Knowing how to use a sewing machine contributes positively, while hand sewing skills contribute negatively, although both impacts are minor.
Most of the acquisition priorities did not contribute significantly to the model, except for prioritising designs/style or specific fibres, which contributed negatively to reuse intention, and designer brand, price, fabric quality, and country of manufacture, which contributed positively.
Variables that are not significant in the final model were marital status, wearing frequency, laundering frequency, wardrobe size, number of clothing purchases, how interested the user is in following fashion, and if the user has repaired clothing.

5. Conclusions

This article shows it is possible to study garment lifespans through a wardrobe survey and gain understanding into the relative importance of factors affecting lifespans. Clothing lifespans have been measured in three different ways, how long (years), how many times (wears) and by how many consumers (users) the garments were used. Independent contributing variables were divided into four blocks related to the garment, user, garment use and clothing practices. The four blocks differ in importance depending on the way clothing lifespan is measured (Table 7). Garment related properties are the most significant for predicting the number of users, while garment use was most indicative of the number of wears. For the number of years, all four aspects were important, but user demographics gave a slightly higher contribution to the model than the three other blocks.
We identified several factors affecting lifespans. The most important predictors are nationality, use occasions, laundering frequency, garment price, disposal reason, garment type, user’s age, fibre content, wearing frequency, and monthly spending on clothing. However, there are several other significant variables, and the importance of these varies between the models.
Some of the aspects that affect the lifespans of clothing are conditions that cannot be easily changed, such as the characteristics of the owner (e.g., age, nationality, and income). Knowledge of these conditions can nevertheless be useful because they indicate which changes give the largest impacts. Chinese respondents reported wearing clothing fewer times, kept it for shorter periods and were less likely to use second-hand garments than respondents from Germany, Japan, UK, or USA. This was partly explained by the sampling, where only large cities were included; thus, they were a younger population with a larger portion working full time (both attributes which significantly impact results). Additionally, previous research has indicated that Chinese consumers, in general, have a strong resistance towards second-hand clothing consumption [43]. Japanese respondents had the oldest garments but were least likely to donate for reuse, while Americans were most likely to purchase preowned clothing. This is likely to be related to the infrastructure available. Having clothing collection systems readily available makes it easier to donate clothing for reuse, and likewise having well-functioning markets for used clothing or established practices for private reuse (such as receiving hand-me-downs from friends or relatives), makes it easier to acquire used items. Ensuring a long lifetime through reuse has long been an important environmental strategy, and several circular business models are using this approach [44]. Our results are in line with past research and point out the importance of not overlooking the potential of reuse within family and friends.
Several aspects of the clothing itself affect their lifetime. Socks and stockings are worn the most times but have the shortest lifespans in years and are least likely to be preowned or donated for reuse. This is the opposite for outerwear like coats, which are among the oldest garments in the wardrobe and the most likely to be reused. The fibre content of the garments contributed to differences in lifespans. The oldest garments in the wardrobe were most often made of silk and wool, and a larger share of wool garments were preowned, and woollen garments were more likely to be sent for reuse.
Price is also important, and higher prices predict longer lifespan because of longer use, more wears and more users. Garment prices vary by garment category, but also within categories because of factors like the materials that are used, the brand, the quality and production costs, such as country of manufacture. Price is a simple way to compare products that has the potential to impact durability, but additionally the price can also play a role in how consumers value and take care of garments. Price is an important economic incentive that can be influenced by the industry through adjusting the costs of production and the profit levels, but also through politics, such as subsidies and taxes.
Disposal reasons indicated that the physical strength of garments is important and can also be increased through a commitment to quality in the industry and/or through measures that strengthen consumers right to complain. Another significant indicator for lifespans that the industry can work to improve was poor garment fit, where improvements in pattern grading and size labelling are key issues [32,45].
Garments with lower washing frequencies have many environmental benefits [46]. In addition to environmental savings from reduced laundering, they are worn longer and more times, while also being more likely to be preowned. Results suggest that frequent laundering causes wear and tear, giving additional motivation to increase efforts to reduce washing frequency and promote gentler cleaning methods.

5.1. Limitations

The survey targeted five key consumer markets: China, Germany, Japan, the UK, and the USA. The wardrobe and consumer habits identified by the data are representative of these markets only and are not representative of consumers worldwide.
Using quantitative survey methods has its limitations. Many responses could only be given in specific categories, such as the number of wears where the highest category was “over 200 wears” for past and future wears. To calculate the average number of wears, this category was coded to 250 times; thus, the maximum total value became 500 wears. This is likely to be too low for garments that are in active use for many years, but only about 2% of the garments were in this category.
Another limitation concerns the questions of future use, as it is likely difficult for the respondents to foresee how long they will keep the garments, or why they are going to dispose of them. Therefore, the uncertainty related to variables is likely higher than those concerning past use.
The survey was extraordinary long, and despite measures taken to avoid respondent wear out, it is possible that some respondents did not consider their answers as carefully at the end of the survey as at the beginning. Some careless responses were excluded during the quality control of the data.

5.2. Future Research Directions

Some of our results seem to be a bit contradictory, such as the relationship between repairing clothes and being able to sew. Increased knowledge about the importance of consumers’ habits, knowledge and skills for longevity is likely to explain these ambiguities and should be studied further.
The models explain between 11% and 43% of the variation in clothing lifespans. This shows that there are still other aspects that are important and were not assessed in the survey. These are likely to include aspects such as whether the user likes the garment and if it is flattering when worn. There is also likely to be a high degree of randomness related to the entirety of wardrobe (e.g., what other alternatives the user has for various occasions). Future research should aim to identify which other factors are important.

5.3. Implications

Several of the conditions that affect lifespans can be changed through policy instruments such as improved consumer rights and financial incentives, as well as work with consumer attitudes and education. This applies particularly to attitudes towards fashion which seem to be an especially important factor for the length of garments’ lifespans. Attitudes can be changed and created, and the industry itself is an important driver, through advertising and marketing. Increasing clothing durability and intrinsic value over time will therefore be an important aim for the industry to counteract unnecessary replacement of clothing.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.L. and I.G.K.; formal analysis, K.L.; investigation, K.L.; methodology, K.L.; writing—original draft, K.L. and I.G.K.; writing—review and editing, K.L. and I.G.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by Australian wool growers and the Australian government through Australian Wool Innovation Limited (AWI), contract number 4500012208, and the Research Council of Norway, project number 303080.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Nielsen AG for conducting the survey, and Stephen Wiedemann from Integrity Ag & Environment, Angus Ireland and Sam Ropert from AWI, Roy Kettlewell from Kettlewell Consulting, and Torvald Tangeland from SIFO, OsloMet, for commenting on the article draft.

Conflicts of Interest

The founding sponsor AWI financed and approved the publication but did not influence the representation or interpretation of the reported research results. The Norwegian Research Council had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Appendix A. Questionnaire

Only questions used in this paper are included.
WARDROBE AUDIT
SCREENING
Q1In which country do you live? [Single Answer]CodeRoute
China 1
Germany 2
Japan 3
UK 4
USA 5
None of these 6Terminate
Q2Which of the following age groups do you belong to? (Single Answer] CodeRoute
Under 18 years 1CLOSE
18–24 years 2
25–29 years 3
30–34 years 4
35–39 years 5
40–44 years 6
45–49 years 7
50–54 years 8
55–59 years 9
60–64 years 10
65 and over 11CLOSE
Prefer not to say 12CLOSE
Q3Are you…? [Single Answer] CodeRoute
Male 1
Female 2
Q7Are you involved or responsible for washing and dry cleaning your clothes? [Single Answer] CodeRoute
Yes, I am solely responsible1
Yes, I share this household chore with someone else at home 2
No, I am not involved/responsible 3CLOSE
Q8On average, approximately how much do you spend per month on clothing including workwear, sportswear, underwear and accessories e.g., ties, scarfs and gloves, but excluding shoes?
If you have in mind a yearly expenditure please calculate the monthly expenditure by dividing the yearly amount by 12. [Single Answer]
PROBE Please select the option which is closest if you are unsure
(Options given in local currencies)
Code
(154)
Route
INSTRUCTION
Please read this instruction carefully before you start. You will be asked about all the clothes items and accessories that you own and have in your wardrobe or cupboard. You can disregard clothes items and accessories that may be in your wardrobe/cupboard but do not belong to you. Please take this survey with you to where you keep your clothes so that you can complete the survey as you are answering the questions about your clothes items.
Please bear in mind to cover all clothes items and accessories you own and have, including items that may be elsewhere than in your wardrobe (i.e., laundry, drying rack, dry cleaner, storage, or stored at someone else’s home etc) at the time you are completing this survey.
Thank you. Your participation in this study is highly appreciated.
Q10aMALE RESPONDENTS
Which of the following clothes items and accessories do you have? We assume you have underwear and socks. Please select all the items that you have in the list below.
Please select all that apply. [Multiple Answer]
Deep dive categories are highlighted in green
Q10aQ10bNos.
Q10bFor each clothing item and accessory you have, can you please indicate how many of each do you have?
Suits—Jacket + Trouser01
Ties02
Shirts (Work/Formal)03
Shirts (Casual/Everyday)04
Pants/Trousers (Work/Formal)05
Jeans07
Other Casual Pants/Trousers06
Shorts 08
T-shirts/Polo shirts 09
Jumpers/Pullovers/Sweaters/Cardigans10
Jackets/Blazers (Work/Formal)11
Jackets/Blazers (Casual/Everyday)12
Overcoats/Coats/Raincoats (Work/Formal)13
Overcoats/Coats/Raincoats (Casual/Everyday)14
Robes/Cloaks15
Pyjama Sets16
Pyjama Tops17
Pyjama Pants/Shorts/Boxers18
Ski/Snowboard Pants19
Sports Tracksuits20
Sports Track Pants/Tights/Shorts21
Sports T-shirts/Tops22
Sports Singlets/Vests23
Sports Sweatshirts/Hoodies24
Scarfs/Shawls 25
Hats/Beanies/Berets/Caps26
Pairs of Socks 27
Pairs of Gloves/Mittens28
Thermal Tops and warm undershirts29
Thermal Leggings and warm long underpants30
Underwear Briefs/Trunks/Boxers 31
Underwear Vests/Singlets 32
Ethnic Clothing/Ethnic Wear (e.g., kurta, hakama, jeogori, paji, uwagi etc)33
Q27aFEMALE RESPONDENTS
Which of the following clothes items and accessories do you have? We assume you have underwear and socks. Please select all the items that you have in the list below. [Multiple Answer]
Q27aQ27bNos.
Deep dive categories are highlighted in GREEN
Q27bFor each clothes item and accessory you have, can you please indicate how many of each do you have?
Suits − Jacket + Trouser/Skirt01
Blouses/Shirts/Tops (Work/Formal)02
Blouses/Shirts/Tops (Casual/Everyday)03
Pants/Trousers (Work/Formal)04
Jeans10
Shorts 11
Other Casual Pants/Trousers05
Skirts (Work/Formal)06
Skirts (Casual/Everyday)07
Dresses (Work/Formal)08
Dresses (Casual/Everyday)09
T-shirts/Polo shirts12
Singlets/Tanks13
Jumpers/Pullovers/Sweaters/Cardigans14
Jackets/Blazers (Work/Formal)15
Jackets/Blazers (Casual/Everyday)16
Overcoats/Coats/Raincoats (Work/Formal)17
Overcoats/Coats/Raincoats (Casual/Everyday)18
Robes/Cloaks19
Pyjama Sets20
Pyjama Tops21
Pyjama Pants/Shorts22
Chemises/Baby dolls/Night dresses23
Ski/Snowboard Pants24
Sports Tracksuits25
Sports Track Pants/Tights/Shorts26
Sports T-shirts/Tops27
Sports Singlets/Tanks28
Sports Sweatshirts/Hoodies 29
Scarfs/Shawls/Pashmina’s/Stoles 30
Hats/Beanies/Berets/Caps31
Pairs of Socks/Stockings 32
Pairs of Gloves or mittens33
Thermal Tops and warm undershirts34
Thermal Leggings and warm long underpants35
Underwear Briefs 36
Underwear Bras37
Maternity Dresses38
Maternity Skirts39
Maternity Pants/Shorts40
Maternity Jumpers/Pullovers/Sweaters/Cardigans41
Maternity T-shirts/Polo shirts/Tops/Singlets42
Ethnic Clothing/Ethnic Wear (e.g., kimono, hanbok, chima jeogori, sari etc)43
You will now be asked about items of clothing you own in the different categories you indicated previously. If you own less than 10 items in the category you will be asked for each of the items you own. If you own more than 10 items in the category you will be asked to evaluate 10 items—please try to evaluate a wide variety of items that are made of different materials or may be used for different occasions.
Q11FOR EACH GARMENT IN Q10b/Q27b
What fabric is this clothes item or accessory? Please refer to the garment care label for your answer. [Single Answer]
Code
100% Cotton 1
Cotton Blends (i.e., cottons mixed with other synthetics or natural fibres) 2
100% Wool 3
Merino Wool 4
Wool Blends (i.e., Wool mixed with other synthetic or natural fibres) 5
Cashmere 6
Silk 7
Polyester/nylon/acrylic/polypropylene/polyamide 12
Viscose/rayon/modal/lyocell/acetate 13
Denim/Jeans fabric 09
Other 10
Don’t know 11
 
