Next Article in Journal
Towards Sustainable Agriculture: Understanding Farmers’ Perspective on the Use of Bio-Based Fertilisers
Previous Article in Journal
Energy Efficiency and Circular Economy in Glass Wool Fiberizing: Impact of Lightweight Refractory Design
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 18
Issue 1
10.3390/su18010145
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Connecting Local Culture: The Impact of Traditional Cultural Symbols and Craftsmanship on Chinese Consumers’ Purchase Intention Toward Sustainable Fashion Products

by
Siyuan Lai
,
Zeyu Wu
,
Yujie Gao
and
Jiu Zhou
*
School of Art and Design, Zhejiang Sci-Tech University, Hangzhou 311100, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2026, 18(1), 145; https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010145
Submission received: 5 November 2025 / Revised: 18 December 2025 / Accepted: 19 December 2025 / Published: 22 December 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

China’s fashion industry faces various sustainable challenges. Although the ecological and economic benefits of products are gradually increasing, a gap persists between consumers’ attitudes and behavior. In this study, traditional cultural symbols and craftsmanship are incorporated into the SOR model to explore Chinese consumers’ purchase intention. 358 valid samples were collected through a questionnaire survey. The results show that traditional cultural symbols have a significantly positive effect on perceived environmental benefits, emotional attitude, and purchase intention. Perceived environmental benefits and emotional attitude partially mediate the relationship between traditional cultural symbols and purchase intention. Traditional craftsmanship does not significantly influence emotional attitude and purchase intention. Perceived environmental benefits fully mediate the relationship between traditional craftsmanship and purchase intention. Chinese consumers tend to accept explicit traditional cultural symbols. This study extends the theoretical research on consumers’ behavior on sustainable fashion. Research on the traditional cultural elements enriches the theoretical basis for sustainable fashion development. The research findings also offered direct guidance for enterprises to improve marketing strategies and product design in the Chinese market.

1. Introduction

As a major source of global environmental pollution, clothing ranks second only to petrochemicals [1]. Clothing production consumes large amounts of water resources [2], while overproduction further exacerbates marine, air, and soil pollution [3]. The sustainable challenges are more severe for the Chinese fashion industry [4]. According to official data, China has become the top producer and consumer of clothing in the world [5]. In 2024, clothing production exceeded 70 billion pieces, with domestic sales reaching 4.5 trillion yuan, accounting for approximately 40% of global sales [5]. Despite the huge potential of the domestic market, lots of clothes are soon discarded once their brief popularity fades [6]. In response, the government has developed policies to promote the green transformation of industries, providing financial incentives for enterprises to adopt environmentally friendly production processes [7]. Meanwhile, more and more scholars have turned their attention to this field. Although consumers recognize the environmental value of the products, a gap remains between their positive attitudes and purchase behaviors [8].
Previous research has indicated that consumers’ purchase intention of sustainable fashion products is affected by perceived value and product attributes [8], while the connection with local culture can further strengthen perceived value [9]. Compared to other countries, Chinese consumers exhibit notably higher scores on the dimension of “long-term orientation” [10]. In a culture that emphasizes traditional values and intergenerational continuity [11], supporting sustainable products to foster cultural development has become a key driver of Chinese consumers’ purchase behavior. In addition, clothing is a direct expression of consumers’ cultural and aesthetic preferences [12]. Therefore, design strategies based on traditional cultural elements may improve consumers’ evaluation of sustainable fashion products. However, there remains a lack of systematic empirical research on which traditional cultural elements can effectively influence Chinese consumers’ purchase intentions and their mechanisms of action.
Hall described culture as an iceberg that contains visible aspects (e.g., artifacts and graphics), as well as invisible aspects (e.g., values, spirit, and techniques) [13]. This study posits that consumers can also perceive two aspects of traditional culture in sustainable fashion products: traditional cultural symbols and traditional craftsmanship. This integration provides a comprehensive understanding of how traditional culture-based design strategies influence Chinese consumers’ purchase behaviour. Traditional cultural symbols are perceivable visual forms on clothing, constructed through established conventions and traditional customs [14], such as styling, motifs, and colour [15]. Traditional craftsmanship refers to techniques and skills that have been preserved through generations [16]. Consumers usually perceive through touch or marketing content [17]. Several design practice cases demonstrate that integrating traditional cultural symbols into modern fashion can effectively promote cultural sustainability and achieve brand differentiation [18,19,20,21,22,23]. Scholars have also examined the role of traditional craftsmanship in slow fashion and sustainable production [24,25,26]. Yet few studies have empirically examined how traditional cultural symbols and craftsmanship impact consumers’ purchase intention to purchase sustainable fashion products. In the field of product design, tangible or visible symbols are usually easier to recognize and apply [27]. However, with the transformation of “national identity” in Chinese fashion design, cultural expression has gradually shifted from the figurative “symbolic stage” to the “spiritual stage” centred on Eastern philosophy [28]. At the relational and mechanism levels, whether explicit expression is more effective than implicit expression requires further discussion. Therefore, this study, based on SOR theory, develops a research framework, incorporating traditional cultural symbols and traditional craftsmanship as external stimuli. The objectives of this research are:
How do traditional cultural symbols and traditional craftsmanship affect Chinese consumers’ purchase intention?
How do perceived environmental benefits and emotional attitudes affect Chinese consumers’ purchase intention?
What is the difference between traditional cultural symbols and traditional craftsmanship?
The structure of this paper is as follows. The next section reviews the related literature, develops hypotheses, and constructs the research model. The methodology part outlines the research design, including the questionnaire, data collection process, and sample characteristics. Subsequently, the findings are presented and interpreted, followed by a discussion of their theoretical and practical implications. The paper then concludes by highlighting the study’s limitations and proposing directions for future research. Research findings provide new perspectives for sustainable fashion design. The present study extends the empirical research on sustainable consumption by adding traditional cultural elements into this area. This study takes into account the Chinese market, which could help companies and designers to understand the Chinese consumers’ aesthetic preferences and behavioral characteristics.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Stimulus-Organism-Response Model

