Designing for Repair and Extended Lifespan: Consumer Expectations and Economic Constraints

Abstract

Despite increasing policy and industry focus on repairability, consumer repair behavior remains limited. This study examines this contradiction by analyzing user perceptions of repairable products through a survey-based approach (N = 68), focusing on behavioral, economic, and functional drivers of repair decisions. The results reveal a pronounced repairability paradox: while over two-thirds of respondents are willing to pay more for repairable products and strongly support extended product lifecycles, actual repair decisions are constrained by cost, time, and perceived difficulty. Durability concerns significantly reduce acceptance of recycled materials, highlighting the importance of performance trust in sustainable consumption. Additionally, while informational awareness strengthens long-term repair intentions, it does not significantly influence immediate purchasing behavior. This challenges the current focus on Design for Repair as a standalone strategy and underscores the need to integrate repairability with durability, cost-efficiency, and ease of use. By linking empirical data with behavioral and economic theory, this study provides actionable insights for designers, manufacturers, and policymakers seeking to promote more effective and realistic circular economy solutions.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, a pervasive “throwaway culture” has emerged, where products are frequently discarded rather than repaired when they become faulty or outdated [1,2]. This cultural norm has led to increased waste and resource depletion, intensifying environmental pressures. However, repair is a cornerstone of the circular economy (CE), enabling the extension of product lifespans and reducing material throughput. Repair not only precedes more intensive CE strategies such as remanufacturing and refurbishment, but also facilitates sustainable consumption patterns by preserving product value and function over time [3]. Upstream strategies include resource conservation, sustainable material selection, design for extended life cycles, and circular system design. Empirical studies show that repairability is influenced by product design, availability of spare parts, and access to repair information. These factors have been formalized in tools such as the Product Repairability Index (PRI), which quantifies the repairability of a product based on component complexity and functional relevance [4]. Roskladka identifies elements of product design and practical measures that facilitate reparability and prevent various types of product obsolescence, as well as indicators to quantify Design for Repair (DfR) features to assess the degree of reparability [5]. The identified DfR features to prevent mechanical obsolescence are modularity, easy and quick disassembly and reassembly, the ability to open a product, safety, material durability, and a repairable appearance [5]. Moreover, repair not only serves environmental goals but also strengthens social sustainability through practices such as community repair, which fosters shared knowledge, resilience, and user engagement with material goods [6]. According to Hernandez, repair is a multidimensional and multi-agency activity [7]. Repair practices are hindered by consumers’ limited skills, tools, time, and motivation, compounded by financial and motivational barriers [8,9,10]. Nevertheless, concerns about repair quality persist, often stemming from a lack of accessible, standardized repair services and uncertainty about replacement part reliability [11]. Many modern products are intentionally designed with non-modular structures, permanent adhesives, or proprietary fasteners that hinder disassembly and make both material separation and component access technically difficult [12]. In pursuit of cost reductions, manufacturers often compromise on component durability and modularity, degrading long-term repair potential even though such design choices reduce upfront consumer prices [13]. Repairing instead of replacing electronic goods can drastically reduce lifecycle environmental impacts, especially in terms of CO₂ emissions and e-waste, but this option remains underused. One reason is psychological: consumer willingness to engage in repair is closely tied to perceived self-efficacy. Studies have shown that targeted behavioral interventions such as skills training, peer support, and do-it-yourself (DIY) repair tutorials can significantly boost repair intentions [11]. However, many consumers are still discouraged by high labor costs or concerns about the durability of repaired items, especially when “green” products are mistakenly seen as more fragile or less reliable. Positive community-based initiatives, such as the repair café movement that began in the Netherlands, show how shared repair practices can help overcome these barriers, particularly for electronic products [14]. Another emerging opportunity is using 3D printing to produce replacement parts for older products that no longer have spare parts available. Because additive manufacturing is flexible and rapidly evolving, it enables personalized, value-added repairs that can extend product lifespans. Nevertheless, producing functional spare parts through 3D printing remains a demanding task that requires specific technical skills and knowledge [15].

Warranties play a crucial role in consumer purchasing decisions, brand loyalty, and price sensitivity, especially for high-value products such as IT equipment and premium vacuum cleaners (VC) [16]. Extended warranties that cover both time and usage are particularly attractive to consumers whose willingness to take risks depends on the product’s value [17]. The importance of longevity extends beyond consumer confidence and has significant environmental implications. Products designed for longevity have been shown to reduce material degradation, emissions, and waste, thereby lowering overall environmental impact [18]. However, design improvements alone are insufficient if consumer behavior does not align with sustainability goals. The premature disposal of functional products, driven by trends, convenience, or perceived obsolescence, unnecessarily shortens product lifespans. This highlights the need for cultural and systemic change to challenge prevailing consumer norms. Despite widespread awareness of sustainability issues, there is a gap between consumers’ attitudes and actions. EU surveys show that while over 80% of Europeans recognize the environmental benefits of sustainable choices, far fewer act on them. Only 32% have repaired an item within six months instead of replacing it, with 39% citing high repair costs and logistical difficulties as deterrents [11]. The growing consumer demand for transparency reflects this tension: many want clear information about the lifespan and repairability of products but are dissatisfied with current labeling standards. Studies on willingness to pay indicate that consumers are willing to compromise on features such as battery life or storage space for better reparability, as a 2023 conjoint analysis on smartphones shows [19]. Policymakers are beginning to address these issues. The European Union’s Directive (EU) 2024/1799 [20] requires manufacturers to offer repair services beyond the warranty period. This legislative change reflects a broader movement to embed durability, reparability, and circularity into product design and market practices [12]. Improvements in product design, informed consumer choices, and supportive regulatory frameworks are essential for the transition to a more sustainable and circular economy.

This study builds on existing research on the circular economy, repair, and design for longevity by examining how consumer expectations and economic constraints influence repair decisions. It draws on prior studies showing that repairability depends on product design, access to spare parts, repair information, and warranties, as well as social and behavioral factors such as skills, motivation, and perceived repair quality. The study also considers recent policy developments, including emerging right-to-repair regulations in the EU. By linking design-related factors with consumer behavior and market conditions, the manuscript addresses the gap between positive attitudes toward sustainability and actual repair practices. In doing so, it contributes to a better understanding of how repair can support product longevity and circular economy goals.

1.1. Behavioral, Economic and Functional Factors for Repair

Public perceptions of product repair are becoming more favorable, particularly within the framework of the circular economy [21]. However, these views are not uniform across all regions [22]. For example, a survey in Spain revealed limited engagement in maintenance practices and a relatively low inclination to pursue repairs. Almost half of all kettles disposed of were still in working order [23]. Behavioral factors such as intrinsic motivation, environmental concern, and psychological ownership play a crucial role in repair decisions. Studies suggest that individuals with higher self-efficacy in repair contexts and those who associate repair with identity or empowerment are more likely to engage in repair activities [24]. Van den Berge found that fault indicators significantly increase the likelihood of vacuum cleaner repairs, although this effect was not observed for washing machines [25]. In the US in 2019, almost half of consumers expected that a repair would extend the life of a product [26]. As noted by Parajuly, repair practices are shaped not only by consumers’ internal motivation but also by external factors such as infrastructure, social and cultural influences, financial considerations, and political frameworks [11]. This showed that positive attitudes increase the willingness to make environmentally friendly decisions and repair habits [5]. Economic considerations include the cost of spare parts, perceived repair value, and financial trade-offs between repair and replacement. In some cases, repair services advise against repairing a faulty appliance, arguing that the cost would be almost as high as buying a new appliance, even if the problem could potentially be fixed by replacing a relatively simple, hard-to-reach component. Research on spare parts pricing reveals its critical influence on repair profitability and customer satisfaction [13,24]. Survey by Cullbrand underscores that pricing strategies for spare parts substantially impact not only repair profitability but also customer satisfaction [27]. When repair becomes economically unjustifiable, consumers opt for replacement, regardless of environmental attitudes [13]. McQueen and Dalhammar emphasize that high costs and lack of transparency in repair pricing remain persistent deterrents, especially when repair services are monopolized or poorly regulated [28,29]. Nevertheless, actual repair participation is highly dependent on factors such as accessible spare parts, repair tools, consumer confidence, and trust in repair services [28,29]. Functional factors refer to technical aspects affecting repair decisions, such as product reparability, modular design, expected lifetime, and quality after repair.