Q12
FOR EACH GARMENT IN Q10b/Q27b
When did you buy or acquire this clothes item or accessory? [Single Answer]
Code
In the last 6 months 1
7–11 months ago 2
1 year ago 3
2 years ago 4
3–4 years ago 5
5–10 years ago 6
11–15 years ago 7
16–20 years ago 8
21–25 years ago 9
26–30 years ago 10
More than 30 years ago 11
Don’t know/Cannot remember 12
 
Q13
FOR EACH GARMENT IN Q10b/Q27b. ONLY ASK FOR ITEMS 1–5
Which of the following best describes how this item was acquired? [Single Answer]
Code
Bought new 1
Bought second hand 2
It was given to me as a present 3
It was given to me as the other person no longer wanted it 4
I made it myself 5
Someone else made it for me 6
Other 7
Don’t know 8
Q14FOR EACH GARMENT IN Q10b/Q27b. ONLY ASK FOR ITEMS 1–5
ONLY ASK IF CODE 1 OR CODE 2 AT Q13
How much did you pay for this item? Please insert amount in local currency.
An approximate amount is OK
(Respondent to enter approximate amount) [Single Answer]
Code
Don’t know/Can’t remember 8
 
Q15
FOR EACH GARMENT IN Q10b/Q27b. ONLY ASK FOR ITEMS 1–5
On what occasion do you wear this clothes item or accessory most often? If it is used for multiple occasions, please give the most frequent occasion only.
[Single Answer]
Code
Work occasion 1
Formal social occasion 2
Everyday and around the home 3
Casual social occasion 4
Religious occasion 6
For Sleeping 9
When training/doing sports 10
For gardening/painting/other dirty household chores 11
Other occasion 7
The item is not in active use 12
Don’t know 8
Q16FOR EACH GARMENT IN Q10b/Q27b. Do not show question if code 8,12 at Q15. ONLY ASK FOR ITEMS 1–5
On what other occasions do you wear this clothes item or accessory? Please select all that apply. [Multiple Answer]
Code
Work occasion 1
Formal social occasion 2
Everyday and around the home 3
Casual social occasion 4
Religious occasion 6
For Sleeping 9
When training/doing sports 10
For gardening/painting/other dirty household chores 11
None 13
Q17FOR EACH GARMENT IN Q10b/Q27b. ONLY ASK FOR ITEMS 1–5
Which of the following best describes what time of year you wear this item? [Single Answer]
Code
I wear it mostly in summer 1
I wear it mostly in winter 2
I wear it all year round 3
The item is not in active use 4Q19
Q18FOR EACH GARMENT IN Q10b/Q27b. DO NOT ASK IF CODE 4 AT Q17.
ONLY ASK FOR ITEMS 1–5.
How often do you typically wear this item PIPE IN RESPONSE FROM Q17 in Summer/in Winter/all year round? [Single Answer]
Code
Several times a week 1
Once a week 2
Once every 2 weeks 3
Once every 3–4 weeks 4
Once every 3 months 5
Once every 6 months 6
Less often than once every 6 months 7
Don’t know 8
Q19FOR EACH GARMENT IN Q10b/Q27b.
How many times have you worn this item? [Single Answer]
Code
Never 1
1–2 times 2
3–4 times 3
5–9 times 4
10–19 times 5
20–49 times 6
50–99 times 7
100–199 times 8
More than 200 times 9
Don’t know 10
Q20FOR EACH GARMENT IN Q10b/Q27b. ONLY ASK FOR ITEMS 1–5
How often do you expect to wear this item in the future? [Single Answer]
Code
Several times a week 1
Once a week 2
Once every 2 weeks 3
Once every 3–4 weeks 4
Once every 3 months 5
Once every 6 months 6
Less often than once every 6 months 7
Don’t know 8
Q21FOR EACH GARMENT IN Q10b/Q27b
How many times do you expect to wear this item in the future?
An approximate amount is OK. [Single Answer]
Code
Never 1
1–2 times 2
3–4 times 3
5–9 times 4
10–19 times 5
20–49 times 6
50–99 times 7
100–199 times 8
More than 200 times 9
Don’t know 10
Q22FOR EACH GARMENT IN Q10b/Q27b
How often do you or someone else typically wash or dry clean this item? For seasonal items please report frequency of washing or dry cleaning item when in use. [Single Answer]
Code
After every wear 1
After every 2 wears 2
After every 3 wears 3
After every 4 wears 4
After every 5 wears 5
After every 6–10 wears 6
After every 11–19 wears 7
After every 20–29 wears 8
After every 30 wears or less often 9
Never 10
Don’t know 11
Q23FOR EACH GARMENT IN Q10b/Q27b (Do not ask if CODE 10 or CODE 11 at Q22)
Now regarding washing of this clothes item or accessory, do you…? [Single Answer]
Code
Hand wash it 1
Wash it in the washing machine 2
Send it for dry cleaning 3
Sometimes hand wash and sometimes machine wash 4
Sometimes hand wash and sometimes dry clean 5
Sometimes machine wash and sometimes dry clean 6
Don’t know 7
Q24FOR EACH GARMENT IN Q10b/Q27b. ONLY ASK FOR ITEMS 1–5
Which of the following would you expect to do in order to dispose of this clothes item or accessory when you no longer want it? [Single Answer]
Code
Donate to charity or clothes recycling collection 1
Donate/give to family/friends 2
Put in the Rubbish Bin at home 3
Recycle at home (e.g., use as cleaning cloth) 4
Sell (e.g., garage sale, eBay) 5
Other 6
Don’t know 7
Q25FOR EACH GARMENT IN Q10b/Q27b. ONLY ASK FOR ITEMS 1–5
Here are some reasons people have said for disposing of garments. Which of the following do you think is likely to be the main reason you would dispose of this particular item? [Single Answer]
Code
General wear and tear 1
The style is not in fashion any more 2
Doesn’t fit me properly 3
I don’t like the colour or style any more 4
Not enough space in my wardrobe for new items 5
I don’t need the garment any more 6
Other 7
Don’t know 8
ATTITUDES—ASK ALL
Q44ASK ALL. RANDOMISE
ONE ANSWER PER ROW—LIMIT COLUMN 1 TO ONE ANSWER
How important to you are each of the following aspects when you are buying Formal wear?
CodeRoute
Most important aspectOne of the key aspectsOne I look for but not very importantNot at all important
Designer brand1234
Price1234
Fabric quality1234
Fibre content1234
Country of manufacture1234
Colour 1234
In fashion1234
Design/Style1234
Sustainable/environmentally friendly production1234
Ethically produced1234
Fit1234
Q45ASK ALL. RANDOMISE.
ONE ANSWER PER ROW—LIMIT COLUMN 1 TO ONE ANSWER
How important to you are each of the following aspects when you are buying Smart Casual wear?
CodeRoute
Most important aspectOne of the key aspectsOne I look for but not very importantNot at all important
Designer brand1234
Price1234
Fabric quality1234
Fibre content1234
Country of manufacture1234
Colour 1234
In fashion1234
Design/Style1234
Sustainable/environmentally friendly production1234
Ethically produced1234
Fit1234
Q46Here is a list of statements people have made. Thinking about yourself, please select how much you agree or disagree with each statement.Code
Completely agreeSomewhat agreeNeither agree nor disagreeSomewhat disagreeCompletely disagree
I change fashion with the season12345
Q47In the last 12 months approximately how many new items of clothing have you bought, including pairs of socks and underwear? [Single Answer] Code
Less than 5 1
6–10 2
11–15 3
16–20 4
21–50 5
More than 50 7
Don’t know 6
Q53ASK ALL. RANDOMISE CODES 1–4.
Here are some statements people have made about their skills in making/repairing/altering clothes. Which of the following best applies to you? [Multiple Answer]
Code
I can use a sewing machine 1
I can sew by hand 2
I can knit 3
I can crochet 4
None of these 5
Don’t know 6
Q54ASK ALL. RANDOMISE.
Which of the following have you done in the last 12 months? [Multiple Answer]
Probe: Please tick all that apply
Code
Sewn a button 1
Fixed an unravelled seam 2
Patched clothing 3
Darned clothing 4
Fixed a trouser length 5
Adjusted the size of an item of clothing 6
Changed a zipper 7
Made something new out of old clothing 8
Knitted or crocheted 9
Sewn new clothing 10
None of these 11
Don’t know 12
ASK ALL. DEMOGRAPHICS SECTION
And finally, a few details about yourself to ensure that we are covering a cross section of the population.
Q72What is your current marital status? [Single Answer]CodeRoute
Single 1
Married/living with a partner 2
Divorced/Separated 3
Widowed 4
Prefer not to say 5
Q73How many people live in your household including yourself?
Q76What is your employment status? [Single Answer] CodeRoute
Part time 1
Full time 2
Casual 3
Seeking work 4
Not seeking work 5
Home duties 6
Student 7
Retired 8
Prefer not to say 9
Q77Can you please indicate which of the following categories best describes your total/gross household income per year before tax? [SA]
PROBE Please select all one.
(Options given in local currencies)
CodeRoute