Russell and Mehrabian presented the Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) model, which is an expansion of the Stimulus-Response (SR) theory [29]. Researchers often use the SOR model in their studies of consumer behavior [30]. SOR theory holds that environmental stimuli affect people’s psychological feelings and further cause certain behaviors [29]. Regarding applicability, numerous scholars have applied the SOR model to sustainability research [31]. Grădinaru et al. combined the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) theory and the SOR model to explore the effect of the three pillars of sustainability on brand attractiveness and brand attachment in sustainable cosmetics [32]. Lavuri et al. integrated Dual-Factor Theory and SOR theory, suggesting that green advertising and green brand image are essential in developing consumers’ trust and attitude [33].
In terms of matching, product attributes often serve as external stimuli in SOR theory, such as price [34], quality [35], and design style [36]. Numerous scholars have also examined culturally relevant product attributes, aligning with traditional cultural symbols and craftsmanship [31]. Zhang investigated the roles of heritage image and cultural returns in the digital dissemination of intangible cultural heritage based on the SOR model and Social Exchange Theory (SET) [37]. Liu and Zhao explored the effects of explicit and implicit metaphors of traditional culture on purchase intention for cultural and creative products [38]. Additionally, the SOR model features a simple structure and possesses excellent testability [31]. Therefore, the present study treats “traditional cultural symbols” and “traditional craftsmanship” as external stimuli (S) to examine their impact on consumers’ environmental perceived benefits and emotional attitude (O), and further reveals the mechanism through which traditional cultural elements influence purchase intention (R) for sustainable fashion products.

2.2. Research Hypothesis

2.2.1. The Impact of Traditional Cultural Symbols

Perceived environmental benefits refer to consumers’ subjective evaluations of a product’s contributions to environmental improvement, such as reducing resource waste, lowering environmental burdens, and other sustainable contributions [39]. Some studies have revealed a potential connection between traditional cultural symbols and perceived environmental benefits. Bahauddin et al. suggest that indigenous materials and motifs can strengthen residents’ perception of environmental concepts, thereby enhancing their sense of emotional belonging [40]. Le noted that sustainable fashion products with traditional Vietnamese culture enhance the cultural identity [41]. Traditional cultural symbols cannot directly improve the environmental benefits, but they can narrow the psychological gap between the products and Chinese consumers, thus enhancing perceived environmental benefits.
Emotional attitude represents the consumers’ subjective feelings towards the products during the interaction process [42] that may correlate with other factors [43]. Many scholars have proved that the traditional cultural symbols have positive effects on consumers’ emotional attitude. Zong et al. found that consumers’ recognition of traditional cultural symbols significantly influences their emotional value assessments of cultural and creative products [44]. Group symbols are often seen as carriers of cultural identity and belonging, and consumers will favor products with specific cultural symbols [45]. Therefore, traditional cultural symbols in sustainable fashion products may trigger Chinese consumers’ national pride and generate positive emotions.
Purchase intention describes the subjective probability that a consumer will buy the product [46]. Recent research indicates that cultural symbols found on packaging directly affect consumers’ purchase intentions [47]. Bakar et al. found that religious symbols enhance purchase intention from Muslim consumers [48]. Hapsari et al. found that traditional symbols have a positive effect on food consumption. Their study was based on symbolic interactionism [49]. Therefore, this study assumes that consumers are attracted to products that embody a unique traditional cultural experience, which in turn strengthens their purchase intentions. Thus, we propose the following hypotheses:
H1a. 
Traditional cultural symbols enhance perceived environmental benefits.
H1b. 
Traditional cultural symbols enhance purchase intention for sustainable fashion products.
H1c. 
Traditional cultural symbols enhance emotional attitude.

2.2.2. The Impact of Traditional Craftsmanship

Traditional craftsmanship can improve consumers’ perceived environmental benefits. Jain believed that traditional craftsmanship could lessen environmental pollution by means of low energy consumption and local production [50]. Onur discovered that learning traditional craftsmanship, designers become more aware of the necessity of recycling and subsequently decrease their reliance on industrial resources [51]. In China, natural materials such as silk, cotton, and hemp are commonly used in traditional craftsmanship [52]. When faced with sustainable fashion products using traditional craftsmanship, Chinese consumers will associate these products with concepts such as “nature,” “conservation,” and “environmental friendliness,” and enhance consumers’ perceived environmental benefits.
Traditional craftsmanship can also improve consumers’ emotional attitudes. Products created using traditional craftsmanship can generate emotional attachment to the brand by revealing distinctive national characteristics [53]. This emotional attachment makes consumers not only feel more satisfied psychologically, but also extends the life cycle of the product [54]. There is a positive relationship between aesthetic satisfaction and emotional attitude [55]. Traditional craftsmanship can improve the visual appearance of a product by means of high quality in the production process [26]. Chinese consumers will feel emotionally satisfied if they perceive traditional craftsmanship.
Some scholars have discovered that traditional craftsmanship will directly influence consumers’ purchase intention for sustainable fashion products. Lin et al. discovered that in virtual fashion settings, traditional craftsmanship has an immediate appeal to consumers [56]. Liu et al. believed that traditional craftsmanship is a key factor in influencing Chinese millennials to purchase luxury handbags. Traditional craftsmanship can enhance consumer trust and purchase intention [57]. Chinese consumers may be attracted by the immediate aesthetic and cultural characteristics of traditional crafts. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are proposed in this study:
H2a. 
Traditional craftsmanship enhances perceived environmental benefits.
H2b. 
Traditional craftsmanship enhances purchase intention for sustainable fashion products.
H2c. 
Traditional craftsmanship enhances emotional attitude.

2.2.3. The Impact of Perceived Environmental Benefits and Emotional Attitude

Some studies also indicated that perceived environmental benefits influence consumers’ sustainable consumption behavior. Kurniawan et al. indicated that if consumers consider that a behavior is environmentally beneficial, consumers will develop positive attitudes and practice environmentally sustainable behaviors [58]. Besides, the perceived environmental benefits can further deepen consumers’ comprehension of the benefits brought by sustainable behavior [59]. In Chinese collectivist culture, people consider the environment as part of their social community, and when Chinese consumers perceive that a product has a positive ecological impact, they will purchase the product to get moral satisfaction and social recognition [60]. Therefore, we hypothesize that perceived environmental benefits positively affect Chinese consumers’ purchase intention of sustainable fashion products.
Emotional attitude is also an important mediator in Chinese consumers’ sustainable fashion consumption. Engel et al. concluded that emotional attitude is the basis of consumer behavior [61]. Huang et al. found that green brand attitudes have a positive effect on green purchase intentions [62]. Fan et al. noted that when consumers feel pleasure, nostalgia, or emotional resonance, it enhances the propensity to purchase second-hand luxury goods [63]. When consumers have a favorable emotional stance toward a brand, their purchase intention is likely to increase, and this phenomenon is similarly expected in the Chinese sustainable fashion market. This study proposes the following hypotheses:
H3. 
Perceived environmental benefits enhance purchase intention for sustainable fashion products.
H4. 
Emotional attitude enhances purchase intention for sustainable fashion products.
In conclusion, this study develops a structural equation model based on the SOR theory, hypothesising that traditional cultural symbols and craftsmanship can influence environmental perceived benefits and emotional attitude, consequently influencing purchase intention (Figure 1, Table 1).