Concerns about repair quality remain widespread [24]. Barriers to repair are often rooted in product design and quality issues, such as difficulties in disassembly, the use of inferior materials, and non-standardized components [30]. Ultimately, the decision to repair is not driven solely by environmental concerns but results from a dynamic interplay of attitudinal, economic, and functional factors. Each of these dimensions must be addressed to meaningfully promote sustainable repair behavior. A broader transformation in production and consumption models may also support this shift. Transitioning from traditional manufacturing to Product–Service System (PSS) models opens new possibilities by emphasizing access over ownership and enabling environmental benefits for both producers and consumers [31]. These models can reduce material throughput, extend product lifetimes, and create incentives for companies to design durable, maintainable products that remain in service longer.

The research was conducted within a conceptual framework that considers different consumer perspectives (Figure 1). Building on the work of Parajuly, which examines the influence of social, economic, and infrastructural factors on public repair behavior, this study focuses on three key dimensions: behavioral, economic, and functional factors [11].

• Behavioral factors relate to users’ personal values, attitudes, environmental awareness and repair habits, including willingness to repair.
• Economic factors include cost-related aspects of repair, such as the price of spare parts, the perceived value of the product after repair and the financial trade-off between repairing and buying a new product.
• Functional factors refer to technical characteristics that influence repair decisions, including the expected lifetime of the product, inherent reparability (e.g., ease of disassembly, modular design), the quality standards users expect after repair, and any technological limitations that may impede or prevent effective repair.

Existing research on repairability largely focuses on product design, policy, and technical enablers, while providing limited empirical insight into consumer decision-making [3,4,5,12]. This study addresses this gap by examining the repairability paradox: strong user support for repairable and durable products alongside limited repair behavior in practice. By integrating behavioral, economic, and functional factors, it demonstrates that repairability alone is insufficient without confidence in durability, affordability, and ease of use, thereby bridging design-focused and consumer-centered perspectives in circular economy research.

1.2. Research Aim

The aim of this study is to explore the conditions necessary for implementing Design for Reparability in consumer products. The study also examines factors that influence repairability and durability, including product design features such as the availability of repair manuals and spare parts, consumer habits, material quality, and ease of disassembly. Variables such as legislation, customer expectations, and technological constraints are analyzed to understand how Design for Reparability can be effectively implemented in practice. The study addresses two main research questions:

RQ1—Do end users have a positive attitude toward reparability?

RQ1a—Do consumers’ affective responses toward recycled products differ from their beliefs about durability and their environmental concern, and in what direction?

This is answered by the RM ANOVA on Q2/Q3/Q6.

RQ2—What behavioral, economic and functional factors impact the reparability and service lifetime of products?

RQ2a—Are purchase intentions for lifecycle-extendable products associated with future repairability consideration and self-reported benefits awareness, and does awareness predict current versus future purchase behavior differently?

This is answered by the Q7/Q13/Q15 correlation and RM ANOVA.

2. Methodology

2.1. Survey Design and Data Collection

The survey was designed to assess consumer attitudes toward the use of recycled and repairable products across multiple categories, including sports equipment, electronics, home appliances, vehicles, clothing, and furniture. Particular attention was given to the perceived influence of emerging EU regulations that emphasize product repairability and extended product lifecycles. The questionnaire aimed to capture participants’ perceptions and preferences regarding products with extended lifecycles achieved through repair and reuse. It consisted of 16 questions, as shown in

Table 1. Survey Questions and Possible Answers.

Q1: How often do you purchase recycled or upcycled products?	1-Never 2-Rarely (less than once every three months) 3-Occasionally (once a month) 4-Frequently (more than once a week)
Q2: Do you believe that products made from recycled materials are less durable than those made from new materials? * Q2-recoded: I do NOT believe recycled products are less durable	1-Strongly disagree 2-Disagree 3-Neutral 4-Agree 5-Strongly agree
Q3: How do you feel about using products made from recycled materials?	1-Very negative 2-Somewhat negative 3-Neutral 4-Somewhat positive 5-Very positive
Q4: Would you be willing to pay more for a product if you knew it could be easily repaired?	1-Yes 2-No 3-Maybe 4-Other
Q5: Cost range of the product I am willing to repair:	0–30 EUR 30–100 EUR 100–500 EUR 500+ EUR
Q6: How important are environmental impacts when you make a purchase decision?	1-Not at all important 2-Not important 3-Slightly important 4-Somewhat important 5-Very important
Q7: How likely are you to buy a product specifically because it has an extendable lifecycle (e.g., can be easily repaired or upgraded)?	1-Very unlikely 2-Unlikely 3-Somewhat likely 4-Very likely
Q8: Given a choice, would you prefer to repair a product rather than replace it, if the costs were comparable?	1-Yes 2-No
Q9: Which of these products do you feel comfortable fixing? (Several options are possible)	1-Sports equipment 2-Electronics 3-Small home appliance 4-Large home appliance 5-Vehicles 6-Clothing 7-Furniture
Q10: Have you ever chosen to repair a product rather than replace it?	1-Yes 2-No
If you answered “yes”, please describe your experience	1-I have had positive experiences 2-I have had negative experiences 3-Neutral 4-It depends on the individual case (please describe), Other: _____________________
Q11: How do you balance cost with sustainable choices in your purchasing decisions?	1-Cost is more important 2-Sustainability is more important 3-They are equally important 4-It depends on the product type
Q12: What are the main barriers you face when considering repairing a product? (Select all that apply)	1-Cost of repairs 2-Availability of repair services 3-Time it takes to get something repaired 4-Lack of information about how to repair 5-Other:
Q13: How well informed do you feel about the benefits of purchasing recycled and repairable products?	1-Not informed at all 2-Not very informed 3-Somewhat informed 4-Very well informed
Q14: Are you aware of the new EU regulations requiring products to be repairable?	1-Yes 2-No 3-Somewhat
Q15: Given the shift towards more sustainable products, how likely are you to consider repairability as a factor in future purchases?	1-Very unlikely 2-Unlikely 3-Somewhat likely 4-Very likely
Q16: What would encourage you to purchase more recycled or repairable products in the future?	Open question

(*) Denotes that the item is a recoded version of the same question, where responses are reversed to ensure consistent interpretation across items.

. Respondents were asked to evaluate their awareness, attitudes, and behavioral intentions related to product longevity, repair practices, and the adoption of circular economy principles. The survey was conducted online using Google Forms and was available in English.

The questionnaire was developed in several iterative steps. The initial version was distributed to a limited number of people as a pilot questionnaire. After analyzing the preliminary results, new ideas were generated to improve the questionnaire and align it with the research question. The questionnaire was revised before being distributed to a larger population.

