Lisbeth Løvbak Berg, Ingun Grimstad Klepp, Anna Schytte Sigaard, Jan Broda, Monika Rom and Katarzyna Kobiela-Mendrek.
Abstract
Production and use of plastic products have drastically increased during the past decades and their environmental impacts are increasingly spotlighted. At the same time, coarse wool, a by-product of meat and dairy production, goes largely unexploited in the EU. This paper asks why more coarse wool is not used in consumer goods, such as acoustic and sound-absorbing products, garden products, and sanitary products. This is answered through a SWOT analysis of results from a desktop study and interviews with producers of these products made from wool, as well as policy documents relating to wool, waste, textiles, and plastic. Findings show that on a product level, the many inherent properties of wool create opportunities for product development and sustainability improvements and that using the coarser wool represents an opportunity for replacing plastics in many applications as well as for innovation. This is, however, dependent on local infrastructure and small-scale enterprises, but as such, it creates opportunities for local value chains, value creation, and safeguarding of local heritage. The shift to small-scale and local resource utilization requires systemic change on several levels: Here the findings show that policy can incentivize material usage transitions, but that these tools are little employed currently.
Textile fibers have become a major issue in the debate on sustainable fashion and clothing consumption. While consumers are encouraged to choose more sustainable and circular textile materials, studies have indicated that a reduction in production and consumption has the greatest potential to reduce the total environmental impact. This can be considered an ecocentric perspective with a focus on degrowth as opposed to a technocentric view where new technologies are expected to solve environmental problems while economic growth continues. Based on a survey in Norway (N = 1284), we investigate how the techno- and ecocentric perspectives impact Norwegian consumers’ fiber preferences and perceptions and the corresponding effects on their clothing consumption. We found that the majority of consumers preferred natural fibers compared to synthetic materials. This contradicts current market practices and the recommendations by material sustainability comparison tools such as the Higg Material Sustainability Index (MSI), where many synthetics receive better ratings than natural fibers. We also found that perceptions of high sustainability regarding fibers were negatively correlated with reduced consumption. Our study suggests that a continued focus on material substitution and other technological measures for reducing climate change will impede the move toward sustainability in the textile sector.
Vi sjekker merkelappen med Matoha FabriTell fiberskanner.
Forfattere: Anna Schytte Sigaard, Ingun Grimstad Klepp og Tone Tobiasson
I prosjektet Wasted Textiles har en av utfordringene vært å identifisere hvilke fibre klær faktisk består av, både når klærne er merket – men spesielt når de ikke er det.
I november var Wasted Textiles så heldige å få tilgang på fiberskanneren FabriTell fra det engelske firmaet Matoha (matoha.com). FabriTell er en liten håndholdt maskin på bare 0,5 kg som bruker nær infrarød (NIR) analyseteknikk til å identifisere fibersammensettingen i tekstiler. Den kan kjenne igjen to-komponent blandinger av de mest vanlige fibrene, som bomull, polyester, viskose, ull, silke, elastan og akryl i alle typer konstruksjoner av tekstiler, altså både strikkede, vevde og nonwoven materialer.
Vi skal bruke skanneren til å sjekke fiberinnhold i klær og tekstiler innsamlet fra husholdninger i Oslo, Vestfold og Salten i løpet av det siste året. Vi har allerede registrert fiberinnhold som angitt på merkelappene, men mange av tekstilene har ikke merkelapp og i en stor del av klærne har lappen blitt klippet av eller er så slitt fra vask at den ikke kan avleses. Med FabriTell får vi nå mulighet for å registrere innholdet mer presist for disse tekstilene. Vi vil også få vite om våre antagelser om fiberinnhold stemmer. Undersøkelser i andre land har vist at mange klær er feilmerket og faktisk inneholder en større andel av syntetiske fibre enn det som er oppgitt på merkelappene. Vi skal sjekke om dette også gjelder for klær i Norge.