3. Methodology

3.1. Measurement Scales and Questionnaire Design

The variables were drawn from existing scales in the literature on sustainable fashion consumption and cultural products. The original questionnaire was developed in English and subsequently translated into Chinese to collect data from Chinese consumers. Bilingual researchers reviewed the Chinese version to ensure semantic consistency. According to established guidelines for scale adaptation, we have adjusted the description of research subjects to align with the current research context. This provides the study with reliable construct validity [64]. Furthermore, to help respondents understand the product types discussed, the questionnaire briefly describes brand examples that combine traditional craftsmanship with sustainable fashion. These products include Norlha’s yak wool textiles, co-created with local artisans, and KLEED’s ikat garments handwoven using low-impact techniques [65,66]. Finally, the questionnaire measured five dimensions: traditional cultural symbols, traditional craftsmanship, perceived environmental benefits, emotional attitudes, and purchase intention (Table 2). To validate the reliability of the scale, we conducted a pilot test with 10 consumers prior to the actual questionnaire survey. In accordance with the results of the pilot test, we modified the definition of one item that was unclear. In the end, we used two parts of the questionnaire. The initial part of the questionnaire recorded respondents’ demographic characteristics (gender, age, income level, and purchase frequency). The subsequent part focused on assessing consumers’ purchase intentions regarding sustainable fashion products that integrate traditional cultural symbols and craftsmanship. Each questionnaire consisted of five subscales, totaling 19 items. All questions used a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 representing “Strongly Disagree” and 5 representing “Strongly Agree”.

3.2. Data Collection and Sample Description

The formal survey was conducted from July to August 2025 in Hangzhou, China. A total of 370 questionnaires were administered via both an online platform and on-site distribution. After removing invalid questionnaires with duplicated answers and short completion times, 358 valid samples were finally obtained, with a validity rate of 96% (Table 3). Since this structural equation model comprises five latent constructs and nineteen observed variables, the sample size meets the commonly recommended criteria for adequate sample size [73]. Among the respondents, 197 (55.0%) were female and 161 (45.0%) were male. Over 80% of respondents purchased clothes more than three times per year, with half of them buying clothes 6–10 times annually. The high purchase frequency provides a solid foundation for the research. Fifty-one participants (14.3%) were aged 18–24 years, 177 (49.4%) were aged 25–34 years, 106 (29.6%) were aged 35–54 years, and 24 (6.6%) were aged 55 or older. Participants aged 25 to 34 constitute the primary consumer group, aligning with the description in the Sustainable Fashion Market Report [15].

3.3. Data Analysis

The data were analyzed using SPSS 20.0 and AMOS 24.0. To evaluate the reliability and validity of the questionnaire, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed on the measurement model, and Cronbach’s α coefficient was calculated to examine the internal consistency of each construct [74]. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was further employed to verify the proposed hypotheses through path analysis. This empirical analysis focuses on establishing the construct’s internal consistency, convergent validity, and discriminant validity, aligning with the broader typology of validity [75].

4. Results

4.1. Validity and Reliability Test

The measurement model was tested for reliability and validity to ensure the authenticity of the study (Table 4). All observed indicators’ Cronbach’s α coefficients in the model were above 0.8, showing strong correlations among variables and good internal consistency [76]. In addition, an α coefficient over 0.7 indicates large-scale reliability [76]. All six variables’ average variance extracted (AVE) exceeded 0.5, and the composite reliability (CR) was above 0.7 for each, demonstrating good structural convergence [74]. Finally, the AVE for all variables is greater than the square of their correlation coefficients with other variables, further confirming the scale’s discriminant validity (see Table 5). Furthermore, common method bias testing revealed that 5 eigenvalues exceeded 1. The first factor accounted for 39.11% of the total variance, indicating there is no common method bias [77].

4.2. Model Fit Test

To verify the adequacy of the measurement structure, a goodness-of-fit test was conducted (Table 6). The results show that X2/DF is 2.267, GFI reaches 0.909, TLI is 0.950, CFI is 0.959, and RMSEA is 0.060, indicating the model fit meets conventional standard requirements.

4.3. Path Analysis and Hypothesis Testing

The fit of the structural equation model was first assessed (Table 6). The results show X2/DF is 2.026, GFI is 0.922, TLI is 0.939, CFI is 0.949, and RMSEA is 0.066, indicating a good model fit. Subsequently, path analysis was performed on the relevant hypotheses. All path hypotheses except H2b and H2c meet the significance level of 0.05 (Figure 2).
This study employed Bootstrap to examine the mediating effects, and all hypotheses were tested using the bias-corrected percentile method. When the confidence interval excludes zero, a significant mediating effect exists [78]. As the “traditional craftsmanship—emotional attitude” path was insignificant (Table 7), the mediating effect of emotional attitude will not be analyzed further. The results show that the mediating effect is significant in all other paths, confirming the hypothesis (Table 8). Data in Table 7 reveal that the “traditional craftsmanship—purchase intention” path is not significant, implying perceived environmental benefits are fully mediated. Therefore, hypotheses H5a and H5b are partially supported, and H6 is fully supported.