The use of general product categories in the primary survey reflects a deliberate Stage 1 design choice consistent with exploratory consumer research, which typically maps broad attitudinal patterns before narrowing to product-specific investigations [11,22]. Future phases of this research will focus on a single product family, allowing for deeper and more concrete consumer analysis. The questionnaire items were grouped according to the conceptual dimensions they were intended to capture. Specifically, the following items were classified as economic factors: Q1, Q4, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q11, Q12, and Q16. Items representing behavioral factors included: Q3, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, Q10, Q12, Q13, Q14, Q15, and Q16. The items corresponding to functional factors were Q2, Q12, and Q15. Several questions overlapped between different categories. Q2 was recoded so that higher scores reflect a more positive narrative, aligning it with other questions and enabling clearer, more consistent statistical comparisons. Specifically, Q2 was intentionally formulated with reverse polarity (“products made from recycled materials are less durable”) to reduce acquiescence bias. This recoding was planned from the instrument design stage and is not a post hoc correction.

2.2. Participants

The sample included 68 participants, primarily young adults aged 18–24, as well as a broader group surveyed about their attitudes and behaviors regarding product repair. The participants comprised 19 females and 49 males. Most participants were in the 18–24 age group, representing 63.24% of the total. The remaining age groups were distributed as follows: 25–34 years (14.71%), 35–44 years (7.35%), 45–54 years (8.82%), and 55–64 years (5.88%). This distribution shows a significant concentration of younger adults, with the proportion decreasing as age increases. Most participants were from Slovenia (50%) and Sweden (45%), with smaller numbers from Belgium (2.9%) and France (1.5%).

2.3. Data Analysis

All statistical analyses were conducted using Jamovi (Version 2.3). Descriptive statistics were first computed to summarize response distributions across key survey items. To assess associations among variables Q2, Q3, and Q6, as well as among Q7, Q13, and Q15, both Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated based on the non-parametric characteristics observed in the data.

To evaluate within-subject differences across repeated measures, a repeated measures ANOVA was performed. Assumptions of sphericity were examined using Mauchly’s test, with Greenhouse–Geisser corrections applied where violations occurred. Significant omnibus effects were followed by post hoc pairwise comparisons with Tukey adjustment to control for Type I error. Estimated marginal means accompanied all models to support interpretation of effect patterns.

The use of both Pearson and Spearman coefficients was motivated by the non-parametric characteristics of the data, ensuring robustness of association estimates. Repeated measures ANOVA was selected as the appropriate test for within-subject designs in which the same participants responded across multiple related items; Greenhouse–Geisser correction addressed sphericity violations and Tukey adjustment controlled familywise Type I error in post hoc comparisons.

The risk of false positives due to the small sample size and multiple analyses is managed through five complementary protections: (1) Spearman’s ρ is used as the primary non-parametric estimator, as it is robust to scale-level and distributional assumptions; (2) convergence across three estimators (Pearson, Spearman, Kendall) serves as an internal replication standard—only associations consistent across all three are interpreted as substantive; (3) Tukey correction is applied to all ANOVA post hoc comparisons; (4) Greenhouse–Geisser correction is used for sphericity violations; and (5) large observed effect sizes (η²p = 0.313 and 0.246) provide resistance to sampling noise at this sample size. Additionally, the two repeated measures ANOVA models are each constructed within scale-consistent item sets: the first model analyzes only Q2, Q3, and Q6 (all five-point scales), and the second analyzes only Q7, Q13, and Q15 (all four-point scales), so the mixed-scale structure of the instrument does not compromise within-model comparisons. Model-based estimated marginal means are reported throughout, rather than raw scale means, to facilitate accurate within-group interpretation.

3. Results

This section presents findings from the survey (N = 68) in four subsections. Section 3.1 provides an overview of sample characteristics and contextual behavioral data. Section 3.2 and Section 3.3 address the two main research questions and their respective sub-questions by integrating descriptive and inferential evidence. Section 3.4 summarizes how the findings answer each research question. All variables covered the full scale range with no missing values (

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Scale Items (N = 68).

Item	Mean (M)	SD	Scale/Response Options
Q2—Perceived durability of recycled materials	3.19	0.89	1 (Strongly disagree)– 5 (Strongly agree)
Q3—Affective response toward recycled products	4.28	0.79	1 (Very negative)– 5 (Very positive)
Q6—Importance of environmental impact	3.54	1.14	1 (Not at all important)– 5 (Very important)
Q7—Purchase likelihood (extendable lifecycle)	3.29	0.58	1 (Very unlikely)– 4 (Very likely)
Q13—Awareness of benefits of recycled/repairable products	2.76	0.72	1 (Not informed at all)– 4 (Very well informed)
Q15—Future repairability consideration	3.28	0.54	1 (Very unlikely)– 4 (Very likely)

Note. Q2, Q3, and Q6 use five-point Likert-type scales; Q7, Q13, and Q15 use four-point scales. Raw means are reported; model-based estimated marginal means from repeated measures analyses are reported in Tables 4 and 6. SD = standard deviation.

). Note that Q2, Q3, and Q6 use five-point scales, while Q7, Q13, and Q15 use four-point scales; descriptive means are therefore not directly comparable across these two groups. Model-based estimated marginal means from the repeated measures analyses are reported alongside raw descriptive means to facilitate accurate within-group comparisons. Detailed frequency tables are presented in the Appendix A.

3.1. Sample Characteristics and Contextual Behavioral Findings

Table 2 presents descriptive statistics for the six scale items included in inferential analyses. Across the broader survey, most respondents indicated they either rarely (43.3%) or occasionally (40.3%) purchased recycled or upcycled products, suggesting a limited but present commitment to sustainable consumer behavior (Q1). Only 7.5% reported buying such products frequently, and 9.0% said they never do so.

Regarding economic behavior, 69.1% of respondents were willing to pay more for easily repairable products, 20.6% answered “maybe,” and 8.8% said they would not (Q4). One participant commented: “I do not want repairability as an add-on; I want it to be the baseline and my right as a consumer,” reflecting an expectation that repairability should be standard rather than a premium feature. Most respondents indicated they were willing to repair products priced between 100 and 500 EUR (46%), with higher-value items less common in this predominantly student sample (Q5).

The majority of respondents (70.1%) had previously chosen to repair rather than replace a product (Q10). Of these, 59% reported positive experiences, though some noted that repairs did not always extend product life as expected. When asked how they balance cost with sustainability (Q11), 29.4% prioritized cost, 33.8% said it depended on the product type, and 26.5% considered both equally important, indicating that financial considerations weigh heavily in everyday purchasing decisions.

Regarding product categories in which respondents felt comfortable carrying out repairs (Q9), furniture (77.9%) and sports equipment (69.1%) were rated most accessible, while electronics (47.1%) and clothing (52.9%) ranked lowest. The main reported barriers to repair (Q12) were cost and repair time, each cited by more than two-thirds of respondents, followed by lack of information and limited availability of repair services.

Awareness of EU repairability regulations was low: 54.4% of participants were unaware of Directive (EU) 2024/1799 [20], 22.1% were only partially informed, and just 23.5% reported full awareness (Q14). These contextual findings establish the behavioral and economic backdrop against which the inferential analyses in Section 3.2 and Section 3.3 are interpreted.