De siste dagene har vi skannet over 200 klesplagg og ser allerede nå at noen er feilmerket, mens andre utelater visse deler av plaggene i det oppgitte fiberinnholdet. På bildene under ses eksempler fra skanningene. På det første bildet skannes en bluse, som ut ifra fibermerkingen skulle bestå av 60% viskose, 20% bomull og 20% polyester, altså 80% plantebaserte fibre og 20% syntetiske fibre. Ifølge skanningen består denne blusen av ca. 80% polyester og 20% elastan, altså 100% syntetiske fibre.
På det andre bildet skannes en genser som ifølge merkelappen skal være laget av 50% bomull og 50% viskose, men FabriTell gir et litt annet resultat. Når forside og bakside av t-skjorten skannes, viser den riktignok 100% plantebaserte fibre, men når kragen skannes, blir resultatet ca. 80% bomull og 20% polyester. Vi fant det samme for flere plagg som var angitt som 100% plantebaserte fibre. Når vi testet hoveddelene av plaggene, stemte fibermerkingen overens med resultatene fra skanneren, men når vi testet krage, ermekanter og bunnribben på gensere og t-skjorter, så målte vi opp imot 30% elastan, nylon eller polyester.
Det vi har sett så langt tilsier at mange klesplagg som ifølge merkelappen skal være laget av plantebaserte fibre også inneholder syntetiske fibre i deler av plaggene og at andre plagg kan være fullstendig feilmerket. Merking av klær er en av de få kildene til informasjon vi som forbrukere har tilgang på om klærne vi kjøper. Feilmerking av denne typen bidrar derfor til at forbrukere får enda større problemer med å navigere i et allerede uoversiktlig marked og, i visse tilfeller, blir ført bak lyset av klesprodusentene. For oss i Wasted Textiles vil skanneren bidra til mer nøyaktige opplysninger om hvor mye av klærne som går ut av bruk i Norge er laget av syntetiske fiber.
I løpet av den neste måned skal vi skanne datamaterialet som er innsamlet til doktorgradsprosjektet i prosjektet bestående av kasserte klær og tekstiler fra 28 husholdninger. Resultatene vil gi et innblikk i feilmerking av klærne som i Norge ender opp i avfallsstrømmer eller går ut av bruk på andre måter. Dette er viktig informasjon hvis vi skal planlegge for hva vi skal gjøre med tekstilavfallet vårt fordi fiberblandinger vanskeliggjør resirkulering.
Authors: Kirsi Laitala and Ingun Grimstad Klepp, SIFO
Abstract
Garment lifetimes and longer serviceable life play important roles in discussions about the sustainability of clothing consumption.
A compilation of the research on clothing disposal motivations shows that there are three main reasons for disposal:
Intrinsic quality (37%): Wear and tear-related issues such as shrinkage, tears and holes, fading of colour, broken zippers and loss of technical functions such as waterproofness.
Fit (28%): Garments that do not fit either because the user has changed size, or the garment did not fit well to start with (for example due to unsuitable grading, insufficient wear ease or wrong size).
Perceived value (35%): reasons where the consumer no longer wants the garment because it is outdated or out of fashion, or no longer is needed or wanted, or is not valued, for example when there is a lack of space in the wardrobe.
This shows that almost two-thirds of garments are discarded for reasons other than physical durability. Poor fit/design together with lack of perceived value by the owner are responsible for the majority of clothing disposals.
Physical strength is one of the several factors that are important if the lifetime of clothing is to be increased. However, it does not help to make clothes stronger if they are not going to be used longer anyway; this will just contribute to increased environmental impacts from the production and disposal phases. We do not need disposable products» that last for centuries. To work with reducing the environmental impacts of clothing consumption, it is important to optimize the match between strength, value and fit. This has the potential to reduce overproduction. Optimizing clothing lifespans will ensure the best possible utilization of the materials in line with the intentions of the circular economy.
Introduction
Garment lifetimes and longer serviceable life play important roles in discussions about the sustainability of clothing consumption.