5. Discussion of Findings

This study examines the key determinants of Chinese consumers’ purchase intentions toward sustainable fashion products. Partly support the research hypothesis; others are new findings, which provide references for the research on sustainable consumption and clothing sales and product design.
(1) Traditional cultural symbols have a significant positive effect on the perceived environmental benefits (β = 0.311; p < 0.001), which supports hypotheses H1a. It extends the research on sustainable consumption. Traditional cultural symbols help Chinese consumers recognize that sustainable fashion products are closely tied to their lives through visual images. Traditional cultural symbols have a significant positive effect on emotional attitude (β = 0.388; p < 0.001), which supports hypothesis H1b. The design strategy based on traditional cultural symbols satisfies consumers’ aesthetic and spiritual needs, generating a sense of belonging and pride. Therefore, traditional cultural symbols improve emotional attitude.
(2) Traditional craftsmanship has a positive effect on perceived environmental benefits (β = 0.326; p < 0.001) and thereby hypothesis H2a is supported. This is in line with previous research [17]. Traditional craftsmanship can convey a compelling, sustainable message to Chinese consumers and thereby influence their perception of the product’s environmental benefits. However, traditional craftsmanship does not have a significant impact on emotional attitude (β = 0.326; p > 0.05); hence, hypothesis H2c cannot be supported. Maybe because in the actual production process, traditional craftsmanship cannot be directly perceived by consumers. Consumers can only know about traditional craftsmanship through the text or labels such as “handmade” or “intangible cultural heritage craft”. Furthermore, consumers need sufficient knowledge to judge whether craftsmanship is tied to local culture, which may also explain its non-significant effect on emotional attitude. This aligns with findings from product attributes research: unobservable production characteristics are primarily associated with quality rather than emotional cues [79,80].
(3) Perceived environmental benefits (β = 0.194; p < 0.001) and emotional attitude (β = 0.286; p < 0.001) have a significant positive effect on purchase intention, and thereby hypotheses H3 and H4 are supported. When some product attributes stimulate consumers, they would have evaluations on different dimensions [30]. Perceived environmental benefits give a rational component, and an emotional attitude gives an emotional component. Both would influence Chinese consumers’ purchase intention. It should be noted that the emotional attitude (β = 0.286; p < 0.001) exerts a significantly greater influence on the purchase intention than the perceived environmental benefits (β = 0.194; p < 0.001), which means that Chinese consumers’ behavior is more affected by their response than by their rational thinking. The added aesthetic value is more concerned because of the specific characteristics of fashion products. Meanwhile, the influence of perceived environmental benefits is weak.
(4) Traditional cultural symbols have a direct influence on purchase intention (β = 0.248; p < 0.001) and thereby hypothesis H1b is supported. Traditional cultural symbols satisfy consumers’ needs for aesthetics, and thus have a direct influence on purchase intention. In addition, perceived environmental benefits and emotional attitude partially mediate the relationship between traditional cultural symbols and purchase intention. This meets the requirement of consumer value orientation in the research of sustainable fashion consumption [76]. However, traditional craftsmanship does not have a significant impact on purchase intention (β = 0.147; p > 0.05) and thus hypothesis H2b is rejected. Maybe consumers are more interested in the appearance and style of fashion products rather than how they are manufactured. In a fashion consumption context, external stimuli about craftsmanship may take a backseat, thereby failing to directly enhance purchase intention. In addition, some consumers think that traditional craftsmanship is behind the times and unscientific, and thus they may think that traditional craftsmanship has certain limitations in functionality.
(5) Differences exist in the mechanism of action between traditional cultural symbols and traditional crafts. The mediating effect indicates that traditional craftsmanship affects purchase intention indirectly through perceived environmental benefits, while traditional cultural symbols exert both direct and indirect effects via perceived environmental benefits and emotional attitude (H5a, H5b and H6). From the perspective of symbolic consumption theory, traditional cultural symbols serve an identity display function [81]. Their symbolic value is easily perceived by consumers, which triggers emotional responses and stimulates purchase intention. In contrast, the value of traditional craftsmanship is reflected in product quality and the manufacturing process [82]. Furthermore, according to cue utilization theory, consumers tend to rely on external cues when product quality is difficult to assess, such as symbols [83]. Traditional craftsmanship often requires physical contact or specialized knowledge to be appreciated. These findings share commonalities with Western research on sustainable fashion while also exhibiting distinct differences. Western studies on sustainable fashion have shown that when forming purchasing intentions for sustainable fashion, consumers place greater emphasis on factors such as production process information, consumers’ perceived level, retail environment, and social norms [84,85,86], while cultural symbols are relatively secondary. This difference may be related to cultural background.

6. Conclusions

This study primarily examines the influence of traditional cultural elements on Chinese consumers’ purchase intentions for sustainable fashion products. The results show that traditional cultural symbols have a positive impact on purchase intention and that traditional craftsmanship exerts an indirect impact on it. Perceived environmental benefits and emotional attitude partially mediate the impact of traditional cultural symbols on purchase intention, and perceived environmental benefits completely mediate the impact of traditional craftsmanship on purchase intention.
The primary theoretical contribution of this study lies in constructing and validating an analytical framework based on the SOR model, systematically revealing the pathways through which traditional cultural elements influence Chinese consumers’ sustainable fashion consumption [87]. At the construct level, traditional cultural symbols and traditional craftsmanship are distinguished as two measurable variables and incorporated into the SOR framework. Secondly, at the relational level, the study uncovers differences in the operational modes of traditional cultural symbols and traditional craftsmanship, while validating the mediating roles of perceived environmental benefits and affective attitudes. At the mechanism level, it verifies that traditional cultural symbols and traditional craftsmanship influence sustainable purchase intentions indirectly, via perceived environmental benefits and emotional attitudes as mediating factors. Finally, at the contextual level, in China’s long-term–oriented, culture-salient fashion market, traditional cultural symbols are more effective than traditional craftsmanship in driving sustainable fashion purchase behavior. Overall, this study broadens the use of the SOR model to the sustainable fashion product domain, offering novel insights into the interaction between cultural relevance and sustainable consumption behavior.
This study offers practical insights for businesses and designers on leveraging traditional elements to advance sustainable fashion consumption. For enterprises, traditional cultural content should be regarded as a vital resource in the Chinese market. Businesses can develop sustainable fashion products by integrating traditional cultural symbols into their designs as a development approach, thereby strengthening emotional connections with local consumers. Although the influence of traditional craftsmanship remains limited, businesses can still construct sustainability-aligned narratives around such artisanal techniques. These narratives can be disseminated through packaging, advertising, and short-form video channels to heighten consumer awareness of environmental benefits. For designers, traditional cultural symbols can serve as core visual elements for sustainable fashion products. Designers may extract symbols from representative traditional Chinese attire and reinterpret them through contemporary silhouettes, colour palettes, and materials to heighten appeal among target consumers. Furthermore, designers can explore integrating eco-friendly materials with traditional craftsmanship to create sustainable fashion products that convey cultural identity while embodying environmental responsibility. In practice, firms can also add clear eco-labels or QR codes on products to briefly explain the traditional element used and its environmental benefits at the point of purchase.
Although this study offers unique insights into sustainable fashion development from the Chinese market, several limitations remain. The research primarily examines how Chinese cultural orientations shape consumer preferences, potentially offering a reference for countries with similar cultural contexts (such as long-term orientation, collectivism, and national pride). However, the universality of these findings needs more validation. Future studies should survey consumer groups in culturally similar settings to confirm these results. Furthermore, the sample size of this study (N = 358) is small compared to the overall scale of the Chinese apparel consumer population, and its geographic coverage is limited. Therefore, the findings should be regarded as preliminary conclusions, and future research should validate and expand upon them using larger samples with broader geographic representation. This study explores the influence of traditional cultural elements on sustainable fashion products from the design perspective, without simultaneously incorporating other external variables such as price, quality, and value orientation. Future research can combine these variables into a single research framework to explore people’s purchase intention for sustainable fashion products.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.W. and Y.G.; methodology, Z.W.; software, Z.W.; validation, S.L., Y.G. and Z.W.; formal analysis, Z.W.; investigation, Z.W.; resources, J.Z.; data curation, Z.W.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.G.; writing—review and editing, S.L.; visualization, Z.W.; supervision, S.L.; project administration, J.Z.; funding acquisition, J.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