3.2. RQ1—Consumer Attitudes Toward Recycled Materials and Repairability

RQ1 asks whether end users hold a positive attitude toward repairability. This section addresses RQ1 and the accompanying sub-question RQ1a—whether consumers’ affective responses toward recycled products differ systematically from their durability confidence (recoded Q2) and their environmental concern—using descriptive data, Spearman rank-order correlations, and a one-way repeated measures ANOVA.

3.2.1. Descriptive Findings (Q2, Q3, Q6)

Attitudes toward using recycled products were strongly positive. Responses to Q3 showed that 50.0% of participants felt “Very positive” and 30.9% “Somewhat positive” about using recycled products, with only 19.1% neutral and no respondents expressing negative views (M = 4.28, SD = 0.79). Regarding confidence in the durability of recycled materials, Q2 was recoded so that higher scores reflect agreement with the statement “I do NOT believe recycled products are less durable,” meaning higher scores indicate stronger durability confidence. On this recoded scale, the most frequent response was “Neutral” (36.8%), followed by “Agree” (35.3%), with disagreement less common (22.1%) and strong opinions in either direction rare (M = 3.19, SD = 0.89). The mean of 3.19 (recoded scale midpoint = 3) indicates a slight but not emphatic tendency toward durability confidence, while a substantial portion of participants remained neutral. Regarding the importance of environmental impact in purchase decisions (Q6), 54.4% considered it “somewhat important,” with equal shares (14.7% each) rating it “very important” or “not important” (M = 3.54, SD = 1.14), reflecting moderate and varied environmental concern.

3.2.2. Correlation Analysis (RQ1)

Spearman rank-order correlations among Q2, Q3, and Q6 are reported in

Table 3. Rank-Based Correlations Among Attitude Items Q2, Q3, and Q6 (N = 68).

Pair	Pearson r	Spearman ρ	95% CI (ρ)	p	Kendall τb	p
Q2—Q3	0.393 ***	0.414 ***	[0.212, 0.600]	<0.001	0.362 ***	<0.001
Q2—Q6	0.206	0.161	[−0.093, 0.399]	0.189	0.139	0.188
Q3—Q6	0.177	0.180	[−0.059, 0.413]	0.148	0.159	0.185

Note: Pearson r, Spearman ρ, and Kendall τb are reported. 95% CI based on bootstrapped intervals (10,000 iterations) for ρ. *** p < 0.001.

. All variables covered the full scale range with no missing values. After recoding, Q2 runs from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) with respect to the statement “I do NOT believe recycled products are less durable,” so higher scores reflect greater durability confidence; Q3 runs from 1 (Very negative) to 5 (Very positive). A statistically significant positive correlation was found between durability confidence (Q2) and affective response toward recycled products (Q3), Pearson’s r(66) = 0.393, ρ(66) = 0.414, 95% CI [0.212, 0.600], p < 0.001, confirmed by Kendall’s τb = 0.362, p < 0.001. This is a substantively coherent finding: participants who had greater confidence that recycled materials are NOT less durable also reported more positive affect toward using such products. Durability confidence thus emerges as a meaningful enabler of favorable consumer attitudes, suggesting that alleviating doubts about material performance directly supports positive orientations toward recycled products. Correlations involving environmental importance (Q6) were small and non-significant with both Q2 (Pearson’s r = 0.206, ρ = 0.161, p = 0.189) and Q3 (Pearson’s r = 0.177, ρ = 0.180, p = 0.189), indicating that general environmental concern does not reliably co-vary with either durability beliefs or emotional attitudes toward recycled products in this sample.

3.2.3. Within-Person Differences in Attitudes: Repeated Measures ANOVA (RQ1a)

To test RQ1a—whether affective response, durability confidence, and environmental concern differ within the same participants—a one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted on Q2 (recoded), Q3, and Q6. Mauchly’s test indicated a violation of sphericity, W = 0.858, p = 0.006; therefore, Greenhouse-Geisser corrected degrees of freedom were applied (ε = 0.876). The ANOVA revealed a significant main effect, F(2, 134) = 30.5, p < 0.001, η²p = 0.313, indicating a large within-person effect.

Estimated marginal means and Tukey-corrected post hoc comparisons are presented in

Table 4. Estimated Marginal Means and Post Hoc Comparisons for Q2, Q3, and Q6 (N = 68).

Variable	M (SE)	95% CI	vs. Q2 Δ	vs. Q3 Δ	vs. Q6 Δ	F (df)	η2p
Q2—Perceived durability	3.19 (0.11)	[2.98, 3.41]	—	−1.09 ***	−0.35 †	F(2, 134) = 30.5	0.313
Q3—Affective response	4.28 (0.10)	[4.09, 4.47]	1.09 ***	—	0.74 ***
Q6—Environmental importance	3.54 (0.14)	[3.27, 3.82]	0.35 †	−0.74 ***	—

Note: Greenhouse-Geisser correction applied (ε = 0.876). Δ = mean difference (row minus column), Tukey-corrected. † p = 0.069 (marginal). *** p < 0.001. η²p = partial eta-squared.

. Affective response (Q3, M = 4.28) was rated significantly higher than durability confidence (Q2, M = 3.19), mean difference = 1.09 (SE = 0.11, p < 0.001), and significantly higher than environmental importance (Q6, M = 3.54), mean difference = 0.74 (SE = 0.15, p < 0.001). The difference between Q2 and Q6 did not reach significance (Δ = −0.35, p = 0.069). These results show that participants’ affective response toward recycled products (Q3) substantially exceeds their durability confidence (Q2, recoded). With Q2 recoded so that higher scores indicate greater durability confidence, “the mean of M = 3.19 sits only marginally” above the scale midpoint, indicating that durability confidence, while slightly more present than absent, remains moderate rather than firmly held. The 1.09-point gap between Q3 and Q2 indicates that emotional acceptance of recycled products substantially outpaces firm conviction in their durability performance. This divergence should not be interpreted as a repairing or contradiction, but rather as a developmental stage in attitude formation: consumers are affectively receptive to recycled and repairable products, while assurances regarding durability remain a salient, yet unmet, need. Taken together, these results confirm RQ1, demonstrating that end users in this sample hold a clearly positive attitude toward recycled and repairable products. Moreover, the observed pattern of means suggests that strengthening confidence in durability could further consolidate and stabilize these favorable orientations.

3.3. RQ2—Behavioral, Economic, and Functional Factors Affecting Repair Decisions

RQ2 asks what behavioral, economic, and functional factors shape product reparability and service lifetime. This section addresses RQ2 and sub-question RQ2a whether purchase intentions for extendable-lifecycle products are associated with repairability consideration and benefits awareness, and whether awareness predicts current versus future behavior differently using descriptive data, Spearman correlations, and a second repeated measures ANOVA on Q7, Q13, and Q15.

3.3.1. Behavioral Factors

Behavioral factors include personal values, repair habits, and informational awareness. The majority of respondents (70.1%) had already repaired rather than replaced a product, and 59% of those reported positive outcomes, indicating that repair experience is both common and generally satisfactory. However, awareness of the benefits of recycled and repairable products was limited: only 11.8% felt very well informed, 52.9% felt somewhat informed, and 32.4% felt not very informed (Q13, M = 2.76, SD = 0.72). Awareness of EU repairability regulations was similarly low, with 54.4% unaware of current legislation. These knowledge gaps represent a behavioral barrier that is particularly relevant to long-term repair intention, as explored further in Section 3.3.3.