Appendix B. Descriptive Statistics

Table A1. Answer distributions as percentage of each country per garment. Significance tested with Pearson chi-square and indicated for every variable. (N from 23498 to 53461. Weighted data).
Table A1. Answer distributions as percentage of each country per garment. Significance tested with Pearson chi-square and indicated for every variable. (N from 23498 to 53461. Weighted data).
ChinaGermanyJapanUKUSATotal
Garment type
p < 0.001
Pairs of socks, stockings17.8%18.6%16.9%20.8%19.8%18.8%
Suits—Jacket + Trouser/Skirt5.2%2.6%6.4%2.8%3.4%4.2%
Pants, trousers12.2%9.6%10.8%10.1%11.2%11.0%
Skirts, dresses10.7%7.8%9.9%11.3%8.4%9.3%
T-shirts, polo shirts, singlets, tanks12.4%20.0%17.1%17.4%21.1%18.2%
Jumpers, pullovers, sweaters, cardigans7.3%13.0%8.8%11.6%7.5%8.7%
Jackets, blazers7.1%8.4%7.1%5.4%6.6%6.9%
Overcoats, coats, raincoats8.6%3.9%6.1%7.0%6.7%6.6%
Thermal underwear5.9%2.6%6.4%3.0%5.1%5.0%
Sports T-shirts, tops, singlets, tanks8.4%7.3%5.8%5.7%6.8%6.9%
Scarfs, shawls, pashmina’s, stoles4.3%6.1%4.7%4.9%3.4%4.3%
Main fibre category
p < 0.001
Cotton and blends59.8%70.3%51.3%65.1%74.1%65.8%
Wool and blends22.1%13.8%22.0%17.8%12.6%16.8%
Synthetics12.2%12.7%25.3%14.2%11.4%14.5%
Regenerated cellulose5.9%3.2%1.4%2.9%1.9%2.9%
When did you buy or acquire this clothes item?
p < 0.001
In the last 6 months32.5%15.2%16.7%17.8%20.2%21.2%
7–11 months ago23.1%12.0%8.7%12.4%13.9%14.4%
1 year ago20.3%15.2%15.3%15.9%13.6%15.6%
2 years ago12.0%15.1%12.6%15.8%13.8%13.5%
3–4 years ago6.7%14.8%13.7%11.4%12.4%11.7%
5–10 years ago2.4%9.5%11.3%6.4%8.1%7.6%
11–15 years ago0.5%2.7%3.2%2.0%2.7%2.3%
16–20 years ago0.2%1.3%1.5%0.9%1.0%0.9%
21–25 years ago0.0%0.4%0.6%0.4%0.3%0.3%
26–30 years ago0.0%0.2%0.3%0.3%0.2%0.2%
More than 30 years ago0.0%0.2%0.2%0.3%0.6%0.3%
Don’t know/Cannot remember2.2%13.4%16.0%16.4%13.2%11.8%
Acquisition method
p < 0.001
Bought new80.9%74.5%79.3%70.7%67.5%73.8%
Bought second hand0.7%2.5%3.1%6.0%8.1%4.7%
It was given to me as a present11.1%9.8%8.3%11.8%9.5%9.8%
It was given to me as the other person no longer wanted it3.0%3.7%2.7%3.4%6.1%4.3%
I made it myself0.7%1.5%0.2%0.5%1.1%0.9%
Someone else made it for me1.3%1.5%0.4%0.6%0.7%0.9%
Other0.7%0.5%0.3%0.4%0.7%0.6%
Don’t know1.6%6.0%5.8%6.6%6.4%5.1%
Garment price group
p < 0.001
Cheap (<9.9 USD)17.3%18.5%24.0%24.4%21.7%20.8%
Medium–low (10–39 USD)34.5%42.8%31.7%48.3%43.9%39.1%
Medium–high (40–99 USD)30.0%24.7%23.1%17.5%22.1%24.5%
Expensive (>100 USD)18.3%14.0%21.2%9.8%12.2%15.7%
Which of the following best describes what time of year you wear this item?
p < 0.001
I wear it mostly in summer31.4%18.6%19.1%15.3%18.4%21.2%
I wear it mostly in winter38.0%24.0%34.0%26.0%24.0%29.2%
I wear it all year round24.3%50.2%39.7%50.9%49.2%42.1%
The item is not in active use6.2%7.2%7.2%7.8%8.4%7.5%
How often do you typically wear this item?
p < 0.001
Several times a week32.7%23.0%22.9%29.5%22.2%25.4%
Once a week32.7%22.4%24.7%23.0%23.8%25.8%
Once every 2 weeks19.6%19.1%18.7%16.4%18.6%18.8%
Once every 3–4 weeks10.6%14.8%13.0%11.5%15.5%13.5%
Once every 3 months1.3%6.8%5.1%5.5%7.5%5.4%
Once every 6 months0.3%2.4%2.2%2.3%3.2%2.2%
Less often than once every 6 months0.3%2.5%3.7%2.2%3.1%2.4%
Don’t know2.3%9.0%9.7%9.5%6.1%6.5%
How many times have you worn this item?
p < 0.001
Never2.0%1.9%3.3%1.7%2.2%2.3%
1–2 times4.5%5.1%4.0%6.5%7.1%5.7%
3–4 times11.8%9.5%7.1%9.7%9.4%9.5%
5–9 times19.5%12.5%12.5%12.0%14.5%14.7%
10–19 times26.4%16.6%18.8%16.0%18.9%19.8%
20–49 times18.0%16.9%16.0%14.6%16.7%16.7%
50–99 times7.9%10.8%8.7%8.8%7.5%8.3%
100–199 times2.8%4.8%3.6%3.6%2.7%3.2%
More than 200 times0.9%3.2%2.5%5.8%2.8%2.7%
Don’t know6.2%18.6%23.3%21.2%18.3%17.1%
How often do you expect to wear this item in the future?
p < 0.001
Several times a week22.5%17.4%18.2%22.6%16.4%18.7%
Once a week29.1%16.3%18.7%17.5%19.0%20.8%
Once every 2 weeks20.7%17.0%15.5%14.3%15.6%16.8%
Once every 3–4 weeks14.5%15.7%12.3%12.3%15.2%14.3%
Once every 3 months2.6%6.8%4.4%5.2%7.6%5.6%
Once every 6 months0.7%2.6%1.8%2.7%3.2%2.3%
Less often than once every 6 months1.9%2.7%3.7%3.5%4.5%3.5%
Don’t know8.0%21.5%25.2%22.0%18.5%18.0%
Number of wears before laundering
p < 0.001
After every wear37.6%31.9%50.0%43.0%47.9%43.7%
After every 2–3 wears32.0%36.3%13.3%28.4%28.7%27.6%
After every 4–5 wears19.8%16.3%14.3%13.5%13.3%15.3%
After every 6–10 wears6.3%6.3%9.8%7.0%4.6%6.3%
After every 11–19 wears2.2%3.7%3.7%2.3%2.1%2.6%
After every 20–29 wears1.3%2.1%2.6%1.8%1.4%1.7%
After every 30 wears or less often0.8%3.4%6.2%4.0%2.0%2.8%
Occasion
p < 0.001
Everyday and around the home25.3%44.5%38.2%36.2%33.3%34.0%
Work occasion32.5%12.8%19.2%14.4%18.6%20.8%
Formal social occasion13.6%12.0%9.2%14.1%10.6%11.5%
Casual social occasion13.5%12.7%19.1%18.5%18.9%16.9%
Sport/training occasion7.0%6.1%5.3%4.0%3.1%4.8%
Religious occasion0.3%0.6%0.7%1.0%2.1%1.2%
For Sleeping1.0%0.7%0.9%0.9%1.6%1.2%
For gardening/painting/other dirty household chores0.8%1.0%0.5%0.8%0.9%0.8%
The item is not in active use3.5%1.8%1.2%2.7%2.7%2.5%
Other occasion/Don’t know2.5%7.8%5.9%7.4%8.2%6.4%
Likely disposal reasons
p < 0.001
Wear and tear28.2%45.9%59.8%48.2%44.2%44.0%
Not in fashion any more20.6%9.5%5.5%9.2%9.0%11.1%
Poor fit11.5%17.3%6.7%14.1%15.6%13.1%
Dislike the colour or style19.6%10.1%4.1%6.4%6.9%9.6%
Lack of space6.0%2.6%2.4%3.2%5.2%4.4%