National Social Science Fund Arts Project of 2022, grant number 22BG121.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study according to the Administrative Measures for Ethical Review of Research Involving Humans in Life Sciences and Medicine, jointly issued in February 2023 by the National Health Commission, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Science and Technology, and the National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine of China, anonymous and non-interventional social survey studies that do not involve identifiable personal information are classified as minimal-risk research and may be exempt from formal ethics committee review. Therefore, no separate IRB approval number was obtained for this study. Nonetheless, the research was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, with full attention to informing participants and protecting their privacy.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data is not available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 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]
  2. Chand, S.; Chand, S.; Raula, B. Textile and Apparel Industries Waste and Its Sustainable Management Approaches. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2023, 25, 3132–3143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Liu, J.; Liang, J.; Ding, J.; Zhang, G.; Zeng, X.; Yang, Q.; Zhu, B.; Gao, W. Microfiber Pollution: An Ongoing Major Environmental Issue Related to the Sustainable Development of Textile and Clothing Industry. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 11240–11256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zhang, M.; Kong, X.X.; Ramu, S.C. The Transformation of the Clothing Industry in China. Asia Pac. Bus. Rev. 2016, 22, 86–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. China Quality News. China’s Textile and Apparel Consumption Potential Is Huge: Annual Clothing Output Exceeds 70 Billion Pieces, Enough to Provide About 8.75 Pieces per Person Worldwide. China Quality News. 2025. Available online: https://www.cqn.com.cn/zgzlb/content/2025-02/27/content_9093900.htm (accessed on 9 December 2025).
  6. Bailey, K.; Basu, A.; Sharma, S. A Review of Fast Fashion and Environmental Research Gaps in the Top Garment-Producing Countries: A Case Study of China, Bangladesh, Vietnam, India, Turkey, and Indonesia. Environ. Rev. 2025, 33, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bibi, S.; Khan, A.; Fubing, X.; Jianfeng, H.; Hussain, S. Integrating Digitalization, Environmental Innovations, and Green Energy Supply to Ensure Green Production in China’s Textile and Fashion Industry: Environmental Policy and Laws Optimization Perspective. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2024, 26, 12987–13007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Busalim, A.; Fox, G.; Lynn, T. Consumer Behavior in Sustainable Fashion: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chakraborty, S.; Sadachar, A. Can a Connection with the Indigenous Cultural Values Encourage Sustainable Apparel Consumption? J. Fash. Mark. Manag. Int. J. 2022, 27, 80–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Fang, Q.; Wen, C.; Xu, H. Long-Term Oriented Culture, Performance Pressure and Corporate Innovation: Evidence from China. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0302148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hofstede, G. Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Read. Psychol. Cult. 2011, 2, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wardaya, A.I.; Bestari, A.G.; Sulistiyanto, S.; Kindiasari, A. Fashion as an Expression of Cultural Identity in the Digital Age. J. Res. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 2024, 4, 161–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hall, E.T. Beyond Culture; Anchor Books, Ed.; Anchor Books: London, UK; Doubleday: New York, NY, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  14. Holdcroft, D. Saussure: Signs, System and Arbitrariness; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  15. Kaiser, S.B.; Nagasawa, R.H.; Hutton, S.S. Fashion, Postmodernity and Personal Appearance: A Symbolic Interactionist Formulation. Symb. Interact. 1991, 14, 165–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ding, C.; Ismail, N.A.; Hussein, M.K.; Hussain, N. A Systematic Review of the Traditional Handicrafts Preservation Toward Sustainable Intangible Cultural Heritage. Sage Open 2025, 15, 21582440251337837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Li, W.-T.; Ho, M.-C.; Yang, C. A Design Thinking-Based Study of the Prospect of the Sustainable Development of Traditional Handicrafts. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chen, H.; Xu, H.; Zhang, Y.; Jia, L. The Revitalization Design of Regional Ethnic Cultural Capital in a Sustainable Perspective: The Case of Traditional Chinese Garment Yunjian. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lin, Y.; Zain, M.Z.M.; Yang, C.; Zhu, C. Evolution and Innovative Design of Cloud Shoulder Adornments in Ming and Qing Dynasties from the Perspective of Hanfu Elements. Fibres Text. East. Eur. 2024, 32, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wang, Z.; Li, L. Exploration of Cultural Products Based on Design Semiotics: A Case Study of Traditional Yugu Clothing Patterns; Atlantis Press: Paris, France, 2024; pp. 252–264. [Google Scholar]
  21. Gao, X.; Yezhova, O. Chinese Traditional Patterns and Totem Culture in Modern Clothing Design. Art Des. 2023, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Xing, L.; Zhang, J.; Liang, H.; Li, Z. Intelligent Recognition of Dominant Colors for Chinese Traditional Costumes Based on a Mean Shift Clustering Method. J. Text. Inst. 2018, 109, 1304–1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Brown, S.; Vacca, F. Cultural Sustainability in Fashion: Reflections on Craft and Sustainable Development Models. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2022, 18, 590–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Delgado, M.J.B.L.; Albuquerque, M.H.F. The Contribution of Regional Costume in Fashion. Procedia Manuf. 2015, 3, 6380–6387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Yu, H. Sense of Place and Sustainable Development: The Case of a Tibetan Luxury Enterprise. Organ. Environ. 2024, 37, 376–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jung, S.; Jin, B. Sustainable Development of Slow Fashion Businesses: Customer Value Approach. Sustainability 2016, 8, 540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Brunner, C.B.; Ullrich, S.; Jungen, P.; Esch, F.-R. Impact of Symbolic Product Design on Brand Evaluations. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2016, 25, 307–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tsui, C. From Symbols to Spirit: Changing Conceptions of National Identity in Chinese Fashion. Fash. Theory 2013, 17, 449–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mehrabian, A.; Russell, J.A. The Basic Emotional Impact of Environments. Percept. Mot. Ski. 1974, 38, 283–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hewei, T.; Youngsook, L. Factors Affecting Continuous Purchase Intention of Fashion Products on Social E-Commerce: SOR Model and the Mediating Effect. Entertain. Comput. 2022, 41, 100474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hollebeek, L.D.; Kumar, V.; Srivastava, R.K.; Lim, W.M.; Urbonavicius, S. Guidelines for Theory Selection: The IMPACT Framework. Psychol. Mark. 2025, 42, 2789–2806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Grădinaru, C.; Obadă, D.-R.; Grădinaru, I.-A.; Dabija, D.-C. Enhancing Sustainable Cosmetics Brand Purchase: A Comprehensive Approach Based on the SOR Model and the Triple Bottom Line. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lavuri, R.; Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J.; Grebinevych, O.; Roubaud, D. Green Factors Stimulating the Purchase Intention of Innovative Luxury Organic Beauty Products: Implications for Sustainable Development. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 301, 113899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Cuong, D.T. Examining How Factors Consumers’ Buying Intention of Secondhand Clothes via Theory of Planned Behavior and Stimulus Organism Response Model. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2024, 10, 100393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Tymoshchuk, O.; Lou, X.; Chi, T. Exploring Determinants of Second-Hand Apparel Purchase Intention and Word of Mouth: A Stimulus–Organism–Response Approach. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ngo, T.T.A.; Vo, C.H.; Tran, N.L.; Nguyen, K.V.; Tran, T.D.; Trinh, Y.N. Factors Influencing Generation Z’s Intention to Purchase Sustainable Clothing Products in Vietnam. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0315502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhang, B.; Zhang, Y. Exploring Knowledge Sharing Intention of Digitalization of Rural Intangible Cultural Heritage (DRICH): Integrating Stimulus-Organism-Response (SOR) Theory and Social Exchange Theory (SET). PLoS ONE 2025, 20, e0325892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Liu, L.; Zhao, H. Research on Consumers’ Purchase Intention of Cultural and Creative Products—Metaphor Design Based on Traditional Cultural Symbols. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0301678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dai, L.; Jin, Y.; Ma, D. Corporate Social Responsibility and Consumer Purchase Intentions with Environmental Benefit Perception as Mediator and Multilevel Moderating Effect. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 33876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Judge, M.; Fernando, J.W.; Paladino, A.; Mikolajczak, G.; Kashima, Y. Lay Concepts of Art, Craft, and Manufacture and the Implications for Sustainable Consumption. J. Soc. Issues 2020, 76, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Le, T.-H.; Dang, P.; Bui, T. Towards Sustainable Products and Services: The Influences of Traditional Costumes in Promoting Sustainable Fashion. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sherif, M.; Cantril, H. The Psychology of “Attitudes”: Part I. Psychol. Rev. 1945, 52, 295–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Paul, J.; Modi, A.; Patel, J. Predicting Green Product Consumption Using Theory of Planned Behavior and Reasoned Action. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 29, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zong, Z.; Liu, X.; Gao, H. Exploring the Mechanism of Consumer Purchase Intention in a Traditional Culture Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1110191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Shimp, T.A.; Sharma, S. Consumer Ethnocentrism: Construction and Validation of the CETSCALE. J. Mark. Res. 1987, 24, 280–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Douglass, R.B. Review of Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Philos. Rhetor. 1977, 10, 130–132. [Google Scholar]
  47. Sundar, A.; Cao, E.S.; Machleit, K.A. How Product Aesthetics Cues Efficacy Beliefs of Product Performance. Psychol. Mark. 2020, 37, 1246–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bakar, A.; Lee, R.; Rungie, C. The Effects of Religious Symbols in Product Packaging on Muslim Consumer Responses. Australas. Mark. J. 2013, 21, 198–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hapsari, S.Y.; Haryanto, B. The Strength of Javanese Traditional Symbol in Packaging Designs and Consumer Values against Purchase Intentions. Eur. J. Bus. Manag. 2018, 10, 92–101. [Google Scholar]
  50. Jain, M. Challenges for Sustainability in Textile Craft and Fashion Design. Int. J. Appl. Home Sci. 2018, 5, 489–496. [Google Scholar]
  51. Atalay Onur, D. Integrating Circular Economy, Collaboration and Craft Practice in Fashion Design Education in Developing Countries: A Case from Turkey. Fash. Pract. 2020, 12, 55–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Liu, J. The Natural Tendency Hidden in the Spirit of Chinese Traditional Craftsmanship-Taking the Living Environment of the Elderly Population into Consideration. In Proceedings of the Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population; Gao, Q., Zhou, J., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2025; pp. 140–151. [Google Scholar]
  53. Niinimäki, K.; Armstrong, C. From Pleasure in Use to Preservation of Meaningful Memories: A Closer Look at the Sustainability of Clothing via Longevity and Attachment. Int. J. Fash. Des. Technol. Educ. 2013, 6, 190–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mugge, R.; Schoormans, J.P.L.; Schifferstein, H.N.J. Design Strategies to Postpone Consumers’ Product Replacement: The Value of a Strong Person-Product Relationship. Des. J. 2005, 8, 38–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Li, X.; Romainoor, N.H.; Sun, Z. Factors in Consumers’ Purchase Intention for Gejia Batik. Heliyon 2024, 10, e23085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lin, R.; Li, X.; Xia, F. The Influence of AR Virtual Clothing Design Elements on Chinese Consumers’ Purchase Intention: Novelty, Craftsmanship, Trendiness, and Sociability. Des. J. 2024, 27, 888–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Liu, T.; Quintero Rodriguez, C. Quality Values: How Craftsmanship, Material, Country-of-Origin and Brand Image Influence Luxury Fashion Consumption. Fash. Text. 2021, 8, 33. [Google Scholar]