3.3.2. Economic Factors

Economic factors emerged as the most consistently cited dimension shaping repair decisions. Cost was the leading barrier to repair (Q12), mentioned by over two-thirds of respondents, followed closely by the time required for repair. These findings align with the dominant repair price threshold: 46% of respondents were willing to repair products in the 100–500 EUR range, while the proportion willing to repair higher-value items was lower (24%), partly reflecting the student-dominated sample composition. When balancing cost against sustainability (Q11), 29.4% prioritized cost and 33.8% said the balance depended on the product type, with only a small minority explicitly prioritizing sustainability over cost. Willingness to pay more for repairable products (69.1% in Q4) indicates that consumers perceive value in repairability in principle; however, actual repair decisions are constrained once real costs are encountered. Respondents’ open-ended comments (Q16) further confirm cost as the primary enabling condition, with affordable spare parts, reduced taxes, and EU-level repair incentives cited as conditions that would increase engagement (Section 3.5). It should be noted that the absolute cost thresholds in Q5 (0–30 EUR; 30–100 EUR; 100–500 EUR; 500+ EUR) are product-category dependent and carry inherent interpretive limits when applied across heterogeneous product types. Expressing repair willingness as a percentage of product price would be methodologically preferable for cross-category comparisons and will be adopted in subsequent phases of this research.

3.3.3. Functional Factors

Functional factors include product design characteristics, perceived repairability, and design complexity. Comfort with repair varied substantially by product category: furniture (77.9%) and sports equipment (69.1%) were perceived as manageable, whereas electronics (47.1%) and clothing (52.9%) were rated considerably lower. Limited spare-part availability and the perceived difficulty of disassembly were identified as structural barriers (Q12), consistent with the view that product design directly mediates repair engagement.

3.3.4. Correlation Analysis for Purchase Intentions and Awareness (RQ2a)

Spearman rank-order correlations among Q7 (purchase likelihood for extendable-lifecycle products), Q13 (benefits awareness), and Q15 (future repairability consideration) are presented in

Table 5. Rank-based correlations among purchase intention items Q7, Q13, and Q15 (N = 68).

Pair	Pearson r	Spearman ρ	95% CI (ρ)	p	Kendall τb	p
Q7—Q15	0.307 *	0.286 *	[0.059, 0.496]	0.018	0.275 *	0.019
Q7—Q13	−0.063	−0.070	[−0.230, 0.120]	0.569	−0.063	0.578
Q15—Q13	0.275 *	0.291 *	[0.070, 0.470]	0.016	0.270 *	0.018

Note: Pearson r, Spearman ρ, and Kendall τb reported. 95% CI based on bootstrapped intervals (10,000 iterations) for ρ. * p < 0.05.

. Purchase likelihood (Q7) and future repairability consideration (Q15) were significantly correlated, Pearson’s r(66) = 0.307, ρ(66) = 0.286, 95% CI [0.059, 0.496], p = 0.018, τb = 0.275, p = 0.019, indicating that participants who were more inclined to purchase lifecycle-extendable products were also more likely to factor repairability into future decisions. Benefits awareness (Q13) was significantly correlated with future repairability consideration (Q15), Pearson’s r(66) = 0.275, ρ = 0.291, p = 0.016, but showed no significant association with current purchase likelihood (Q7), Pearson’s r(66) = −0.063, ρ = −0.070, p = 0.569. This dissociation indicates that awareness of product benefits influences long-term behavioral intentions more than it governs immediate purchasing decisions.

3.3.5. Within-Person Differences in Purchase Intentions: Repeated Measures ANOVA (RQ2a)

A second one-way repeated measures ANOVA examined within-person differences across Q7, Q13, and Q15. Mauchly’s test again indicated a violation of sphericity, W = 0.828, p = 0.002 (Greenhouse-Geisser ε = 0.853). The corrected ANOVA revealed a significant main effect, F(1.71, 114.31) = 21.9, p < 0.001, η²p = 0.246, reflecting a medium-to-large within-person effect. Estimated marginal means and post hoc comparisons are reported in

Table 6. Estimated marginal means and post hoc comparisons for Q7, Q13, and Q15 (N = 68).

Variable	M (SE)	95% CI	vs. Q7 Δ	vs. Q13 Δ	vs. Q15 Δ	F (df)	η2p
Q7—Purchase likelihood (lifecycle)	3.29 (0.07)	[3.16, 3.43]	—	0.56 ***	0.01	F(1.71, 114.31) = 21.9	0.246
Q13—Benefits awareness	2.74 (0.09)	[2.56, 2.91]	−0.56 ***	—	−0.54 ***
Q15—Repairability consideration	3.28 (0.07)	[3.15, 3.41]	−0.01	0.54 ***	—

Note: Greenhouse-Geisser correction applied (ε = 0.853). Δ = mean difference (row minus column), Tukey-corrected. *** p < 0.001. η²p = partial eta-squared.

.

Purchase likelihood (Q7, M = 3.29) and future repairability consideration (Q15, M = 3.28) were statistically indistinguishable (Δ = 0.01, p = 0.981), both above the midpoint of the four-point scale, and both significantly higher than benefits awareness (Q13, M = 2.74). The mean difference between Q7 and Q13 was 0.56 (SE = 0.11, p < 0.001), and between Q15 and Q13 was 0.54 (SE = 0.09, p < 0.001). These results identify a knowledge–intention gap: participants expressed equivalent and moderately strong intentions to consider both lifecycle extendability and repairability, yet their self-reported awareness of the benefits of such products fell meaningfully below the scale midpoint. This pattern suggests that positive behavioral intentions exist independently of—and in advance of—factual knowledge about sustainable product benefits, which has direct implications for how informational interventions should be designed and timed.

3.4. Summary: Evidence for Research Questions

Table 7. Research questions and supporting evidence.

Research Question	Evidence from Descriptive and Inferential Results
RQ1—Do end users have a positive attitude toward reparability?	Confirmed. 80.9% of respondents held a positive or very positive affective response toward using recycled products (Q3, M = 4.28); 69.1% were willing to pay more for repairable products; 94% would consider lifecycle extendability in purchase decisions; and 70.1% had already chosen repair over replacement. Model-based means confirmed that affective response (Q3) was rated significantly higher than both durability confidence (Q2, recoded) and environmental importance (Q6), F(2, 134) = 30.5, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.313 (RQ1a).
RQ1a—Do consumers’ affective responses toward recycled products differ from their beliefs about durability and their environmental concern, and in what direction?	Confirmed. Affective response (Q3, M = 4.28) significantly exceeded durability confidence (Q2, M = 3.19, Δ = 1.09 ***) and environmental importance (Q6, M = 3.54, Δ = 0.74 ***), indicating that positive affect toward recycled products outpaces durability confidence, which remains only moderately established (Q2, M = 3.19, marginally above midpoint on recoded scale). Strengthening durability confidence is therefore a key lever for consolidating positive consumer orientations.
RQ2—What behavioral, economic, and functional factors impact reparability and service lifetime?	Confirmed across all three dimensions. Behavioral: knowledge gaps persist (52.9% only somewhat informed; 32.4% not informed). Economic: cost and time are the leading barriers (cited by over 66% of respondents). Functional: comfort with repair varies by product type (furniture 77.9% vs. electronics 47.1%); design complexity and spare-part availability remain deterrents.
RQ2a—Are purchase intentions for extendable-lifecycle products associated with repairability consideration and awareness, and does awareness predict current vs. future behavior differently?	Confirmed. Q7 and Q15 were significantly correlated (r = 0.307 *, ρ = 0.286 *, τb = 0.275 *) and statistically indistinguishable in mean level (M = 3.29 vs. 3.28). Awareness (Q13, M = 2.74) was significantly lower than both (Δ ≈ 0.55, p < 0.001) and correlated with Q15 (ρ = 0.291 *) but not Q7 (ρ = −0.070, ns), confirming that awareness influences future intentions more than immediate purchase behavior.