Don’t need it any more11.3%5.0%12.9%7.6%8.3%9.4%
Other/unknown2.8%9.5%8.6%11.3%10.8%8.5%
Disposal route
p < 0.001
Put in the Rubbish Bin at home26.1%21.5%55.9%22.0%17.2%27.3%
Donate to charity or clothes recycling collection38.9%42.1%8.0%44.2%44.4%36.1%
Donate/give to family/friends15.9%9.6%5.0%10.7%15.0%12.3%
Recycle at home (e.g., use as cleaning cloth)11.5%8.1%6.9%6.6%7.5%8.3%
Sell (e.g., garage sale, eBay)2.1%6.8%9.5%2.5%1.8%4.0%
Other/Don’t know5.5%11.8%14.6%14.0%14.2%12.0%
Table A2. Answer distributions as percentage of each country per respondent. Significance tested with Pearson chi-square and indicated for every variable. (N = 1111. Weighted data).
Table A2. Answer distributions as percentage of each country per respondent. Significance tested with Pearson chi-square and indicated for every variable. (N = 1111. Weighted data).
ChinaGermanyJapanUKUSATotal
Number of new clothing Purchases in last 12 months
p < 0.001
Less than 55.7%9.3%16.7%16.1%14.5%12.5%
6–1019.5%23.5%23.4%22.5%24.3%22.9%
11–1523.8%19.0%21.9%18.1%17.8%19.9%
16–2028.9%18.5%14.4%13.6%18.7%19.7%
21–5017.7%14.3%13.5%12.5%16.5%15.7%
More than 502.5%7.8%4.3%4.4%4.9%4.6%
Don’t know1.8%7.5%5.9%12.8%3.3%4.7%
Monthly spending in clothing by country trisects
p = 0.231
Low39.5%36.0%34.0%29.6%23.6%30.6%
Medium36.0%41.7%36.6%38.5%41.5%39.3%
High24.5%22.3%29.4%31.8%34.8%30.1%
Wardrobe size group
p < 0.001
Small wardrobe (Under 79)48.1%23.0%28.8%38.1%31.6%34.3%
Average wardrobe (80–129)37.3%30.1%30.4%35.0%35.8%34.5%
Large wardrobe (Over 130)14.6%46.9%40.8%26.8%32.6%31.2%
I change fashion with the season.
p < 0.001
Completely disagree0.9%5.6%5.3%18.9%9.9%7.6%
Somewhat disagree6.2%12.6%5.5%15.3%15.0%11.4%
Neither agree nor disagree23.9%32.4%15.5%27.5%23.7%23.8%
Somewhat agree46.7%33.6%46.4%26.5%30.1%36.3%
Completely agree22.3%15.8%27.3%12.0%21.2%21.0%
Can use sewing machine
p < 0.001
No80.5%70.7%58.0%82.3%64.8%69.3%
Yes19.5%29.3%42.0%17.7%35.2%30.8%
Can sew by hand
p < 0.001
No65.1%49.8%44.5%50.0%45.4%50.3%
Yes34.9%50.2%55.5%50.0%54.6%49.7%
Has repaired or sewn clothing last 12 months
p < 0.001
No15.3%27.1%25.6%36.6%31.4%27.0%
Yes84.7%72.9%74.4%63.4%68.6%73.0%
Important decision factors when buying clothing: Designer brand
p < 0.001
0 = Not at all important8.6%30.8%20.6%35.1%28.7%23.9%
17.0%10.4%10.6%10.3%7.6%8.5%
232.3%25.4%22.4%18.1%24.9%25.5%
317.6%18.2%17.1%13.7%17.0%17.0%
431.5%13.1%28.1%20.6%17.8%22.0%
52.6%2.1%0.6%1.3%2.7%2.1%
6 = Most important aspect0.5% 0.5%0.9%1.4%0.9%
Important: Price
p < 0.001
0 = Not at all important2.5%2.7%0.4%1.8%0.9%1.4%
11.9% 1.4%1.0%2.5%1.8%
218.8%11.8%7.3%5.2%8.6%10.6%
319.8%17.1%5.3%9.7%12.7%13.3%
450.0%38.0%54.9%48.6%43.9%46.7%
53.7%12.5%10.1%13.7%9.3%9.0%
6 = Most important aspect3.2%17.8%20.6%19.9%22.1%17.2%
Important: Fabric quality
p < 0.001
0 = Not at all important 1.4%3.4%4.1%3.5%2.5%
10.2%1.0%1.7%0.7%1.9%1.3%
23.2%10.0%11.0%9.0%7.1%7.4%
34.5%18.0%14.3%9.9%19.3%14.4%
452.2%55.0%57.6%62.8%52.3%54.4%
523.8%9.3%7.6%8.5%12.4%13.3%
6 = Most important aspect16.0%5.3%4.4%5.0%3.6%6.6%
Important: Fibre content
p < 0.001
0 = Not at all important1.0%8.6%14.9%10.7%7.0%7.5%
11.6%8.3%7.3%8.2%5.1%5.3%
216.9%30.0%24.1%24.0%20.2%21.6%
320.3%17.8%16.2%16.5%24.4%20.7%
457.6%34.3%36.4%38.8%39.9%42.3%
51.6%1.0%0.4%1.8%1.6%1.4%
6 = Most important aspect1.1% 0.6% 1.8%1.1%
Important: Country of manufacture
p = 0.003
0 = Not at all important17.5%15.1%22.2%32.7%21.6%21.1%
111.2%9.9%9.1%9.5%8.4%9.4%
234.9%37.2%24.7%27.0%26.7%29.4%
315.4%14.7%14.9%11.8%19.6%16.7%
419.2%19.1%28.2%18.8%21.8%21.7%
51.9%3.1%0.5% 1.3%1.4%
6 = Most important aspect 0.9%0.4%0.2%0.5%0.4%
Important: Design/Style
p < 0.001
0 = Not at all important 4.8%1.6%3.4%4.1%2.9%
10.4%3.1%1.5%1.9%1.0%1.3%
26.6%13.3%1.9%5.7%7.4%6.9%
39.3%23.4%8.2%13.4%23.1%16.9%
457.8%44.1%42.3%58.5%54.5%52.4%
516.3%8.8%19.6%12.0%6.7%11.5%
6 = Most important aspect9.6%2.6%24.8%5.1%3.1%8.1%
Important: Sustainable/environmentally friendly production
p < 0.001
0 = Not at all important3.3%9.9%22.6%17.2%19.6%15.3%
12.5%5.0%8.1%6.0%5.7%5.4%
231.6%31.9%27.5%27.5%22.8%26.9%
315.5%19.0%12.8%12.4%20.6%17.4%
443.7%29.7%27.2%33.6%29.2%32.4%
52.9%2.8%0.5%2.0%1.5%1.8%
6 = Most important aspect0.4%1.8%1.1%1.3%0.5%0.8%
Important: Ethically produced
p < 0.001
0 = Not at all important4.4%13.9%17.7%18.0%25.6%17.8%
17.0%6.7%8.0%5.5%6.3%6.7%
231.4%37.2%26.7%32.8%26.9%29.6%
321.1%16.7%12.4%16.0%16.1%16.6%
433.8%24.6%33.3%26.5%22.2%27.1%
52.0% 1.3%1.2%0.9%1.1%
6 = Most important aspect0.4%0.9%0.5% 2.1%1.1%
Important: Fit
p < 0.001
0 = Not at all important 1.5%1.0%1.1%0.9%0.8%
10.3%1.2%0.5%0.1% 0.3%
24.0%7.0%2.8%6.0%4.5%4.6%
38.2%9.8%8.7%5.6%11.2%9.5%
444.5%35.9%61.2%41.4%43.1%45.3%
524.2%21.1%14.4%17.3%15.5%18.0%
6 = Most important aspect18.8%23.5%11.4%28.3%24.8%21.5%
Important: Colour
p = 0.015
0 = Not at all important 1.9%1.2%3.1%0.6%0.9%
10.4%1.8%1.3%1.2%1.7%1.3%
28.6%11.4%5.1%11.2%12.0%10.0%
317.7%17.2%10.7%11.7%17.2%15.8%
471.4%61.2%75.1%68.4%65.4%68.0%
51.1%3.5%4.3%3.8%1.9%2.5%
6 = Most important aspect0.8%3.0%2.3%0.5%1.3%1.5%
Important: In fashion
p < 0.001
0 = Not at all important1.4%7.5%22.2%16.3%12.7%11.6%
14.0%6.6%8.0%12.2%9.0%7.8%
213.1%20.0%24.9%17.5%21.5%19.8%
321.9%19.0%13.8%13.2%22.4%19.7%
456.1%44.4%29.2%36.2%30.0%37.6%
53.2%2.6%1.9%3.4%2.6%2.7%
6 = Most important aspect0.3% 1.1%1.7%0.9%