  58. Kurniawan, N.; Soeprijanto, S.; Nadlifatin, R. The Mediating Role of Perceived Environmental Benefits in the Relationship between Perceived Environmental Concerns and Attitudes Toward Behaviors: The Case of Solar Photovoltaic Adoption in Indonesia. Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 2025, 15, 248–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wee, C.S.; Ariff, M.S.B.; Zakuan, N.; Tajudin, M.N.M.; Ismail, K.; Ishak, N.; Haji, L.T. Consumers Perception, Purchase Intention and Actual Purchase Behavior of Organic Food Products. Rev. Integr. Bus. Econ. Res. 2014, 3, 378–397. [Google Scholar]
  60. Wei, X.; Jung, S. Understanding Chinese Consumers’ Intention to Purchase Sustainable Fashion Products: The Moderating Role of Face-Saving Orientation. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Engel, J.F. Consumer Behavior; Dryden Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  62. Huang, Y.-C.; Yang, M.; Wang, Y.-C. Effects of Green Brand on Green Purchase Intention. Mark. Intell. Plan. 2014, 32, 250–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Fan, C.; Tham, J. The Impact of Emotional Value on Purchase Intention and the Mediating Role of Purchase Attitudes. Front. Econ. Manag. 2025, 6, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  64. Lamm, K.W.; Lamm, A.J.; Edgar, D. Scale Development and Validation: Methodology and Recommendations. J. Int. Agric. Ext. Educ. 2020, 27, 24–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Norlha. Environmental Impact on the Tibetan Plateau. Available online: https://www.norlha.com/pages/environmental-impact-on-tibetan-plateau (accessed on 9 December 2025).
  66. KLEED. Available online: https://kleed.com/ (accessed on 9 December 2025).
  67. Sun, N.; He, Y.; Wang, C.; Zhang, J. Research on Sustainable Design of Consumers’ Influence Factors of Huaihe Willow Weaving Based on AHP. Sustainability 2023, 15, 11115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Yoo, J.-J.; Divita, L.; Kim, H.-Y. Environmental Awareness on Bamboo Product Purchase Intentions: Do Consumption Values Impact Green Consumption? Int. J. Fash. Des. Technol. Educ. 2013, 6, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kumar, A.; Prakash, G.; Kumar, G. Does Environmentally Responsible Purchase Intention Matter for Consumers? A Predictive Sustainable Model Developed through an Empirical Study. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 58, 102270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. He, J.; Wang, C.L. Cultural Identity and Consumer Ethnocentrism Impacts on Preference and Purchase of Domestic versus Import Brands: An Empirical Study in China. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 1225–1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rausch, T.M.; Kopplin, C.S. Bridge the Gap: Consumers’ Purchase Intention and Behavior Regarding Sustainable Clothing. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Tu, J.-C.; Hsu, C.-F.; Creativani, K. A Study on the Effects of Consumers’ Perception and Purchasing Behavior for Second-Hand Luxury Goods by Perceived Value. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lim, W.M. What Is Qualitative Research? An Overview and Guidelines. Australas. Mark. J. 2025, 33, 199–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Lim, W.M. A typology of validity: Content, face, convergent, discriminant, nomological and predictive validity. J. Trade Sci. 2024, 12, 155–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978; ISBN 978-0-07-047465-9. [Google Scholar]
  77. Bozionelos, N.; Simmering, M.J. Methodological Threat or Myth? Evaluating the Current State of Evidence on Common Method Variance in Human Resource Management Research. Hum. Res. Manag. J. 2022, 32, 194–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. DiCiccio, T.J.; Efron, B. Bootstrap Confidence Intervals. Stat. Sci. 1996, 11, 189–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Darby, M.R.; Karni, E. Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud. J. Law Econ. Univ. Chic. Press 1973, 16, 67–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kim, I.; Jung, H.J.; Lee, Y. Consumers’ Value and Risk Perceptions of Circular Fashion: Comparison between Secondhand, Upcycled, and Recycled Clothing. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Baudrillard, J. La Société de Consommation; Gallimard: Paris, France, 1970; ISBN 978-5-17-117558-0. [Google Scholar]
  82. Dimanche, F.; Samdahl, D. Leisure as Symbolic Consumption: A Conceptualization and Prospectus for Future Research. Leis. Sci. 1994, 16, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Mishra, S.; Malhotra, G.; Saxena, G. In-Store Marketing of Private Labels: Applying Cue Utilisation Theory. IJRDM 2020, 49, 145–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ma, Y.J.; Gam, H.J.; Banning, J. Perceived Ease of Use and Usefulness of Sustainability Labels on Apparel Products: Application of the Technology Acceptance Model. Fash. Text. 2017, 4, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Cascavilla, A.; Caferra, R.; Morone, A.; Morone, P. Experimental Evidence on Consumers’ Willingness to Pay in the Sustainable Fashion Industry. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 38752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Connell, K.Y.H. Internal and External Barriers to Eco-conscious Apparel Acquisition. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2010, 34, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Lim, W.M. Theory and Theory Development: Guidelines for Establishing Theoretical Gaps, Foundations, Contributions, and Implications. J. Bus. Res. 2026, 202, 115745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 18 00145 g001
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Sustainability 18 00145 g001
Sustainability 18 00145 g002
Figure 2. Results of structural model testing. The *** indicates a highly significant relationship (p < 0.001 level).
Figure 2. Results of structural model testing. The *** indicates a highly significant relationship (p < 0.001 level).
Sustainability 18 00145 g002
Table 1. Overview of hypotheses and theoretical reference.
Table 1. Overview of hypotheses and theoretical reference.
HypothesesDescriptionTheoretical Reference
H1aTraditional cultural symbols enhance perceived environmental benefits.SOR Theory/Traditional Cultural Symbol Literature
H1bTraditional cultural symbols enhance purchase intention for sustainable fashion products.SOR Theory/Traditional Cultural Symbol Literature/Symbolic Consumption Theory
H1cTraditional cultural symbols enhance emotional attitude.SOR Theory/Traditional Cultural Symbol Literature/Self-expression Literature