Note:* p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001.

maps descriptive and inferential findings to each research question and sub-question, providing a structured overview of how the results address the study’s aims.

3.5. Open-Ended Responses: Enablers of Sustainable Purchasing (Q16)

Responses to the open-ended question Q16 (“What would encourage you to purchase more recycled or repairable products in the future?”) were organized into six thematic categories (

Table 8. Thematic summary of open-ended responses to Q16: “What would encourage you to purchase more recycled or repairable products in the future?”.

Category	Summary of Responses
1. Cost and Affordability (dominant theme)	Repairable or refurbished products must be less expensive than new ones. Lower repair costs, affordable spare parts, reduced taxes, and incentives (e.g., EU funding) were considered essential.
2. Repairability and DIY Support	The ability to repair products independently, supported by tools, tutorials, and affordable parts. Simplicity and practicality of repairs were cited as important motivators.
3. Spare Parts and Infrastructure	Easier and long-term access to spare parts and a widespread repair network. Availability and affordability of parts and services were considered crucial.
4. Legislation, Incentives, and Regulation	Clearer and stricter regulations on repairability and material transparency, along with legislative support and incentives to encourage sustainable choices.
5. Environmental Awareness and Education	More education on environmental impact, reduction of greenwashing, and increased awareness of resource scarcity and material sustainability.
6. Quality and Durability	Durable, high-quality products with longer warranties are more attractive when considering repairability, as they are more likely to justify repair efforts and costs.

Note: Responses were coded inductively and assigned to thematic categories; multiple themes could be present in a single response.

), revealing a strongly interconnected pattern of reasoning. Cost and affordability clearly emerged as the dominant theme, shaping how all other factors are evaluated. Price competitiveness with new products, affordable repairs, and supportive measures such as tax reductions or incentives serve as baseline conditions for consideration. Within this cost-centered perspective, other themes—such as repair infrastructure, access to spare parts, and product quality—become relevant primarily when they enhance economic feasibility. In particular, recurring concerns about quality and durability closely reflect the confidence gap identified in Section 3.2: consumers are open to repairable and recycled products, but only if they trust these products to perform reliably over time. Overall, the results indicate that sustained repair-oriented behavior depends on aligning confidence in durability with clearly perceivable financial advantages, rather than addressing these dimensions separately.

4. Discussion

4.1. Positive Attitudes Toward Repairability and the Attitude–Behavior Gap

The results confirm that participants generally hold positive attitudes toward product repairability and recycled materials, aligning with growing normative support for repair as a central circular economy strategy [3,11]. Across the sample, 80.9% of respondents expressed a positive or very positive affective response toward using recycled products (Q3, M = 4.28), 69.1% were willing to pay more for repairable products, 94% indicated openness to purchasing products specifically because of an extendable lifecycle, and 70.1% had already chosen repair over replacement. These findings affirm the answer to RQ1: end users hold a clearly positive attitude toward repairability, consistent with Salvia and Roskladka [5,32].

The inferential results provide greater structural precision to this picture. The repeated measures ANOVA on recoded durability confidence (Q2), affective response (Q3), and environmental importance (Q6) revealed large within-person differences, F(2, 134) = 30.5, p < 0.001, η²p = 0.313. Affective response (Q3, M = 4.28) significantly exceeded both durability confidence (Q2, M = 3.19; Δ = 1.09, p < 0.001) and environmental importance (Q6, M = 3.54; Δ = 0.74, p < 0.001). With Q2 recoded so that higher scores reflect greater confidence that recycled materials are not less durable, the mean of 3.19 only marginally above the midpoint indicates that durability conviction, while slightly more present than absent, remains moderate rather than firmly established. This gap between emotional acceptance and material conviction is best understood not as inconsistency but as a developmental stage in attitude formation: consumers are affectively receptive to recycled products, yet durability reassurance remains an important unmet need. The pattern echoes established findings from environmental psychology, where pro-environmental affect frequently outpaces factual confidence and behavioral readiness [33], and aligns with evidence that performance uncertainty about sustainable materials persistently tempers consumer commitment [24,34].

The positive correlation between durability confidence and affective response (Pearson’s r = 0.393, ρ = 0.414, p < 0.001) is substantively important: participants who held stronger confidence that recycled materials are not less durable also reported more positive affect toward using them. Durability confidence thus emerges as a direct enabler of favorable consumer orientations, directly supporting the argument that alleviating performance doubts is a precondition for deeper engagement with sustainable products. This is consistent with Terzioğlu [30], who identifies quality uncertainty as a structural barrier to repair uptake, and with Marikyan [24], who emphasizes trust in repair outcomes as a primary driver of repair-oriented behavior. Notably, environmental concern (Q6) showed no significant association with either durability confidence (r = 0.206, p = 0.092) or affective response (r = 0.177, p = 0.148), indicating that general pro-environmental orientation does not, in itself, resolve the performance doubts that moderate consumer commitment to recycled materials.

Despite strong attitudinal support, a persistent attitude–behavior gap is evident. Repair actions were typically limited to situations where product failure had already occurred and were constrained by cost, time, and perceived effort. This mirrors the well-documented gap between sustainable intentions and actions [10,33,35] and is broadly consistent with EU-level survey data showing that only 32% of Europeans have repaired an item in the past six months, with 39% citing cost and logistical difficulty as deterrents [11]. Repair must therefore be understood as a socio-technical activity shaped by user capabilities, economic conditions, and product design, not simply a preference to be activated through awareness campaigns alone [7,11].

4.2. The Knowledge–Intention Gap and Its Implications for Informational Intervention

A particularly consequential finding concerns the structure of the relationship between purchase intentions and benefits awareness (RQ2a). The repeated measures ANOVA on purchase likelihood for extendable-lifecycle products (Q7), benefits awareness (Q13), and future repairability consideration (Q15) revealed a significant within-person effect, F(1.71, 114.31) = 21.9, p < 0.001, η²p = 0.246. Purchase likelihood (Q7, M = 3.29) and future repairability consideration (Q15, M = 3.28) were statistically indistinguishable (Δ = 0.01, p = 0.981), both above the scale midpoint, yet both significantly higher than benefits awareness (Q13, M = 2.74; both Δ ≈ 0.55, p < 0.001). This knowledge–intention gap—moderately strong and equivalent intentions to act, coexisting with below-midpoint awareness of the benefits that would logically support those intentions—is a finding of considerable practical importance. In this context, prior research highlights that advancing circular economy goals through repair is constrained by legal, market, cost, and preference barriers, requiring balanced right-to-repair policies rather than full open access to effectively support stakeholders [36].

The correlation analysis clarifies the temporal structure of this gap. Benefits awareness (Q13) was significantly correlated with future repairability consideration (Q15, r = 0.275, ρ = 0.291, p = 0.016) but showed no significant association with current purchase likelihood (Q7, r = −0.063, ρ = −0.070, p = 0.569). This dissociation indicates that informational awareness operates differently across time horizons: it shapes long-term behavioral intentions but does not govern immediate purchase decisions. These findings align with Roskladka [5], who found that positive attitudes—rather than explicit factual knowledge—are the more proximal driver of willingness to repair and reuse, and with broader evidence that knowledge-based interventions have limited short-term behavioral impact when structural barriers such as cost and convenience remain [10]. Consequently, informational campaigns aimed at raising awareness of recycled and repairable product benefits are more likely to consolidate future intentions than to shift point-of-purchase behavior directly.