References

  1. Quantis. Measuring Fashion. Environmental Impact of the Global Apparel and Footwear Industries Study; Quantis: Lausanne, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  2. Lehmann, M.; Arici, G.; Boger, S.; Martinez-Pardo, C.; Krueger, F.; Schneider, M.; Carrière-Pradal, B.; Schou, D. Pulse of the Fashion Industry-2019 Update; Global Fashion Agenda: Copenhagen, Denmark; Boston, MA, USA; San Francisco, CA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  3. Niinimäki, K.; Peters, G.; Dahlbo, H.; Perry, P.; Rissanen, T.; Gwilt, A. The environmental price of fast fashion. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2020, 1, 189–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  4. Laitala, K.; Klepp, I.G.; Henry, B. Does Use Matter? Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Clothing Based on Fiber Type. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  5. Strand, J. Environmental Impact of the Swedish Textile Consumption-a General LCA Study; Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences: Uppsala, Sweden, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  6. Allwood, J.M.; Laursen, S.E.; Malvido de Rodríquez, C.; Bocken, N.M.P. Well dressed? The Present and Future Sustainability of Clothing and Textiles in the United Kingdom; University of Cambridge, Institute for Manufacturing: Cambridge, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  7. Wiedemann, S.G.; Biggs, L.; Nebel, B.; Bauch, K.; Laitala, K.; Klepp, I.G.; Swan, P.G.; Watson, K. Environmental impacts associated with the production, use, and end-of-life of a woollen garment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2020, 25, 1486–1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. European Parliament and the Council. Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste and Repealing Certain Directives. Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0098 (accessed on 1 August 2020).
  9. Watson, K.J.; Wiedemann, S.G. Review of Methodological Choices in LCA-Based Textile and Apparel Rating Tools: Key Issues and Recommendations Relating to Assessment of Fabrics Made From Natural Fibre Types. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  10. Klepp, I.G.; Laitala, K.; Wiedemann, S. Clothing lifetimes: What should be measured and how. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. The Nielsen Company. Global Wardrobe Audit-All Countries; Prepared for Australian Wool Innovation by The Nielsen Company: Sydney, Australia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  12. Klepp, I.G.; Laitala, K. Klesforbruk i Norge; SIFO: Oslo, Norway, 2016; p. 120. [Google Scholar]
  13. Langley, E.; Durkacz, S.; Tanase, S. Clothing Longevity and Measuring Active Use; Wrap: Banbury, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  14. Cooper, T.; Claxton, S.; Hill, H.; Holbrook, K.; Hughes, M.; Knox, A.; Oxborrow, L. Clothing Longevity Protocol; Project Code: REC100-008; Nottingham Trent University Banbury: Banbury, UK, 2014; p. 11. [Google Scholar]
  15. Uitdenbogerd, D.E. Energy and Households-The Acceptance of Energy Reduction Options in Relation to the Performance and Organisation of Household Activities. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 16 May 2007. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gwozdz, W.; Steensen Nielsen, K.; Müller, T. An Environmental Perspective on Clothing Consumption: Consumer Segments and Their Behavioral Patterns. Sustainability 2017, 9, 762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  17. Aalto, K. Kuluttajien Halukkuus ja Toimintatavat Tekstiilien Kierrätyksessä; Kuluttajatutkimuskeskus: Helsinki, Finland, 2014; p. 46. [Google Scholar]
  18. Laitala, K. Clothing Consumption—An Interdisciplinary Approach to Design for Environmental Improvement. Ph.D. Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway, 12 September 2014. [Google Scholar]
  19. Uitdenbogerd, D.E.; Brouwer, N.M.; Groot-Marcus, J.P. Domestic Energy Saving Potentials for Food and Textiles: An Empirical Study; Wageningen Agricultural University, Household and Consumer Studies: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  20. Laitala, K.; Klepp, I.G.; Henry, B. Use phase of wool apparel: A literature review for improving LCA. In Proceedings of the Product Lifetimes and The Environment-PLATE 2017, Delft, The Netherlands, 9 November 2017; pp. 202–207. [Google Scholar]
  21. Degenstein, L.M.; McQueen, R.H.; McNeill, L.S.; Hamlin, R.P.; Wakes, S.J.; Dunn, L.A. Impact of physical condition on disposal and end-of-life extension of clothing. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2020, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. McNeill, L.S.; Hamlin, R.P.; McQueen, R.; Degenstein, L.; Wakes, S.; Garrett, T.C.; Dunn, L. Waste not want not: Behavioural intentions toward garment life extension practices, the role of damage, brand and cost on textile disposal. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 260, 121026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Laitala, K.; Boks, C. Sustainable clothing design: Use matters. J. Des. Res. 2012, 10, 121–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Collett, M.; Cluver, B.; Chen, H.-L. Consumer Perceptions the Limited Lifespan of Fast Fashion Apparel. Res. J. Text. Appar. 2013, 17, 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ungerth, L.; Carlsson, A. Vad Händer Sen Med Våra kläder? Enkätundersökning; Konsumentföreningen: Stockholm, Sweden, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  26. Klepp, I.G. Hvorfor Går Klær ut av Bruk? Avhending Sett i Forhold til Kvinners klesvaner [Why are Clothes No Longer Used? Clothes Disposal in Relationship to Women’s Clothing Habits]; SIFO: Oslo, Norway, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  27. Appadurai, A. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  28. Haugen, B.S.H. The Concept of National Dress in the Nordic Countries. In Berg Encyclopedia of World Dress and Fashion; Eicher, J.B., Skov, L., Eds.; Berg: Oxford, UK, 2010; Volume 8. [Google Scholar]
  29. Klepp, I.G.; Storm-Mathisen, A. Reading fashion as age: Teenage girls and grown womens Accounts of Clothing as Body and Social Status. Fash. Theory: J. DressBody Cult. 2005, 9, 323–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kidwell, C.B.; Steele, V. Men and Women: Dressing the Part; Smithsonian Insititution Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  31. Cooper, T.; Hill, H.; Kininmonth, J.; Townsend, K.; Hughes, M.; Shorrocks, J.; Knox, A.; Fisher, T.; Saicheua, V. Design for Longevity-Guidance on Increasing the Active Life of Clothing; Wrap: Banbury, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  32. Glitsch, V.S. Fit Step in Ready-to-Wear Clothing. TOWARDS a Reduction of Garment Disposal in View of Sustainability. Ph.D. Thesis, University of South-Eastern Norway, Rauland, Norway, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  33. Bjerck, M. Apparel at Work: Work Uniforms and Women in Male-Dominated Manual Occupations; Copenhagen Business School: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  34. Craik, J. Uniforms Exposed. From Conformity to Transgression; Berg: Oxford, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  35. Liu, S.; Feng, J.; Song, Z.; Zhang, T.; Lu, H.; Xu, C.; Yan, S. Hi, magic closet, tell me what to wear! In Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, Nara, Japan, 29 October 2012; pp. 619–628. [Google Scholar]
  36. Yu, L.-F.; Yeung, S.K.; Terzopoulos, D.; Chan, T.F. DressUp!: Outfit synthesis through automatic optimization. ACM Trans. Graph. 2012, 31, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Neto, A.; Ferreira, J. From Wearing off to Wearing on: The Meanders of Wearer–Clothing Relationships. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Herweyers, L.; Catarci Carteny, C.; Scheelen, L.; Watts, R.; Du Bois, E. Consumers’ Perceptions and Attitudes toward Products Preventing Microfiber Pollution in Aquatic Environments as a Result of the Domestic Washing of Synthetic Clothes. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  39. Laitala, K.; Boks, C.; Klepp, I.G. Potential for environmental improvements in laundering. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2011, 35, 254–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Laitala, K.; Klepp, I.G.; Henry, B. Use Phase of Apparel: A Literature Review for Life Cycle Assessment with Focus on Wool; SIFO: Oslo, Norway, 2017; p. 162. [Google Scholar]