H2aTraditional craftsmanship enhances perceived environmental benefits.SOR Theory/Traditional Craftsmanship Literature
H2bTraditional craftsmanship enhances purchase intention for sustainable fashion products.SOR Theory/Traditional Craftsmanship Literature
H2cTraditional craftsmanship enhances emotional attitude.SOR Theory/Traditional Craftsmanship Literature/Self-expression Literature
H3Perceived environmental benefits enhance purchase intention for sustainable fashion products.Green Consumption Literature/SOR Theory
H4Emotional attitude enhances purchase intention for sustainable fashion products.Attitude-behaviour Model/Green Consumption Literature
Table 2. Validity and reliability analysis.
Table 2. Validity and reliability analysis.
ConstructItemsReference
Traditional Cultural Symbols (TCS)I know traditional symbols (Includes patterns, graphics, and clothing styles).[38,44]
I will pay attention to fashion products featuring traditional cultural symbols.
Traditional cultural symbols on clothes appeal to me in some way.
Fashion design should incorporate traditional cultural symbols.
Traditional Craftsmanship (TC)I think it is important for fashion design to use traditional craftsmanship (including embroidery, weaving, and tie-dye).[67]
The use of traditional craftsmanship enhances the quality and uniqueness of the clothes.
Traditional craftsmanship ensures a certain degree of sustainability in clothing.
I would feel proud when local traditional craftsmanship is used in modern clothing design.
Perceived Environmental Benefits (PEB)Clothing with traditional cultural symbols and craftsmanship helps save resources.[68,69]
Clothing characterized by traditional cultural symbols and craftsmanship has a positive impact on the environment because it extends the life of the material.
Clothing with traditional cultural symbols and craftsmanship has more environmental benefits than other types.
Emotional Attitude (EA)I think it makes me happy to wear clothes with traditional cultural symbols and craftsmanship.[38,70]
I think it makes me feel good to buy clothes with traditional cultural symbols and craftsmanship.
I feel more positive about clothing with traditional cultural symbols and craftsmanship because it is more environmentally beneficial than other types.
Wearing this type of clothing gives me a sense of cultural and emotional identity.
Purchase Intention (PI)I would like to buy clothing with traditional cultural symbols and craftsmanship because it reduces the impact on the environment.[71,72]
I would like to buy clothing with traditional cultural symbols and craftsmanship because it is environmentally friendly.
I would like to purchase clothing featuring traditional cultural symbols and craftsmanship, as it aligns with the concept of sustainability.
I would recommend this type of clothing to others and will continue to purchase it in the future.
Table 3. Respondent demographics.
Table 3. Respondent demographics.
MeasureItemsNumberPercent (%)
GenderMale16145.0%
Female19755.0%
Age18–245114.3%
25–3417749.4%
35–5410629.6%
55 and above246.7%
Frequency ofRarely (1–2 times)308.4%
clothing purchasesOccasionally (3–5 times)11331.6%
Frequently (6–10 times)17950.0%
Frequently (10 times and above)3610.0%
2500 yuan and below5815.6%
Income2500–4500 yuan8824.6%
4500–6500 yuan12735.5%
6500–8500 yuan6317.6%
8500 yuan and above246.7%
Table 4. Reliability and validity analysis.
Table 4. Reliability and validity analysis.
ConstructsItemsMeanS.D.LoadingsαCRAVE
Traditional Cultural SymbolsTCS13.3880.8120.6950.8760.8810.654
TCS2 0.914
TCS3 0.683
TCS4 0.912
Traditional Craftsmanship CharacteristicsTC13.4160.7770.7620.8830.8880.666
TC2 0.890
TC3 0.874
TC4 0.725
Perceived Environmental BenefitsPEB13.3240.8840.6890.8660.8740.701
PEB2 0.909
PEB3 0.896
Emotional AttitudeEA13.4780.8410.8830.8760.8820.655
EA2 0.899
EA3 0.701
EA4 0.735
Purchase IntentionPI13.2330.7760.8820.8870.8910.674
PI2 0.765
PI3 0.732
PI4 0.892
Table 5. Discriminate validity of the research model.
Table 5. Discriminate validity of the research model.
ConstructsTCSTCPEBEIPI
TCS0.808
TC0.297 **0.816
PEB0.392 **0.379 **0.837
EI0.430 **0.304 **0.418 **0.809
PI0.465 **0.373 **0.439 **0.482 **0.821
The ** indicates that the correlation between constructs is statistically significant (e.g., p < 0.01).
Table 6. Model fit indices for the measurement model and research model.
Table 6. Model fit indices for the measurement model and research model.
ModelX2X2/DFGFITLICFIRMSEA
Measurement model321.8882.2670.9090.9500.9590.060
Research model283.6642.0260.9220.9390.9490.066
Recommended criteria>0.05<3>0.9>0.9>0.9<0.08
Table 7. Summary of hypothesis testing results.
Table 7. Summary of hypothesis testing results.
HypothesesPathBβS. E.TResult
H1aTCS → PEB0.2520.3110.0465.519 ***Supported
H1bTCS → PI0.2670.2480.0624.277 ***Supported
H1cTCS → EA0.3750.3880.0566.680 ***Supported
H2aTC → PEB0.3470.3260.0645.467 ***Supported
H2bTC → PI0.2070.1470.0782.664Rejected
H2cTC → EA0.2140.1680.0703.034Rejected
H3PEB → PI0.2580.1940.0773.349 ***Supported
H4EA → PI0.3180.2860.0654.912 ***Supported
The *** indicates a highly significant relationship (p < 0.001 level).
Table 8. Mediating effect.
Table 8. Mediating effect.
PathEstimateS.E.pBias-Corrected 95% CISignificance (p < 0.5)
LowerUpper
H5a TCS → PEB → PI0.0600.0240.0030.0190.112Yes
H5b TCS → EA → PI0.0750.0270.0030.0250.131Yes
H6 TC → PEB → PI0.0630.0230.0030.0210.112Yes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lai, S.; Wu, Z.; Gao, Y.; Zhou, J. Connecting Local Culture: The Impact of Traditional Cultural Symbols and Craftsmanship on Chinese Consumers’ Purchase Intention Toward Sustainable Fashion Products. Sustainability 2026, 18, 145. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010145

AMA Style

Lai S, Wu Z, Gao Y, Zhou J. Connecting Local Culture: The Impact of Traditional Cultural Symbols and Craftsmanship on Chinese Consumers’ Purchase Intention Toward Sustainable Fashion Products. Sustainability. 2026; 18(1):145. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010145

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lai, Siyuan, Zeyu Wu, Yujie Gao, and Jiu Zhou. 2026. "Connecting Local Culture: The Impact of Traditional Cultural Symbols and Craftsmanship on Chinese Consumers’ Purchase Intention Toward Sustainable Fashion Products" Sustainability 18, no. 1: 145. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010145

APA Style

Lai, S., Wu, Z., Gao, Y., & Zhou, J. (2026). Connecting Local Culture: The Impact of Traditional Cultural Symbols and Craftsmanship on Chinese Consumers’ Purchase Intention Toward Sustainable Fashion Products. Sustainability, 18(1), 145. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18010145

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