One promising direction is design education, as illustrated by initiatives in Sweden where students actively practice repairing and redesigning products [37]. Such hands-on engagement not only builds technical competence but also deepens students’ understanding of the relationship between design, repair, and sustainability. Integrating repair-oriented learning into design curricula empowers future professionals in product development.

The low awareness of EU repairability regulations (54.4% unaware of Directive 2024/1799 [20]; only 23.5% fully informed) reinforces this conclusion. Legislative requirements exist but remain largely disconnected from consumer consciousness, limiting their behavioral reach. This mirrors prior findings that policy measures often fail to translate into user-level behavior change without active communication intermediaries [11,29,36]. Information provision must therefore be strategically layered: broad-reach awareness campaigns to consolidate future intentions, combined with point-of-purchase signals—standardized repairability labels, transparent spare-part pricing, warranty duration indicators—to support immediate decision-making at the moment it matters most.

4.3. Economic Barriers as the Primary Constraint on Repair Behavior

Across all three factor dimensions examined in this study, economic barriers emerged as the most consistently cited constraint on actual repair engagement. Cost was identified as the leading barrier by more than two-thirds of respondents, followed closely by repair time. Nearly half of respondents (46%) indicated they are willing to repair products priced between 100 and 500 EUR, while a significantly lower proportion are willing to repair higher-value items (24%). This reflects the pragmatic cost calculus described by Svensson-Hoglund [13]: when repair costs approach the price of a new product, consumers choose replacement regardless of their environmental values. This is consistent with the established economics of spare-part pricing by Cullbrand [27], Brusselaers [9], and Sabbaghi [35], who document cost as a structurally decisive factor in repair decisions across product categories.

The tension between stated willingness to pay a premium for repairability and actual cost-driven decisions is captured precisely in the data. A majority (69.1%) expressed willingness to pay more for repairable products in principle (Q4), yet 29.4% explicitly prioritized cost when balancing purchasing trade-offs (Q11) and 33.8% applied context-dependent cost-sustainability reasoning. Only a small minority consistently placed sustainability above cost. The findings can also be interpreted in light of recent EU repairability regulation. Directive (EU) 2024/1799 [20] strengthens consumers’ right to repair by requiring manufacturers to offer repair services beyond the legal warranty period and by promoting measures that lower economic barriers to repair, such as improved access to spare parts, repair information, and supportive pricing conditions. This study shows that this regulatory focus directly addresses a core structural driver of the attitude–behavior gap identified in the survey. While respondents express strong normative support for repairability, actual repair behavior remains highly sensitive to cost. Open-ended responses (Q16) repeatedly highlighted affordability, reduced VAT on repairs, subsidies, and lower spare-part prices as decisive enablers, confirming that the gap between pro-repair values and practice is partly economic. In this context, Design for Repair features—such as modularity or ease of disassembly—are necessary but insufficient on their own. Without complementary demand-side economic instruments, as anticipated by Directive (EU) 2024/1799 [20], repair-friendly design is unlikely to lead to widespread consumer uptake. The results therefore provide empirical support for prioritizing the directive’s implementation mechanisms and suggest that regulatory action aimed at reducing repair costs is critical for converting positive consumer attitudes toward repair into sustained repair behavior [6,12].

The implication for Design for Repair is clear: repairability features are effective only when the broader repair ecosystem—pricing transparency, service availability, and spare-part access—supports their use [28,29]. Products that are technically repairable but economically irrational to repair remain effectively unrepairable from the consumer’s perspective. Designers and manufacturers must therefore consider the full repair value chain, and policymakers must ensure that economic incentives align with the legislative requirements already being introduced.

4.4. Functional Factors: Product-Specific Repair Confidence and Design Complexity

Functional barriers to repair were most evident in the product-category pattern of repair confidence. Respondents felt comfortable repairing furniture (77.9%) and sports equipment (69.1%), but confidence dropped substantially for electronics (47.1%) and clothing (52.9%). This gradient reflects the role of perceived technical complexity and personal competence in shaping repair engagement, consistent with Van den Berge [25], who found that design cues and fault indicators significantly influence repair likelihood for familiar product categories. The pattern also aligns with Sandez [23] and McQueen [28], who document similar category-specific repair confidence gradients in European consumer surveys, and with evidence that perceived self-efficacy in repair contexts is a primary behavioral predictor [8,24]. Differences in perceived repair complexity among respondents may partly explain variability in reported repair confidence across product categories.

The product-category repair confidence gradient observed in Q9 maps closely onto established repair complexity typologies. Categories in which respondents reported highest comfort—furniture (77.9%) and sports equipment (69.1%)—typically involve accessible, low-complexity interventions such as tightening, strap replacement, and structural fixes. By contrast, categories with the lowest confidence—electronics (47.1%) and large home appliances—correspond to technically advanced or complex repair tasks requiring specialized knowledge, proprietary tools, or internal component access. This gradient confirms that variability in repair confidence is substantially driven by perceived technical complexity rather than motivation alone, and supports the recommendation that consumer-facing repair guidance should be stratified by repair complexity level.

Limited spare-part availability, proprietary fasteners, permanent adhesives, and non-modular architectures were identified as structural functional barriers (Q12), consistent with Terzioğlu [30] and Smith [12]. These design choices disproportionately affect electronics the category where repair engagement is both most environmentally valuable and least confidently undertaken. This underscores the importance of the DfR principles formalized by Roskladka [5] and Ruiz-Pastor [4] modularity, accessible disassembly, standardized components, and repairable appearance as not merely technical ideals but preconditions for translating consumer repair intentions into practice.

Emerging technological and social solutions offer partial compensation for these structural barriers. Additive manufacturing enables the production of replacement parts for products no longer supported by their manufacturers, extending functional repairability beyond the intended product lifecycle [15]. Community repair initiatives—repair cafés, shared tool libraries, and peer-to-peer skill transfer platforms—build the collective competence and social infrastructure that individual consumers lack, particularly for technically complex products [3,14,21]. Integrating awareness of these resources into product communication and policy implementation strategies may expand the population of consumers who feel capable of engaging in repair, particularly for electronics.

4.5. Design Implications: Durability-First, Repairability-Integrated

The durability confidence gap identified in this study has a direct design implication: Design for Repair should not be pursued as an isolated strategy. With affective acceptance of recycled products significantly exceeding durability confidence by 1.09 scale points (p < 0.001), consumers’ primary unmet need is assurance of reliability, not merely access to repair. This is reinforced by open-ended responses (Q16), where quality and durability consistently emerged as key enabling themes alongside cost and infrastructure. Respondents wanted durable, high-quality products with long warranties because such products justify the investment of repair effort and cost. As one participant stated directly, repairability should be a baseline expectation, not a premium feature—a perspective that encapsulates the pragmatic logic of the sample as a whole.

This finding aligns with durability-focused life cycle assessment studies demonstrating that extending product lifetime through improved reliability frequently yields greater environmental benefits than post-failure repair alone [18,38,39]. It also resonates with the upstream design philosophy articulated by Cooper and Mont [1,2], whereby the most effective product lifetime extension strategy begins with robust material selection, quality manufacturing, and longevity-oriented design rather than downstream repair infrastructure. The practical design recommendation is therefore to integrate durability and repairability as complementary requirements: design products that earn consumer trust through material reliability and, when repair becomes necessary, can be repaired without specialist knowledge, proprietary tools, or excessive cost.