Here we present the empirical findings summarized from the research that exists around clothing disposal. The review was originally conducted for the work with the development of durability criteria for Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) for apparel and footwear. We believe this can be useful information for companies working to improve their products, and debate about clothing sustainability including the understanding of PEF.
We would like to thank Roy Kettlewell and Angus Ireland for their cooperation.
Method
The review includes empirical quantitative studies on clothing disposal reasons. The studies use varying methods, where online surveys are the most commonly used, but also two physical wardrobe studies are included. The way disposal reasons are studied varies as well. Many surveys ask for general, most common disposal reasons, while wardrobe studies and a few of the surveys focus on specific garments that the informants have disposed of. One of the online wardrobe surveys also asks for anticipated disposal reasons for specific garments instead of past behavior. All of the studies have been conducted between 1987 and 2020. The review excluded any studies that did not focus on disposal reasons or did not report results in a quantitative manner. In addition, it excludes a few lower-quality studies with methodological issues. In total 17 studies that fulfil the inclusion criteria were found.
Results
The review shows that clothing is discarded for many reasons. Table 1 summarizes the results and gives some information about the study sample such as where it was conducted and the number of respondents, as well as the main method that was used. Although there are differences between the surveys, they show a common feature. The results on disposal reasons could be placed in three main categories that were found in all reviewed studies: 1) intrinsic quality, 2) fit, and 3) perceived value, and an additional category for 4) other or unknown reasons. The categories include the following disposal reasons:
Intrinsic quality: Wear and tear-related issues such as shrinkage, tears and holes, fading of colour, broken zippers and loss of technical functions such as waterproofness.
Fit: Garments that do not fit either because the user has changed size, or the garment did not fit well to start with (for example due to unsuitable grading, insufficient wear ease or wrong size).
Perceived value: reasons where the consumer no longer wants the garment because it is outdated or out of fashion, or no longer is needed or wanted, or is not valued, for example when there is a lack of space in the wardrobe.
Study
Research design and sample size
Intrinsic quality
Fit
Perceived value
Other / unknown
AC Nielsen (Laitala & Klepp, 2020)
Survey in five countries, 1111 adults aged 18-64, anticipated disposal reason of 40,356 garments
44
13
35
9
WRAP (2017)
Survey in the UK, 2058 adults, 16,895 garments, disposal reasons per clothing category past year
18
42
33
7
Laitala, Boks, and Klepp (2015)
Wardrobe study in Norway, 25 adults (9 men and 16 women), 396 discarded garments
50
16
24
10
Klepp (2001)
Wardrobe study in Norway, 24 women aged 34- 46. 329 discarded garments
31
15
33
21
Collett, Cluver, and Chen (2013)
Interviews in the USA, 13 female students (aged 18 – 28). Each participant brought five fast fashion items that they no longer wear
41
38
21
–
Chun (1987)
Survey in the USA, 89 female students (aged 18 – 30). Most recent garment disposal reason.
6
29
56
9
Lang, Armstrong, and Brannon (2013)
Survey in the USA, 555 adults. General garment disposal reasons.
30
31
39
–
Koch and Domina (1997)
Survey in the USA, 277 students (82% female). General disposal reasons and methods.
29
38
33
–
Koch and Domina (1999) and Domina and Koch (1999)
Survey in the USA, 396 adults (88% female). General disposal reasons and methods.
21
37
42
–
Zhang et al. (2020)
Survey in China, 507 adults (53% female). General disposal reasons.
43
19
22
16
Ungerth and Carlsson (2011)
Survey in Sweden, 1014 adults (age 16 – 74). The most common disposal reason.
60
8
21
9
YouGov (Stevanin, 2019)
Survey in Italy, 992 adults, general disposal reasons.
31
24
20
25
YouGov (2017a, 2017b, 2017c, 2017d, 2017e)
Surveys in Australia, Philippine, Malaysia, Hong Kong & Singapore, in total 12,434 adults. General disposal reasons.
39
25
29
7
Mean
Approx. 20,000 adults
34.1
25.8
31.4
12.6
Table 1. Summary of clothing disposal reasons in 17 consumer studies.