  41. Kramer, A.A.; Zimmerman, J.E. Assessing the calibration of mortality benchmarks in critical care: The Hosmer-Lemeshow test revisited. Crit. Care Med. 2007, 35, 2052–2056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Paul, P.; Pennell, M.L.; Lemeshow, S. Standardizing the power of the Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness of fit test in large data sets. Stat. Med. 2013, 32, 67–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Liang, J.; Xu, Y. Second-hand clothing consumption: A generational cohort analysis of the Chinese market. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2018, 42, 120–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  44. Ertz, M.; Leblanc-Proulx, S.; Sarigöllü, E.; Morin, V. Made to break? A taxonomy of business models on product lifetime extension. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 234, 867–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Laitala, K.; Klepp, I.G.; Hauge, B. Materialised Ideals: Sizes and Beauty. Cult. Unbound J. Curr. Cult. Res. 2011, 3, 19–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  46. Laitala, K.; Klepp, I.G.; Kettlewell, R.; Wiedemann, S. Laundry care regimes: Do the practices of keeping clothes clean have different environmental impacts based on the fibre content? Sustainability 2020, 12, 7537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Summary of garment lifespans from various studies, given in years. Average and range values are given, except for suits which had only one source. Lifespan here is not the total age of preowned clothes, but only the time they were kept by the individual owners surveyed. Prepared based on [20].
Figure 1. Summary of garment lifespans from various studies, given in years. Average and range values are given, except for suits which had only one source. Lifespan here is not the total age of preowned clothes, but only the time they were kept by the individual owners surveyed. Prepared based on [20].
Sustainability 12 09151 g001
Figure 2. Taxonomy of factors that contribute to clothing lifespans.
Figure 2. Taxonomy of factors that contribute to clothing lifespans.
Sustainability 12 09151 g002
Table 1. Respondents’ background variables/demographics.
Table 1. Respondents’ background variables/demographics.
ChinaGermanyJapanUKUSATotal
Number of respondentsN2302242242132201111
Number of garmentsN10,59511,70512,0229384975553,461
Gender distributionMen (%)48.3%49.6%50.0%46.5%47.7%48.4%
Women (%)51.7%50.4%50.0%53.5%52.3%51.6%
Age group18–29 years (%)43.5%20.1%20.1%21.6%19.5%25.1%
30–49 years (%)48.7%44.2%48.2%51.6%36.4%45.8%
50–64 years (%)7.8%35.7%31.7%26.8%44.1%29.1%
Marital statusSingle (%)22.6%33.0%44.6%26.8%27.3%30.9%
Married or living with a partner (%)76.5%54.9%48.7%64.8%58.6%60.8%
Divorced, separated, or widowed (%)0.4%11.2%6.3%8.0%14.1%7.9%
Average household sizeNumber of people3.52.33.02.82.72.8
Employment statusFull time (%)88.3%53.6%50.4%47.9%44.1%57.2%
Part time/casual (%)1.3%20.5%23.2%24.4%15.0%16.7%
Seeking work (%)0.0%4.5%2.2%4.2%5.9%3.3%
Home duties/not seeking work (%)1.7%4.0%13.8%14.6%17.3%10.2%
Student (%)6.5%7.1%7.6%3.3%3.2%5.6%
Retired (%)2.2%10.3%2.2%4.7%14.1%6.7%
Table 2. Garments in focus.
Table 2. Garments in focus.
AccessoriesFormal WearCasual WearCasual Next-to-SkinUnderwearSportswear
  • Scarfs, shawls, pashminas and stoles
  • suits (2pc)
  • pants and trousers
  • skirts (F)
  • dresses (F)
  • jackets and blazers
  • overcoats and raincoats
  • jumpers, sweaters and cardigans
  • pants and trousers
  • skirts (F)
  • dresses (F)
  • jackets and blazers
  • overcoats and raincoats
  • t-shirts and polo shirts
  • singlets and tanks (F)
  • socks and stockings (F)
  • thermal tops undershirts
  • thermal leggings and underpants
  • sports t-shirts and tops
  • sports singlets and tanks
(F)—this category only includes female respondents.
Table 3. Summary of four blocks that build the first Model DEP1 total garment age measured in years—* p < 0.050; ** p < 0.010; *** p < 0.001, ns = not significant, p ≥ 0.05.
Table 3. Summary of four blocks that build the first Model DEP1 total garment age measured in years—* p < 0.050; ** p < 0.010; *** p < 0.001, ns = not significant, p ≥ 0.05.
Model 1: GarmentModel 2: UserModel 3: UseModel 4: Practices
BSE BBetaBSE BBetaBSE BBetaBSE BBeta
(Constant) Garment age in years2.1810.140***−0.1020.239(ns)0.7830.269**3.0780.465***
Garment type
Suits vs. socks/stockings3.5250.3200.087 ***3.3720.3100.083 ***1.8500.3070.046 ***1.60.2990.038 ***
Trousers, pants vs. socks/stockings2.4010.2230.092 ***2.1850.2160.084 ***1.2000.2160.046 ***1.00.2110.037 ***
Skirts, dresses vs. socks/stockings2.7110.2270.100 ***2.8630.2280.106 ***1.5640.2290.058 ***1.30.2230.049 ***
T-shirts, polos, singlets vs. socks/stockings2.2390.1850.105 ***1.9240.1800.090 ***1.1680.1790.055 ***1.10.1730.050 ***
Jumpers, pullovers vs. socks/stockings2.8030.2300.102 ***2.3730.2240.086 ***0.9630.2270.035 ***0.70.2210.025 **
Blazers vs. socks/stockings3.1210.2600.097 ***2.8870.2520.089 ***0.8310.2590.026 **0.70.2520.022 **
Overcoats vs. socks/stockings3.2220.2710.097 ***3.3010.2630.100 ***0.9350.2750.028 **0.70.2690.021 **
Scarfs, pashminas vs. socks/stockings3.6450.2810.097 ***3.3520.2730.089 ***0.7080.2890.019 *0.70.2820.019 *
Thermal underwear vs. socks/stockings1.0570.2830.027 ***1.2380.2740.032 ***0.0960.2680.002 (ns)0.30.2620.007 (ns)
Sportswear vs. socks/stockings1.2930.2520.039 ***1.5560.2430.047 ***0.2680.2590.008 (ns)0.40.2530.011 (ns)
Main fibre category
Wool and wool blends vs. cotton and cotton blends1.5690.1600.072 ***1.8140.1560.083 ***1.2020.1530.055 ***1.2340.1490.056 ***
Silk vs. cotton and cotton blends1.7500.4860.024 ***2.6010.4700.035 ***2.1700.4560.030 ***2.1890.4430.030 ***
Synthetics vs. cotton and cotton blends1.2820.1600.055 ***0.9830.1560.042 ***0.6180.1520.026 ***0.4580.1480.020 **
Regenerated cellulose vs. cotton and cotton blends0.7150.3210.015 *1.4160.3120.029 ***0.8580.3020.018 **0.8110.2930.017 **
Unknown/other fibre vs. cotton and cotton blends2.6920.1980.091 ***1.8960.1940.064 ***0.3800.2300.013 (ns)0.1330.2250.005 (ns)
Garment price
10–39 USD vs. <10 USD0.0700.1630.004 (ns)0.3720.1590.022 *0.1950.1600.012 (ns)0.4090.1560.025 **
40–99 USD vs. <10 USD−0.0260.187−0.001 (ns)0.6850.1850.036 ***0.3610.1910.019 (ns)0.8710.1880.046 ***
Over 100 USD vs. <10 USD1.6610.2190.075 ***2.1430.2210.097 ***1.5950.2300.072 ***2.0390.2290.093 ***
Gender (0 = male, 1 = female) −0.1460.117−0.009 (ns)−0.1810.114−0.011 (ns)−0.3610.118−0.022 **
Age group
30–49 years vs. ≤29 years 0.7470.1310.046 ***0.6450.1280.040 ***0.1030.1270.006 (ns)
50–64 years vs. ≤29 years 2.5760.1500.143 ***2.3790.1480.132 ***1.2380.1510.069 ***
Nationality
Germany vs. China 3.0240.1710.154 ***2.8940.1720.147 ***2.2330.1840.114 ***
Japan vs. China 3.3890.1720.174 ***3.0980.1810.159 ***2.6770.1970.138 ***
UK vs. China 2.4430.1790.114 ***2.4940.1810.117 ***1.8020.1910.084 ***
USA vs. China 3.4190.1810.163 ***3.2490.1830.155 ***2.4460.1960.116 ***
Employed (0 = No, 1 = Yes) −0.9760.122−0.059 ***−0.7960.120−0.048 ***−0.2990.120−0.018 *
Married (0 = No, 1 = Yes) 0.1140.1140.007 (ns)0.2710.1100.016 *0.6280.1090.037 ***
Income
Middle vs. low −1.4550.138−0.087 ***−1.3020.134−0.078 ***−0.9380.133−0.056 ***
High vs. low −0.9690.148−0.058 ***−0.8560.144−0.051 ***−0.3180.145−0.019 *
Wearing frequency
Number of wears per year
−0.0220.001−0.115 ***−0.0180.001−0.094 ***
Number of wears before laundering 0.8400.0430.153 ***0.7920.0420.144 ***
Main use occasion
Work vs. home −0.1150.149−0.006 (ns)0.00.145−0.001 (ns)
Formal social occasion vs. home 0.1850.1750.007 (ns)0.50.1710.019 **
Casual social occasion vs. home 0.0400.1500.002 (ns)0.10.1460.005(ns)
Sport/training vs. home 1.3160.2670.035 ***1.30.2590.035 ***
Religious occasion vs. home 4.4400.5400.051 ***4.20.5250.048 ***
Sleeping vs. home 3.5610.4960.044 ***3.70.4820.045 ***
Dirty household chores vs. home 5.6680.5820.059 ***5.60.5650.059 ***
Not in active use vs. home 5.7030.3430.106 ***5.40.3330.100 ***
Other or unknown occasion vs. home 1.6770.2800.050 ***1.60.2740.047 ***
Preowned (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0.7230.1990.023 ***0.6330.1950.020 **
Likely disposal reason
Fashion vs. wear and tear −0.4970.179−0.019 **0.240.1770.009 (ns)
Poor fit vs. wear and tear 0.5360.1650.022 **0.660.1610.027 ***
Dislike of colour/style vs. wear and tear 0.1500.1860.006 (ns)0.520.1820.019 **
Lack of space vs. wear and tear 0.5130.2740.012 (ns)0.780.2670.018 **
Don’t need it anymore vs. wear and tear 1.8170.1830.065 ***2.050.1780.073 ***
Unknown vs. wear and tear −0.7400.258−0.025 **−0.560.253−0.019 *
Planned disposal route
Donate to charity vs. bin −0.5380.144−0.031 ***−0.4880.141−0.029 **
Give/donate to family/friends vs. bin −0.9810.194−0.038 ***−0.7900.189−0.030 ***
Recycle at home vs. bin 0.4120.1970.014 *0.2870.1920.010 (ns)
Sell vs. bin −0.0010.2530.000 (ns)0.0080.2470.000 (ns)
Other/don’t know vs. bin 0.7520.2220.030 **0.5400.2170.021 *
Monthly spending on clothing
Middle vs. low −0.5020.130−0.030 ***
High vs. low −1.2340.157−0.071 ***
Number of new clothing items last 12 months −0.0440.003−0.094 ***