Product-Service System models offer an organizational complement to this design logic: by retaining manufacturer responsibility for product performance over time, PSS arrangements create structural incentives for designing durably and repairably from the outset, aligning commercial and environmental interests in ways that traditional product-sale models do not [31].

4.6. Policy Implications

The findings raise substantive questions about the adequacy of current policy instruments in bridging the gap between legislative intent and consumer behavior. Directive (EU) 2024/1799 [20] mandates manufacturer repair obligations beyond the warranty period and represents a significant regulatory step toward embedding repairability into market practice [6,12]. However, with 54.4% of respondents entirely unaware of this regulatory shift, the directive’s behavioral reach is currently limited by a structural awareness deficit. Prior evidence suggests this pattern is consistent: following the Ecodesign Regulation (European Commission No. 666/2013) [40], awareness among end users was similarly slow to develop without targeted communication efforts [11,36].

The results suggest a two-level policy response. At the supply level, regulations should enforce standardized repairability labeling, mandatory spare-part availability timelines, and transparent repair cost disclosure mechanisms that translate legislative requirements into visible consumer signals at the point of purchase. At the demand level, economic incentives are needed to make repair cost-competitive with replacement: reduced VAT on repair services, repair subsidies for low-income households, and manufacturer tax incentives for lifecycle extension. These demand-side measures directly address the economic barrier that consistently outweighs pro-repair intentions in this sample and are explicitly requested by respondents in Q16.

Education represents a third policy lever. The knowledge–intention gap identified in this study suggests that awareness campaigns should be designed to consolidate and reinforce existing positive intentions rather than generate them from scratch. Targeted consumer education, aligned with design education programmes that integrate repair thinking into professional formation [37], can create parallel demand-side and supply-side pressures for more repairable, durable, and transparently documented products. Community repair infrastructure repair cafés, DIY platforms, shared skill networks provides a complementary behavioral nudge that builds repair self-efficacy while reducing the perceived functional barriers that currently limit repair engagement, particularly for electronics [14,21].

The present findings align with and extend existing circular economy and repairability research by empirically confirming that repair behavior results from the interplay of behavioral, economic, and functional factors, rather than from repair-friendly design alone. Consistent with previous studies, consumers express positive attitudes towards repair and sustainability but are deterred by concerns about repair quality, durability, cost, and effort [11,24,30]. While Design for Repair and policy instruments improve technical feasibility, this study supports earlier evidence that perceived durability and performance trust are decisive mediators of repair engagement [13,28]. The observed repairability paradox reinforces calls in the literature to move beyond design-centric approaches and integrate durability assurance, transparent pricing, accessible repair services, and extended warranties [17,29]. In line with emerging research on Product–Service Systems, the results also suggest that systemic shifts towards service-oriented models may better align consumer incentives with circular economy goals by normalizing repair and reducing ownership-related risk [31]. Together, these findings provide a consumer-centered perspective that complements existing design and policy research and clarifies why repair uptake remains limited despite growing institutional support.

4.7. Limitations

Several limitations should be acknowledged. The sample consisted predominantly of young adults aged 18–24 and was drawn mainly from two EU countries—Sweden and Slovenia—supplemented by a small number of participants from other European countries (e.g., Belgium and France). These two focal countries were deliberately selected to reflect contrasting socio-political and cultural contexts within the European Union: Sweden as a long-established welfare state with a strong tradition of sustainability-oriented policies, and Slovenia as a newer democracy from Central/Southern Europe. Despite these contextual differences, no statistically significant differences were observed between national subsamples, suggesting a degree of consistency in attitudes towards recycled and repairable products within this European cohort.

Nevertheless, the findings should be interpreted with caution. The age concentration of the sample limits generalisation to older consumer groups, and the European focus constrains the scope of inference beyond the EU context. Repair cultures, infrastructure availability, and economic conditions vary substantially across regions globally, and the present results cannot be assumed to hold outside Europe. Accordingly, this study should be understood as exploratory. Future research would benefit from larger, more demographically diverse samples and broader geographical coverage to enable stronger generalizations and cross-cultural comparisons [22]. Although the sample size limits statistical power for detecting small effects, the large effect sizes observed (η²p = 0.313 and η²p = 0.246) provide reassurance that the omnibus findings are robust to this constraint; effect sizes of this magnitude are reliably detectable at N = 68 and are consistent with those reported in comparable exploratory studies in repair behavior research [30]. Exploratory consumer repair surveys with similar sample sizes have been published in peer-reviewed journals in this field, including Sandez et al. (2023) [23] and Van den Berge et al. (2022) [25].

The survey was conducted prior to the full implementation of Directive (EU) 2024/1799 [20]. Regulatory implementation may alter consumer awareness and expectations substantially, as has been observed following earlier European product regulation. Longitudinal or post-implementation replication of the survey would therefore be methodologically valuable for tracking attitudinal change over time. The study also relied on self-reported attitudes and intentions rather than observed behavior; social desirability bias and the known gap between stated intentions and actual actions apply. Future research combining survey methods with behavioral observation, choice experiments, or longitudinal diary methods would provide a more complete and ecologically valid picture of the determinants of actual repair engagement. The multi-category framing of the primary survey was a deliberate design choice for this Stage 1 exploratory study; product-specific investigations are planned as Stage 2 follow-up work. Furthermore, the consistency of the findings across the behavioral, economic, and functional dimensions—and their alignment with independently published repair behavior studies [10,11,23,24,30]—provides a form of convergent external validation that partially mitigates the limitations inherent in single-method, single-time-point designs.

5. Conclusions

This study explored the conditions necessary for implementing Design for Reparability, focusing on how behavioral, economic, and functional factors shape consumers’ repair-related attitudes and decisions. The findings offer a coherent picture of where consumer support for repair is strong, where limitations persist, and which mechanisms drive these patterns.

Consumers generally hold positive attitudes toward reparability and recycled materials, and many are willing to engage in repair when it aligns with their expectations of product quality. However, their emotional acceptance of sustainable products consistently exceeds their confidence in the durability of such products. This indicates that reassurance about longevity, rather than further persuasion about environmental benefits, is the primary factor needed to translate positive attitudes into consistent repair-oriented behavior. Trust in durability and positive affect toward sustainable products appear to reinforce each other, suggesting that strengthening either dimension can support the other.

Despite this openness, repair behavior remains constrained by interconnected economic, behavioral, and functional barriers. Financial and time-related considerations commonly outweigh environmental motivations in practice, indicating that design improvements alone cannot close the gap between what consumers value and what they ultimately choose. Behaviorally, consumers often intend to repair more than they currently do, but their understanding of the underlying benefits is limited, creating a gap between knowledge and intention. Functionally, product complexity and limited access to spare parts continue to hinder repair engagement, particularly for electronics, where repair would be most impactful but also most challenging.

The study reframes Design for Repair as a strategy that depends on aligning durability and repairability. Consumers do not simply want products that are easy to repair—they want products that rarely need repair and can be fixed easily and affordably when necessary. This underscores the importance of integrating durability, robustness, and reliability with repair-friendly design, supported by accessible repair ecosystems, extended warranties, and economic structures that make repair a viable choice.

Future research should examine how durability confidence can be meaningfully conveyed through design, labeling, and warranty mechanisms, how awareness and intentions evolve as new EU repairability legislation becomes mainstream, and whether the observed patterns generalize beyond young European consumers. Longitudinal approaches will be especially valuable for assessing whether regulatory and design shifts lead to sustained changes in real-world repair behavior.