When the category of other/unknown reasons is excluded, the division between the three main disposal reason categories is quite similar, with intrinsic quality constituting about 37% of disposal reasons, followed by lack of perceived value (35%) and poor fit (28%) (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Clothing disposal reasons
Conclusion
A compilation of the research on clothing disposal motivations shows that there are three main reasons for disposal. Intrinsic quality, that is wear and tear and other physical changes of garments is the dominating disposal reason (37%), followed by lack of perceived value (35%) and poor fit (28%). This shows that almost two-thirds of garments are discarded for reasons other than physical durability. Poor fit/design together with lack of perceived value by the owner are responsible for the majority of clothing disposals.
Physical strength is one of the several factors that are important if the lifetime of clothing is to be increased. However, it does not help to make clothes stronger if they are not going to be used longer anyways, this will just contribute to increased environmental impacts from the production and disposal phases. We do not need «disposable products» that last for centuries. To work with reducing the environmental impacts of clothing consumption, it is important to optimize the match between strength, value and fit. Optimizing clothing lifespans will ensure the best possible utilization of the materials in line with the intentions of the circular economy.
Collett, M., Cluver, B., & Chen, H.-L. (2013). Consumer Perceptions the Limited Lifespan of Fast Fashion Apparel. Research Journal of Textile and Apparel, 17(2), 61-68. doi:10.1108/RJTA-17-02-2013-B009
Domina, T., & Koch, K. (1999). Consumer reuse and recycling of post-consumer textile waste. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 3(4), 346 – 359. doi:10.1108/eb022571
Klepp, I. G. (2001). Hvorfor går klær ut av bruk? Avhending sett i forhold til kvinners klesvaner [Why are clothes no longer used? Clothes disposal in relationship to women’s clothing habits]. Retrieved from Oslo: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12199/5390
Koch, K., & Domina, T. (1997). The effects of environmental attitude and fashion opinion leadership on textile recycling in the US. Journal of Consumer Studies & Home Economics, 21(1), 1-17. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.1997.tb00265.x
Koch, K., & Domina, T. (1999). Consumer Textile Recycling as a Means of Solid Waste Reduction. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 28(1), 3-17. doi:10.1177/1077727×99281001
Laitala, K., Boks, C., & Klepp, I. G. (2015). Making Clothing Last: A Design Approach for Reducing the Environmental Impacts. International Journal of Design, 9(2), 93-107.
Laitala, K., & Klepp, I. G. (2020). What Affects Garment Lifespans? International Clothing Practices Based on a Wardrobe Survey in China, Germany, Japan, the UK, and the USA. Sustainability, 12(21), 9151. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/21/9151
Lang, C., Armstrong, C. M., & Brannon, L. A. (2013). Drivers of clothing disposal in the US: An exploration of the role of personal attributes and behaviours in frequent disposal. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(6), 706-714. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12060
Forfattere: Ingun Grimstad Klepp, Anna Schytte Sigaard, Lisbeth Løvbak Berg og Kristiane Rabben
Innen 2025 skal tekstiler ut av restavfallet i Norge, som i resten av EU og EØS-området. Derfor haster det med kunnskap om hva tekstilavfallet består av og hvor det i dag havner. I prosjektet Wasted Textile har Mepex AS og SIFO gjennomført plukkanalyser av kasserte og donerte tekstiler. Rapport om dette kommer først i 2023, men foreløpige resultater viser at plukkanalyser er egnet for å gi kunnskaper om tekstilene og kan være nyttige i det viktige arbeidet som må gjøres for å redusere miljøbelastninger fra tekstilforbruket.
Kasserte tekstiler
Høsten 2021 og våren 2022 ble det gjennomført plukkanalyser i Vestfold, Viken, Romerike og Oslo fra tre strømmer med innhold av kasserte tekstiler: restavfall fra husholdningen, det de fleste kaller søppel eller boss, restavfall levert til kontainer for brennbart restavfall på gjenvinningsstasjon og donerte tekstiler til UFF og Fretex. Tekstilene ble sortert etter type, fiberinnhold og tilstand, og deretter veid og telt.
Wasted Textiles, er finansiert av Norges Forskningsråd og Handelens Miljøfond og handler om å redusere mengden fossile tekstiler og utnytte tekstilavfall bedre. Fordi vi i dag vet lite om hvor mye og hva slags tekstiler som blir kastet både i Norge og i andre land, har vi utviklet nye metoder. Bedre oversikt er nødvendig for å planlegge både for gjenbruk og gjenvinning av tekstilene. Metoden kan brukes i utvikling av virkemidler slik som utvidet produsentansvar (EPR), slik vi tidligere har vist i denne kronikken (forskersonen.no).
Tekstilene omfatter både avfall og det som på ulike måter gis til gjenbruk og derfor kaller vi det «kasserte tekstiler».
Vi sorterte totalt 3745 kg kasserte tekstiler fordelt slikt: 2181 kg hentet ut av restavfallskontainer ved tre ulike gjenvinningsstasjoner, 1182 kg donerte tekstiler og 382 kg husholdningsavfall (søppel). Tekstiler fra husholdningsavfallet er kraftig underrepresentert i analysene så langt. Derfor er tallene vi legger frem her vektet. Det er planlagt flere plukkanalyser av husholdningsavfall høsten 2022. Størstedelen av de utsorterte tekstilene var “Klær og tilbehør”. Den neststørste kategorien var “Tekstil – ikke klær”, som består av bæreprodukter, tekstiler til hjem og interiør, leker, hygienetekstiler, oppbevaring/emballasje og utstyr.
Mye klær og mest til barn
I den største kategorien «Klær og tilbehør» fant vi mest barneklær – hele 332 kg, nesten 18% av klærne. Det meste kom fra tekstiltårnene og var donert til UFF og Fretex med tanke på gjenbruk, men hele 126 kg var kastet i restavfallet enten i hjemmet eller på gjenvinningsstasjon. De andre store kategoriene var underdeler (bukser, shorts, skjørt), tynne overdeler (t-skjorter, topper) og tykke overdeler (gensere, cardigans). Igjen var mesteparten donert til UFF og Fretex, men nesten halvparten av de tynne overdelene og en tredjedel av de tykke overdelene og underdelene var blitt kastet og ville i dag endt opp i forbrenning. Andelen sko var størst i tekstilstrømmen fra restavfall på gjenvinningsstasjon. Hele 75% av alle skoene kom derifra.
65% av de kasserte tekstilene er helt eller delvis plast
Det var ikke store forskjeller i fiberinnhold mellom klær og andre tekstiler. Litt under halvparten av alle fibrene var syntetiske, rundt 5% var ull og ca. halvparten var andre, naturlige fibre. I dagens globale tekstilproduksjon er to tredjedeler (69%) av alle materialer som brukes til tekstiler syntetiske og under 1% ull. (se Changing Markets Foundation). Vi vet ikke nøyaktig hvordan norsk klesforbruk ser ut, men forventer mer ull enn globale gjennomsnitt. De kasserte tekstilene viser ikke sammensettingen av forbruket i dag, fordi mye av tekstilene er produsert for flere år siden da andelen av syntetiske materialer var mindre. Derfor er det sannsynlig at det syntetiske innholdet på tekstiler som går ut av bruk øke raskt de neste årene. I våre analyser var det bare 35% av tekstilene som ikke delvis var laget av plast (syntetiske tekstiler).
Mye bruksverdi igjen i klærne som kastes
Tekstilene fra gjenvinningsstasjon og tekstiltårn ble vurdert etter tilstand ut ifra om tekstilene var ødelagte eller ikke før de ble kastet. Mest brukbart er det i tekstiltårnene, men likevel ble bare rundt en tredjedel fra gjenvinningsstasjonene og litt over en femtedel fra tekstiltårnene ble vurdert som ødelagt. Det betyr ikke nødvendigvis at tekstilene har en gjenbruksverdi. Det må finnes noen som har ønsker om å bruke tekstilene for at de kan komme i bruk på nytt. For eksempel kan en jakke være hel og fin, men hvis den har påtrykt logo fra en bedrift, sportsklubb eller navn på tidligere eier så kan det være vanskeligere å finne noen som ønsker å bruke den. Vi vurderte ikke om de ødelagte tekstilene kunne fikses. Hvis for eksempel en glidelås var ødelagt i en bukse så ble buksen vurdert som ødelagt. Hvis en genser hadde en stor flekk så ble den også vurdert som ødelagt. Dermed kan flere av tekstilene som ble vurdert som ødelagte potensielt være fortsatt brukbare med enkel reparasjon eller vask og flekkfjerning.
Klær og tilbehør er mindre ødelagt enn andre tekstiler. I kategorien med tekstiler som ikke er klær er det ganske jevnt blant underkategoriene, litt over en tredjedel er ødelagt. Blant Klærne derimot er det større forskjeller. Sokker er oftest ødelagte mens “Tilbehør og Sport, fritid og arbeid” ligger på rundt en tredjedel ødelagt og resten har under en fjerdedel ødelagt. Dette har sammenheng med hvordan klær anskaffes. Sokker kjøpes oftere når det er tomt i skuffen, mens mye annet anskaffes fordi man har lyst på noe nytt og ikke fordi noe er slitt eller mangler.
Disse resultatene er foreløpige. Flere detaljer og sikrere tall vil komme i 2023. Vi ønsker også å gjennomføre flere analyser for å fange opp geografiske og sesongavhengige variasjoner bedre, samt sjekke fibermerkingen mot fiberinnhold. Vi mener plukkanalyser av kasserte tekstiler er viktige i oppbygging av kunnskap og politikk rund klær og andre tekstiler for å få ned miljøbelastninger og ønsker samarbeid med alle som kan bidra til at flere analyser kan gjennomføres.
Make the Label Count Campaign: Simon J. Clarke, Ingun G. Klepp, Kirsi Laitala and Stephen G. Wiedemann.
Summary
Sustainability has become a priority objective for the European Union (EU). It is a key driver for policy development through the global leadership role the EU has taken in addressing climate change, decoupling economic growth from resource use, and the sustainable use of resources. The global supply of textiles has been recognized by the EU as a major source of emissions and resource use; the sector has become increasingly reliant on fossil feedstocks to supply synthetic fibres, and the textile industry has been roundly criticised for unsustainable and non-circular consumption patterns.
The Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) system – which assesses a product’s environmental impact and provides consumers with information on that impact – has the potential to be paramount in directing the textile sector towards a sustainable system of production and consumption. However, the PEF system has not been designed to deliver the EU’s strategies and, without amendment, its application to the textiles sector risks undermining the EU’s laudable intent. The PEF system is designed to facilitate like-with-like comparisons, but assessment of textiles made from natural and synthetic fibres are not yet comparable because the impacts of forming natural fibres are fully accounted for, but omitted for fossil fuels. The single biggest sustainability issue for the textile industry is the growth in synthetic fibre production and the causally related rise in fast fashion. A PEF-derived comparison will not challenge the over-consumption of resources, and risks legitimising unsustainable consumption with an EU-backed green claim.
These limitations present a significant challenge to the delivery of both EU strategy and the PEF goal of providing fair comparisons of products based on their environmental credentials.
In combination, the characteristics of the textiles category, together with the limitations of PEF methodology, provide a strong argument for not comparing textiles made from renewable and non-renewable raw materials. However, achieving the EU Green Deal and circular economy objectives mandates a pragmatic approach; hence our analysis recommends methodological improvements to deliver EU environmental policy through fair comparisons of natural and synthetic fibre textiles in PEF. Addressing these limitations now will avoid the same problems arising when PEF is applied to other product categories that compare renewable and non-renewable raw materials, such as furniture and fuel.
Katarzyna Kobiela-Mendrek, Marcin Bączek, Jan Broda, Monika Rom, Ingvild Espelien and Ingun Klepp
Abstract
Wool of mountain sheep, treated nowadays as a waste or troublesome byproduct of sheep husbandry, was used for the production of sound-absorbing materials. Felts of two different thicknesses were produced from loose fibres. Additionally, two types of yarn,ring-spun and core rug, were obtained. The yarns were used for the production of tufted fabric with cut and loop piles. During the examinations, basic parameters of the obtained materials were determined. Then, according to standard procedure with the use of impedance tube, the sound absorption coefficient was measured, and the noise reduction coefficient (NRC) was calculated. It was revealed that felt produced from coarse wool exhibits high porosity, and its sound-absorbing capacity is strongly related to the felt thickness. For thicker felt the NRC achieved0.4, which is comparable with the NRC of commercial ceiling tiles. It was shown that the crucial parameter influencing the sound absorption of the tufted fabrics was the pile height. For both types of yarns, when the height of the pile was increased from 12 to 16 mm, the NRC increased from 0.4 to 0.42. The manufactured materials made from local wool possess good absorption capacity, similar to commercial products usually made from more expensive wool types. The materials look nice and can be used for noise reduction as inner acoustic screens, panels, or carpets.
The textile industry is characterized by global mass production and has an immense impact on the environment. One garment can travel around the world through an extensive value chain before reaching its final consumption destination. The consumer receives little information about how the item was produced due to a lack of policy regulation. In this article, we explore understandings of ‘local clothing’ and how the concept could be an alternative to the current clothing industry. The analysis is based on fifteen interviews with eighteen informants from Western Norway as part of the research project KRUS about Norwegian wool. Five ways of understanding local clothing were identified from the interviews: production, place-specific garments, local clothing habits, home-based production and local circulation. We lack a language with which to describe local clothing that covers local forms of production as an alternative to current clothing production. As such, the article highlights an important obstacle to reorganization: local clothing needs a vocabulary among the public, in politics and in the public sector in general, with which to describe the diverse production processes behind clothing and textiles and their material properties.
Human olfaction sense is one of the highly underestimated senses since historical times. Fortunately, this has changed in recent times, as the perception of odour or scent by people has received increasing attention through several research works from different scientific disciplines. Our sense of smell and scent affects our lives more than previously assumed, influencing how we think, act, and behave. Odours both evoke and create memories. The perception of odours is also culturally and situationally dependent. However, there is still a lot that we don’t know about the influence of odour or scent on an individual’s characteristics and odour studies are hindered by the lack of vocabulary. The effect of pleasant odour on the shopping behaviours of customers is one highly researched area, while very few studies have focused on body odour perception. Most of the time body odour is related to self-hygiene and cleanliness, but understanding about the complete social aspects behind odour perception by humans is still at an infant stage. This chapter reviews the current status of consumer research on body odour and environmental odour or scent perception. The chapter also addresses the role of textile materials on body odour perception.
Consumers’ textile care practices today are characterized by frequent laundering. The importance of the removal of odours has increased, especially the smell of sweat. This chapter summarizes knowledge about removing odour from textiles. It provides information on suitable cleaning methods for different textile fibres and types of soils. The considered cleaning methods include laundering, stain removal, airing, hand wash, and professional cleaning methods. The cleaning result from laundering depends on water, washing temperature, length of washing cycle, types and amounts of laundry chemicals, and mechanical agitation applied. Textile material and type of soil that needs removal will determine the right mix of these factors.
Inherent fibre properties affect the soiling characteristics of garments. Comparisons of odours retained in textiles have shown that wool has the least intensive odour, followed by cotton, and synthetic polyester and polyamide garments have the most intense odour. Most textiles can be washed with water and detergents, which are more efficient in the removal of many odorous soils than dry-cleaning, but low-temperature laundering and/or lack of chemical disinfectants such as bleaches can contribute to odour build-up in textiles and in the washing machine. These aspects contribute to the environmental impacts of textiles.