Wardrobe size
as number of garments
0.0090.0010.103 ***
Fashion interest
(0 = completely disagree, 4 = completely agree)
−0.6510.049−0.092 ***
Repaired or sewn clothing last 12 months (0 = no, 1 = yes) 0.1710.1290.009 (ns)
Can use a sewing machine
(0 = no, 1 = yes)
0.2550.1160.015 *
Can sew by hand
(0 = no, 1 = yes)
0.0540.1130.003 (ns)
Clothing purchase priorities from 0 to 6. Important:
Designer brand −0.1990.041−0.037 ***
Price 0.2620.0410.042 ***
Fabric quality −0.0640.050−0.009 (ns)
Fibre content 0.0740.0460.012 (ns)
Country of manufacture 0.2610.0430.047 ***
Important: Design/Style −0.0390.048−0.006 (ns)
Sustainable production −0.0570.049−0.010 (ns)
Ethically produced −0.3360.049−0.059 ***
Fit 0.0740.0450.011 (ns)
Colour −0.0770.062−0.008 (ns)
In fashion −0.3270.044−0.057 ***
R2 0.051 0.117 0.176 0.225
Adjusted R2 0.050 0.116 0.174 0.222
Delta R2 0.051 0.066 0.059 0.049
Delta F 67.456 *** 153.199 *** 70.221 *** 74.440 ***
Table 4. Summary of four blocks that build the Model DEP2- Total number of wears by current user. * p < 0.050; ** p < 0.010; *** p < 0.001, ns = not significant, p ≥ 0.05.
Table 4. Summary of four blocks that build the Model DEP2- Total number of wears by current user. * p < 0.050; ** p < 0.010; *** p < 0.001, ns = not significant, p ≥ 0.05.
Model 1: GarmentModel 2: UserModel 3: UseModel 4: Practices
BSE BBetaBSE BBetaBSE BBetaBSE BBeta
(Constant) Number of wears95.71.902***91.63.310***57.23.540***23.36.149***
Garment type
Suits vs. socks/stockings−38.54.362−0.075 ***−39.54.302−0.077 ***−35.84.034−0.070 ***−34.13.953−0.066 ***
Trousers, pants vs. socks/stockings−5.73.037−0.017 (ns)−6.62.988−0.020 *−15.62.843−0.047 ***−14.02.787−0.042 ***
Skirts, dresses vs. socks/stockings−45.23.086−0.132 ***−38.03.153−0.111 ***−19.13.012−0.056 ***−19.82.950−0.058 ***
T-shirts, polos, singlets vs. socks/stockings−10.22.525−0.038 ***−10.92.489−0.040 ***−3.92.349−0.015 (ns)−3.62.293−0.013 (ns)
Jumpers, pullovers vs. socks/stockings−14.33.129−0.041 ***−18.33.098−0.052 ***−17.82.980−0.051 ***−19.72.915−0.056 ***
Blazers vs. socks/stockings−22.13.540−0.054 ***−24.23.491−0.059 ***−31.53.400−0.077 ***−29.43.333−0.072 ***
Overcoats vs. socks/stockings−2.63.684−0.006 (ns)−0.63.651−0.001 (ns)−20.23.623−0.048 ***−20.23.554−0.048 ***
Scarfs, pashminas vs. socks/stockings2.43.8270.005 (ns)2.33.7780.005 (ns)−17.03.802−0.036 ***−16.23.726−0.034 ***
Thermal underwear vs. socks/stockings−23.43.851−0.047 ***−18.53.795−0.038 ***−14.93.530−0.030 ***−10.53.464−0.021 **
Sportswear vs. socks/stockings−16.33.432−0.039 ***−14.13.373−0.034 ***−12.13.407−0.029 ***−6.63.341−0.016 *
Main fibre category
Wool and wool blends vs. cotton and cotton blends−16.52.180−0.060 ***−15.52.155−0.056 ***−10.72.011−0.039 ***−7.81.967−0.028 ***
Silk vs. cotton and cotton blends−20.26.622−0.022 **−11.16.520−0.012 (ns)3.16.0000.003 (ns)4.75.8540.005 (ns)
Synthetics vs. cotton and cotton blends9.72.1790.033 ***8.42.1670.028 ***9.42.0020.032 ***6.31.9610.021 **
Regenerated cellulose vs. cotton and cotton blends−7.54.376−0.012 (ns)0.14.3210.000 (ns)4.73.9720.008 (ns)2.43.8780.004 (ns)
Unknown/other fibre vs. cotton and cotton blends7.92.6940.021 **0.62.6860.002 (ns)5.13.0310.014 (ns)7.42.9780.020 *
Garment price
10–39 USD vs. <10 USD−5.72.222−0.027 *−4.62.202−0.022 *7.82.1060.037 ***9.12.0600.043 ***
40–99 USD vs. <10 USD−4.12.542−0.017 (ns)1.52.5680.006 (ns)15.12.5150.063 ***19.32.4860.080 ***
Over 100 USD vs. <10 USD13.52.9850.048 ***18.43.0570.066 ***26.73.0280.096 ***30.73.0300.110 ***
Gender (0 = male, 1 = female) −15.51.616−0.074 ***−6.21.503−0.030 ***−10.81.556−0.052 ***
Age group
30–49 years vs. ≤29 years 1.21.8160.006 (ns)−0.51.679−0.002 (ns)−4.21.676−0.021 *
50–64 years vs. ≤29 years 3.22.0780.014 (ns)−3.31.947−0.015 (ns)−13.81.995−0.060 ***
Nationality
Germany vs. China 37.02.3660.149 ***24.52.2680.099 ***21.72.4290.087 ***
Japan vs. China 27.42.3810.111 ***11.52.3810.047 ***5.72.6010.023 *
UK vs. China 43.42.4820.160 ***29.22.3770.108 ***21.72.5250.080 ***
USA vs. China 15.82.5140.059 ***13.32.4050.050 ***8.32.5880.031 **
Employed (0 = No, 1 = Yes) −5.11.697−0.025 **−4.31.575−0.021 **2.01.5910.010 (ns)
Married (0 = No, 1 = Yes) −3.91.577−0.018 *−3.51.453−0.016 *−2.21.439−0.010 (ns)
Income
Middle vs. low −12.41.913−0.059 ***−7.91.765−0.037 ***−6.01.758−0.028 ***
High vs. low −15.62.047−0.073 ***−9.91.889−0.047 ***−7.31.923−0.034 ***
Wearing frequency
Number of wears per year
0.70.0170.281 ***0.70.0170.294 ***
Number of wears before laundering 16.50.5600.237 ***15.60.5500.224 ***
Main use occasion
Work vs. home −10.31.955−0.040 ***−7.41.913−0.028 ***
Formal social occasion vs. home −30.12.300−0.095 ***−24.52.254−0.077 ***
Casual social occasion vs. home −13.21.972−0.048 ***−11.71.927−0.043 ***
Sport/training vs. home 2.33.5090.005 (ns)0.93.4260.002 (ns)
Religious occasion vs. home −19.57.104−0.018 **−15.56.943−0.014 *
Sleeping vs. home 11.56.5260.011 (ns)15.96.3710.015 *
Dirty household chores vs. home 1.97.6530.002 (ns)4.67.4710.004 (ns)
Not in active use vs. home −8.64.506−0.013 (ns)−11.94.400−0.017 **
Other/unknown occasion vs. home −16.73.680−0.039 ***−6.93.626−0.016 (ns)
Preowned (0 = no, 1 = yes) −11.82.617−0.030 ***−7.42.576−0.019 **
Likely disposal reason
Fashion vs. wear and tear −28.62.360−0.087 ***−17.22.342−0.053 ***
Poor fit vs. wear and tear −8.82.168−0.028 ***−2.52.134−0.008 (ns)
Dislike of colour/style vs. wear and tear −18.72.450−0.055 ***−12.32.404−0.036 ***
Lack of space vs. wear and tear −21.63.605−0.039 ***−15.03.533−0.027 ***
Don’t need it anymore vs. wear and tear −8.92.402−0.025 ***−5.82.352−0.016 *
Unknown vs. wear and tear −5.23.393−0.014 (ns)3.63.3430.010 (ns)
Planned disposal route
Donate to charity vs. rubbish bin −5.81.895−0.027 **−7.41.859−0.034 ***
Give/donate to family/friends vs. rubbish bin −12.32.546−0.037 ***−9.32.496−0.028 ***
Recycle at home vs. rubbish bin 10.42.5930.028 ***8.72.5390.023 ***
Sell vs. rubbish bin 9.63.3300.020 **5.23.2660.011 (ns)
Other/don’t know vs. rubbish bin 15.62.9230.049 ***15.62.8660.048 ***
Monthly spending on clothing
Middle vs. low −7.51.717−0.036 ***
High vs. low −6.92.081−0.031 ***
Number of new clothing items last 12 months 0.00.0420.005 (ns)
Wardrobe size
as number of garments
−0.010.008−0.012 (ns)
Fashion interest 0 = completely disagree, 4 = completely agree) −2.00.649−0.022 **
Repaired or sewn clothing last 12 months (0 = no, 1 = yes) −12.31.707−0.051 ***
Can use a sewing machine
(0 = no, 1 = yes)
12.11.5290.055 ***
Can sew by hand
(0 = no, 1 = yes)
11.81.4970.057 ***
Clothing purchase priorities from 0 to 6. Important:
Designer brand −5.60.536−0.083 ***
Price 5.50.5420.070 ***
Fabric quality 6.30.6560.069 ***
Fibre content −2.20.605−0.028 ***
Country of manufacture −0.40.567−0.006 (ns)
Design/Style 3.10.6330.036 ***
Sustainable production −1.00.647−0.013 (ns)
Ethically produced −0.60.650−0.009 (ns)
Fit 5.40.5900.062 ***
Colour −1.00.826−0.009 (ns)
In fashion −4.90.576−0.068 ***
R2 0.027 0.062 0.212 0.251
Adjusted R2 0.026 0.061 0.210 0.248
Delta R2 0.027 0.035 0.150 0.039
Delta F 30.472*** 68.904*** 165.211*** 55.007***
Table 5. Summary of Model Dep3a: Logistic regression analysis for variables predicting whether the garment has had a previous owner (new garment = 0, preowned = 1).
Table 5. Summary of Model Dep3a: Logistic regression analysis for variables predicting whether the garment has had a previous owner (new garment = 0, preowned = 1).
βS.E. βWald’s χdfpeβOdds Ratio
Garment type:
Pairs of socks, stockings
168.760100.000
Suits—Jacket + Trousers/Skirt1.6630.27536.66310.0005.274
Pants, trousers1.8990.21280.06210.0006.679
Skirts, dresses2.1960.216103.48810.0008.989
T-shirts, polo shirts, singlets, tanks1.2640.19243.36010.0003.540
Jumpers, pullovers, sweaters, cardigans2.2690.216110.34310.0009.666
Jackets, blazers2.4380.235107.16810.00011.445
Overcoats, coats, raincoats2.6910.249117.13910.00014.747
Thermal underwear1.2650.24726.16210.0003.543
Sports T-shirts, tops, singlets, tanks1.7010.23253.59010.0005.478
Scarfs, shawls, pashmina’s, stoles1.3920.27026.61110.0004.023
Fibre content
Cotton and blends
42.01750.000
Wool and blends0.5140.10922.36310.0001.672
Silk−0.2230.4870.21010.6460.800
Synthetic−0.3840.1328.43510.0040.681
Regenerated cellulose0.4140.2402.98610.0841.513
Other/Unknown0.3020.3420.77710.3781.352
Garment price
Cheap (<9.9 USD)
555.84730.000
Medium–low (10–39 USD)−2.0790.109360.84110.0000.125
Medium–high (40–99 USD)−3.2050.155427.52410.0000.041
Expensive (>100 USD)−3.7910.204346.69610.0000.023
Gender (0 = male, 1 = female)−0.1890.1073.11210.0780.828
Age group
18–29 years
86.73820.000
30–49 years−0.7030.09752.85210.0000.495
50–64 years−1.0790.12871.48610.0000.340
Country
China
330.62640.000
Germany1.4600.19257.70210.0004.306
Japan1.8590.20979.23910.0006.420
UK2.5150.184186.21510.00012.364
USA2.9880.182269.94610.00019.836
Employed (0 = no, 1 = yes)0.0610.1030.35210.5531.063
Married (0 = no, 1 = yes)0.0930.0930.99910.3181.098
Income group
Low
5.98020.050
Medium−0.1000.1150.76310.3820.905
High−0.3140.1365.30210.0210.730
Wearing frequency
Number of wears per year
−0.0080.00134.40910.0000.992
Number of wears before laundering
0 = After every wear
51.29360.000
1 = 2–3 wears0.7180.11241.34210.0002.050
2 = 4–5 wears0.7250.13230.35810.0002.065
3 = 6–10 wears0.5530.1868.81510.0031.739
4 = 11–19 wears0.6280.2645.64910.0171.875
5 = 20–29 wears0.9710.3129.69610.0022.641
6 = Every 30 wears or less often0.9820.26214.10210.0002.670
Wear occasion:
Every day and around the home
21.80590.010
Work occasion−0.0440.1240.12910.7200.957
Formal social occasion0.1300.1281.03310.3101.139
Casual social occasion−0.0010.1180.00010.9900.999
Sport/training occasion−0.1310.2330.31810.5730.877
Religious occasion0.7310.3045.77610.0162.077
Sleeping0.2340.3870.36510.5461.264
Dirty household chores0.9960.3587.75710.0052.707
Not in active use0.7270.4202.99210.0842.069
Other/Unknown occasion−0.6360.3842.73710.0980.530
Likely disposal reason:
Wear and tear
54.36560.000
Not in fashion any more0.7670.12338.85310.0002.153
Poor fit0.4820.11916.27810.0001.619
Dislike the colour or style0.3480.1515.34210.0211.416
Lack of space−0.4480.2732.69610.1010.639
Don’t need it any more0.1680.1601.10710.2931.183
Other/unknown−0.3920.3781.07910.2990.675
Disposal route
Rubbish bin
54.75950.000
Donate to charity−0.0670.1220.29810.5850.935
Give/donate to family/friends0.3410.1376.21710.0131.406
Recycle at home0.2140.1681.62110.2031.239
Sell0.9410.16831.31410.0002.564
Other/Don’t know−0.6110.3113.85410.0500.543
Lifespan in years0.0160.0074.74810.0291.016
Total number of wears−0.0030.00123.86810.0000.997
Monthly spending on clothing:
Low
2.13620.344
Medium0.1670.1261.76510.1841.182
High0.2090.1521.90710.1671.233
Number of new clothing items purchased last 12 months−0.0030.0031.18710.2760.997
Wardrobe size0.0010.0013.59110.0581.001
Fashion follower (0 = completely disagree, 4 = completely agree)0.1340.04210.21210.0011.144
Has repaired or sewn clothing last 12 months (0 = no, 1 = yes)0.7520.13630.80510.0002.122
Can use sewing machine (0 = no, 1 = yes)−0.0310.0890.12310.7260.969
Can sew by hand (0 = no, 1 = yes)0.0050.0930.00310.9551.005
Priorities when buying clothing:
Designer brand
0.1030.0349.35710.0021.108
Price−0.1310.03613.01210.0000.877
Fabric quality−0.1860.04219.42010.0000.830
Fibre content0.1090.0398.01110.0051.116
Country of manufacture−0.1000.0377.24710.0070.905
Design/Style0.0230.0430.30110.5831.024
Sustainable production0.1890.04121.30910.0001.208
Ethically produced−0.0540.0401.83810.1750.948
Fit−0.0940.0386.28510.0120.910
Colour−0.0570.0481.42110.2330.945
In fashion−0.2480.03550.11410.0000.781
Constant (Preowned)−4.0250.43486.08010.0000.018
Table 6. Summary of Model 3b: Logistic regression analysis for variables predicting whether a garment is planned to be sent for reuse (0 = to rubbish bin or unknown destination, 1 = to sold or donated to reuse).
Table 6. Summary of Model 3b: Logistic regression analysis for variables predicting whether a garment is planned to be sent for reuse (0 = to rubbish bin or unknown destination, 1 = to sold or donated to reuse).
βS.E. βWald’s χdfpeβ Odds Ratio
Garment type:
Pairs of socks, stockings
655.253100.000
Suits—Jacket + trouser/skirt2.0340.116305.25710.0007.647
Pants, trousers1.9330.091452.16810.0006.909
Skirts, dresses2.0840.102414.52010.0008.035
T-shirts, polo shirts, singlets, tanks1.4850.082327.36010.0004.417
Jumpers, pullovers, sweaters, cardigans2.2290.104462.80410.0009.290
Jackets, blazers2.1400.111372.55810.0008.499
Overcoats, coats, raincoats2.3000.119370.82110.0009.969
Thermal underwear1.1650.103126.79210.0003.205
Sports T-shirts, tops, singlets, tanks1.3680.101184.26510.0003.928
Scarfs, shawls, pashmina’s, stoles2.0410.125264.73010.0007.702
Fibre content
Cotton and blends
9.88350.079
Wool and blends0.1400.0576.06010.0141.151
Silk0.0460.1710.07310.7871.047
Synthetic−0.0150.0540.08010.7770.985
Regenerated cellulose−0.0100.1000.00910.9240.990
Other/Unknown−0.2830.1782.51710.1130.753
Garment price
Cheap (<9.9 USD)
228.83030.000
Medium–low (10–39 USD)0.6190.06396.33310.0001.857
Medium–high (40–99 USD)0.9910.076167.75210.0002.693
Expensive (>100 USD)1.3780.095212.33210.0003.966
Gender (0 = male, 1 = female)−0.2080.04620.45010.0000.812
Age group
18–29 years
79.14620.000
30–49 years−0.3050.04742.03810.0000.737
50–64 years−0.5150.05975.48410.0000.597
Country
China
1474.81240.000
Germany0.7920.069133.22210.0002.209
Japan−1.5910.075452.05710.0000.204
UK0.7290.07398.54910.0002.074
USA0.8360.073129.59710.0002.307
Employed (0 = No, 1 = Yes)−0.1620.05010.45910.0010.851
Married (0 = No, 1 = Yes)0.0280.0440.39710.5291.028
Income group
Low
12.29220.002
Medium0.1270.0545.51710.0191.135
High−0.0160.0580.07310.7860.984
Wearing frequency
Number of wears per year
−0.0010.0012.53210.1120.999
Number of wears before laundering
0 = After every wear
18.20960.006
1 = 2–3 wears0.1730.04812.88910.0001.189
2 = 4–5 wears0.0540.0590.83110.3621.056
3 = 6–10 wears0.2150.0817.12610.0081.240
4 = 11–19 wears0.2280.1183.75910.0531.257
5 = 20–29 wears0.1480.1401.11810.2901.160
6 = Every 30 wears or less often0.0660.1190.30610.5801.068
Wear occasion:
Every day and around the home
111.03390.000
Work occasion0.3010.05332.79810.0001.351
Formal social occasion0.3490.06429.39010.0001.418
Casual social occasion0.0370.0550.44610.5041.038
Sport/training occasion−0.1110.0891.56110.2120.895
Religious occasion0.7970.2828.00210.0052.220
Sleeping−0.8450.19219.44510.0000.430
Dirty household chores−0.8910.21317.54010.0000.410
Not in active use0.0290.2170.01810.8931.030
Other/unknown occasion−0.0230.1690.01810.8920.977
Likely disposal reason:
Wear and tear
471.18660.000
Not in fashion any more0.9880.064240.04710.0002.686
Poor fit0.7160.062135.21210.0002.046
Dislike the colour or style0.7290.065125.42410.0002.072
Lack of space0.8400.09971.83110.0002.316
Don’t need it any more0.5910.06973.91010.0001.805
Other/unknown−0.9340.12852.87610.0000.393
Preowned (0 = no, 1 = yes)0.2840.0958.93510.0031.328
Lifespan in years−0.0110.00410.44710.0010.989
Total number of wears−0.0020.00050.69010.0000.998
Monthly spending on clothing:
Low
17.42720.000
Medium0.1180.0534.99310.0251.125
High0.2580.06316.95910.0001.294
Number of new clothing items purchased last 12 months0.0000.0010.12310.7261.000
Wardrobe Size0.0000.0000.81310.3671.000
Fashion follower (0 = completely disagree, 4 = completely agree)−0.0100.0200.23410.6290.990
Has repaired or sewn clothing last 12 months (0 = no, 1 = yes)−0.0850.0532.63010.1050.918
Can use sewing machine (0 = no, 1 = yes)0.1800.04516.06210.0001.197
Can sew by hand (0 = no, 1 = yes)−0.0890.0434.39510.0360.915
Priorities when buying clothing:
Designer brand
0.0640.01616.42010.0001.066
Price0.0400.0185.20810.0221.041
Fabric quality0.0790.02114.15910.0001.082
Fibre content−0.1060.01835.03110.0000.899
Country of manufacture0.0460.0177.57110.0061.047
Design/Style−0.1590.02158.27110.0000.853
Sustainable production0.0110.0190.36210.5471.012
Ethically produced0.0030.0190.03410.8541.003
Fit0.0250.0191.86710.1721.026
Colour0.0270.0261.11410.2911.028
In fashion−0.0170.0180.98610.3210.983
Constant (planned reuse)−2.1570.21897.87210.0000.116
Table 7. Summary that indicates how important the different blocks of predictors are in contributing to the four models as Δr2.
Table 7. Summary that indicates how important the different blocks of predictors are in contributing to the four models as Δr2.
ModelModel 1:
Years
Model 2:
Wears
Model 3a:
Preowned Garments
Model 3b:
Planned Reuse
R2R2Cox and Snell R2Nagelkerke R2Cox and Snell R2Nagelkerke R2
Model fit as r2 or pseudo r222.2%24.8%10.9%34.6%32.1%43.0%
1 Garment5.1%2.7%5.2%16.6%17.2%23.0%
2 User6.6%3.5%3.1%9.7%11.6%15.6%
3 Garment use5.9%15.0%2.1%6.6%3.2%4.4%
4 Clothing practices4.9%3.9%1.0%3.1%0.7%0.9%
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Laitala, K.; Klepp, I.G. What Affects Garment Lifespans? International Clothing Practices Based on a Wardrobe Survey in China, Germany, Japan, the UK, and the USA. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9151. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219151

AMA Style

Laitala K, Klepp IG. What Affects Garment Lifespans? International Clothing Practices Based on a Wardrobe Survey in China, Germany, Japan, the UK, and the USA. Sustainability. 2020; 12(21):9151. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219151

Chicago/Turabian Style

Laitala, Kirsi, and Ingun Grimstad Klepp. 2020. "What Affects Garment Lifespans? International Clothing Practices Based on a Wardrobe Survey in China, Germany, Japan, the UK, and the USA" Sustainability 12, no. 21: 9151. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12219151

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop