![Percentage of Norwegians that knit or maintain (mend) textiles, shoes, or seams during an average day of a year. Ages 16-74 year old adults, years 1980-2010 [33].](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327044692/figure/fig1/AS:660067514847233@1534383767781/Percentage-of-Norwegians-that-knit-or-maintain-mend-textiles-shoes-or-seams-during-an_Q320.jpg)
Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2899; doi:10.3390/su10082899 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Article
Care and Production of Clothing in Norwegian
Homes: Environmental Implications of Mending
and Making Practices
Kirsi Laitala * and Ingun Grimstad Klepp
Consumption Research Norway (SIFO), Oslo Metropolitan University; 0130 Oslo, Norway;
Ingun.G.Klepp@oslomet.no
* Correspondence: Kirsi.Laitala@oslomet.no; Tel.: +47-672-35632
Received: 15 May 2018; Accepted: 11 August 2018; Published: 15 August 2018
Abstract: Mending, re-design, and altering are alternatives for prolonging the use period of clothing.
It is a common assumption that nobody mends clothing anymore in Western societies. This paper
studies Norwegian consumers’ clothing mending and making practices. We ask how common the
different mending and making activities are, has this changed during the past several years, who
are the clothing menders and makers, and further, are these practices related to consumers’
environmental opinions? We build on three quantitative surveys in Norway from 2010, 2011, and
2017. Many consumers do mend their clothing at least occasionally, especially the simpler tasks,
such as sewing on a button and fixing an unravelled seam. Women and the elderly are more active
in making and mending, whereas the young are bit more likely to make something new out of old
clothing. The mending activities were correlated with respondents’ environmental opinions.
Mending clothes is more common than is usually assumed. Knowledge of current practices and
barriers for clothing mending enables us to recommend measures that can potentially increase the
use time of clothing. These results can be beneficial in clothing design, home economics, and crafts
education as well as understanding consumer behavior and making policies that aim at
environmental improvements within clothing consumption.
Keywords: clothing maintenance; mending; repair; redesign; knitting; clothes making; sewing;
remaking; sustainable fashion
1. Introduction
Mending, re-design, and altering are some of the alternatives users have for prolonging the use
period of clothing that is damaged, does not fit, or is not used for aesthetical reasons [1,2]. From an
environmental point of view, prolonging clothing lifetime has several advantages [3]. A short lifetime
increases the need for products to be replaced faster, hence increasing the environmental load from
the production, transportation, and disposal phases. Extending the average life of clothes by a third
while reducing the need for new clothing would reduce the carbon, waste, and water footprints from
the production stage by more than 20% [1] (p. 2). The interest in mending is increasing within research
of sustainable clothing consumption [4,5]. However, in this literature as well as in current media
discourse it is a common assumption that consumers do not mend clothing anymore in Western
societies. This was even commented on by fashion icon Vivienne Westwood: “When I was a little girl
you used to learn to sew all the holes in things, darning socks, but nobody mends clothes anymore ...
People have never even used a needle—they don’t know how.” [6]. Gwilt studied what prevents
people from repairing clothes and writes “within … two or three generations the culture of repairing
and altering clothes has largely disappeared” [7] (p. 332), but this claim of change has not been
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2899 2 of 21
documented. Similarly, Fisher et al. [4] (p. 64–65) report that in the U.K. “repairs to clothing are no
longer undertaken as a normal, regular activity due to a lack of skills and equipment at home and the
cost of professional repair and alterations services compared to the price of new clothes”. This
statement is based on what consumers said in interviews, but does not document the actual change
in activity level.
There is a sliding transition between repairing, remaking something new from old textiles, and
making new things from new materials. These activities require a similar type of competence and the
motivations for doing them can coincide, being somewhere between leisure and a chore [8]. Favorite
clothing items are kept longer than those lacking emotional attachment, and individual tailoring and
customization have several advantages for meeting the user’s preferences [9,10]. Therefore, we
include also domestic textile production within the scope of our study in the form of sewing and
knitting.
This paper discusses whether consumers actually no longer mend or make clothing. Our study
is based on three surveys of Norwegian consumers’ clothing mending and making practices (home
sewing and knitting), and we ask specifically:
(1) How common are the different mending and making activities and have these changed during
the past several years?
(2) Who are the clothing menders and makers?
(3) Are these practices related to consumers’ environmental opinions?
Knowledge in current practices and knowledge of possible barriers for domestic clothing care
and production will enable us to recommend measures that can potentially increase the lifespan of
clothing. These results can be beneficial in clothing design, home economics, and crafts education as
well as understanding policies that aim at environmental improvements within clothing
consumption.
2. Background
Garments that are no longer in use, can be given a new life either by changing their form (repair,
alteration, or re-design) [10], changing the user (second-hand sales, hand-me-downs, borrowing, etc.)
[11], or by changing the garment’s function, i.e., repurposing it to a new use area. One example of
this is using worn-out garments as cabin wear or for gardening [12]. This article focuses on the first
alternative. Garments may be re-sewn for different reasons, either to repair damage, or to alter their
original appearance or fit. The former is defined by Sennett as static repair that restores an item to its
previous state, while dynamic repair changes the item’s form or function [13]. Holroyd uses the term
“mending” for static repair and “remaking” for dynamic repair [14]. In addition, our study includes
sewing and knitting, which are techniques that can be used for either mending and altering existing
textile items or making new textile items. These activities are here divided into three main categories,
mending (static repair), altering (dynamic repair), and making (sewing/knitting).
There are several reasons for why textiles and clothing may require mending or altering. Textiles
age through different mechanisms, such as mechanical stress, photochemical degradation, thermal
degradation, physical structural changes, or chemical attack [15]. Natural ageing is usually a
combination of several ageing mechanisms, and can cause holes, rifts, broken seams, loose buttons,
and faded colors among many other issues. On knitted fabrics, holes can be darned, whereas on
woven materials, patching techniques are more often used. Sewing threads can become worn or be
badly sewn in the first place, causing a seam or a button to loosen. Seams fail also if they do not
tolerate the strain/load they are exposed to. Some garments can fade, change colour, or obtain
permanent stains due to use and laundering. These problems may be solved by re-dyeing the
garment. Stains can be removed or hidden. These are just a few examples of activities that consumers
can undertake [16].
Consumers may also alter garments’ original appearance for several reasons, such as problems
with fit, the length of trousers, an unwanted colour, and a lack of personal characteristics, or if they
have some unwanted decorations that the user may want to remove.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2899 3 of 21
Klepp [17] has reviewed Norwegian mending advice literature (needlework books, periodicals,
and women’s magazines) from the 20th century. The results show that both the techniques and
reasons for mending changed during this period. In the beginning of the century, the techniques were
very specialised and time-consuming. Invisible mending was the goal. Later, the methods became far
simpler and their potential to enable unique aesthetic expression became more important. There has
also been a change in focus of textile making. Creativity has become an increasingly more important
reason for home-sewing instead of the economic reasons that were more important earlier [17,18].
Today, clothing mending and home sewing are perceived to a larger degree as a hobby instead of
housework. This is also valid in Finland, where Aalto has studied clothing maintenance habits. She
shows that the amount of handicrafts and people making their own clothing has been reduced
significantly in the past few decades. Today, handicrafts are a hobby and not an alternative for
making utility objects to replace purchases from stores. An increased supply and selection of clothing
has also diminished the need to make personal, affordably priced clothing [19].
On the other hand, participation in crafts seems to have grown in the U.K. during the past
decade, as we see in the increasing market for craft activities in the form of festivals, workshops, and
make-your-own kits developed by craft-makers [20–22]. Repair has gained political attention.
Sweden has reduced the value-added tax on repair services from 25% to 12% in order to fight the
throwaway culture [23], and such measures are also discussed in Norway.
Within research, there is increasing interest towards Do-It-Yourself (DIY) [24] as well as a better
understanding of the connection between making, mending, and wearing [14]. In a Nordic context,
the term “husflid” (craft) is a central concept, with historical, political, and aesthetic significance and
importance for today’s market and education. Nevertheless, there is a lack of knowledge of the scope
of these activities. Very little research focuses on comparisons between different countries and the
relationship between knowledge, attitude, and behavir in the field.
Norway is today one of the richest countries in Europe and at the same time a very typical
example of a high-cost Western country dominated by imported fast fashion and high clothing
consumption. The amount of clothing in circulation has increased greatly during the past decade and
the yearly consumption is around 16.6 kg/capita, which is just slightly higher compared to the other
Nordic countries that consume 13–16 kg/capita [25]. Norway used to be poor, for many years ruled
by neighboring countries, located on the outskirts of Europe, with a harsh climate and a long coastline
and a lot of mountains. The country has a strong folk culture and a vibrant textile tradition [26,27].
Knitting, wool, and homemaking are more connected to the Norwegian way of life than in countries
such as Sweden and the U.K. [28–30].
Some studies on consumers’ clothing repair and altering practices have been made. Klepp [12]
studied 24 Norwegian women who were about 40 years old. All of them repaired some of their
clothes, but they also got help from their mothers, mothers-in-law, and professionals. They mainly
did small repairs, such as fixing unravelled seams and loose buttons.
This topic has also been studied in the U.K. Participants of focus group studies felt that skills in
repair and alteration had gone down in general and that they repair less often than earlier [4,31]. The
main reasons for this were a lack of equipment and skills, as well as the low cost of new clothing
relative to the cost of professional repair. However, clothes that were expensive or valued in other
ways were more likely to be repaired. They might undertake smaller mending tasks, such as sewing
on buttons or fixing hems. Some also gave their clothes to parents or grandparents to be repaired.
The authors suggest, among other things, policy measures that would improve the education system
in order to include textile repair and maintenance skills and consider ways to encourage the supply
of professional repair and alteration services [4,31].
A larger scale survey also executed in the U.K. showed that there is a need for garment mending.
Fourteen percent of the respondents said that they had garments that they had not used during the
past year because something had been broken, such as a zip, elastic, or a lost button, while 16% had
garments that needed repair for some other reason [1]. Thirty percent of respondents said that they
would be more likely to wear more of the clothes they have not worn in the past year if they had the
skills to repair/alter more clothes at home, and 27% if they had the spare time available to repair or
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2899 4 of 21
alter their clothes. Access to a repair kit would help 19% of respondents, while access to a sewing
machine would help 18% of the respondents. About 62% of respondents owned clothing that could
be used if it was repaired. Only 18% of respondents said they were not capable of doing any clothing
repair, such as sewing on a button. In addition, 38% were interested in learning more about how to
repair clothes.
A Swedish study looked into differences between consumer groups. Focus group interviews
indicated that the group of retired respondents did mend clothing more often than the other two
interviewed groups, and sewing on buttons or repairing broken seams was most commonly done.
They used a tailor for more complex repairs, such as broken zippers. Another focus group, fashion-
interested youth, sometimes also repaired clothing, mainly jeans, whereas a group of parents of small
children had less time to repair, and did not prioritize the task as much [32]. However, the study did
not specify in more detail the situations of when people decide to mend or alter their clothing, which
clothing is repaired, and when it is considered to be worth the trouble.
The most detailed data about Norwegian mending and knitting habits can be found in time use
surveys. Statistics Norway carries out an extensive diary-based survey every tenth year [33]. In the
diaries, the respondents fill in what main and secondary activities they do within 10-minute intervals
during 2 consecutive days, but the survey continues through a whole year. The number of persons
who participated in the study in 2010 was 3975. The sample is representative of the Norwegian
population aged 16 to 79. Figure 1 shows the percentage of respondents that use time on the
maintenance of clothing, shoes, and seams (excluding cleaning-related tasks, such as laundry and
ironing) or on knitting during an average day of a year. Detailed results are given in Tables A1 and
A2 in Appendix A. The results show that during the past 3 decades, the average time used has gone
down for both of the activities. The average time used on maintenance has gone down from 3 to 0
min per day, and the percentage of people who carry out the activity during an average day
decreased from 5% to 1%. Similarly, the average time used on knitting has gone down from 4 to 2
min per day, and the percentage of people who carry out the activity during an average day
decreased from 7% to 3%. The results also show that women and the elderly age group are more
active than men and the younger age group. However, the change in time consumption among those
that participate in the two activities has developed in different directions. On the days that
respondents mended clothing, the time used on mending had gone down, while those who knitted
used more time in 2010 than in 1980.
Figure 1. Percentage of Norwegians that knit or maintain (mend) textiles, shoes, or seams during an
average day of a year. Ages 16–74 year old adults, years 1980–2010 [33].
5%
3%
2%
1%
7%
6%
3% 3%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
1980 1990 2000 2010
Maintenance of textiles, shoes or seams and knitting activites during an
average day of a year. 16-74 year old adults, years 1980-2010
Mend/maintain Knitting
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2899 5 of 21
These statistics show a clear decline in the number of participants, but they do not provide
detailed information of who still makes and mends clothes, what clothes are made or mended, or
why. The category it measures is wide and imprecise. Further, it does not provide information about
what has happened after 2010.
This brief literature review has shown that recent literature on consumers’ clothing mending
practices is sparse, and there is little information on the actual change during the past few decades as
well as whether consumers connect these practices to sustainable behavior. This article studies these
aspects based on three surveys in Norway.
3. Materials and Methods
Questions related to consumers’ clothing mending and making practices have been included in
three quantitative surveys in Norway in 2010, 2011, and 2017. The main demographic variables of the
three surveys are given in Table 1. The surveys were based on different projects, so they have some
differences in topics and sample selection, but they repeated some of the same questions related to
clothing mending and making.
The first survey included only questions related to clothing consumption practices. It was
conducted during 2010 and a total of 268 answers were received. Respondents were recruited through
different channels. Most of them were Norwegian households randomly selected from the telephone
directory, but due to the low number of responses (113), additional respondents were recruited
through personal and work-related networks and publicity in the media. The distribution of
respondents is uneven with an evident preponderance of female respondents (83%). The average age
of these respondents is 37 years, the age group of 25–39 year olds is overrepresented in comparison
to the average age of the adult population, and the youngest and oldest age groups are
underrepresented. Therefore, the received data is not representative and the results cannot be used
for generalizations for the Norwegian population as a whole. However, the results can be used in
comparing how common the use of the various mending and making techniques are within the
group. These cases are not weighted.
Table 1. Respondents divided by gender and age and compared with the Norwegian adult population
[34].
Background Variables
Sample 2010 1
Sample 2011 2
Sample 2017 2
Norwegian
Population 3
Number of respondents (N)
268
1124
1001
-
Gender
Male
17%
50%
51%
50%
Female
83%
50%
49%
50%
Average age
37.1
45.2
45.9
47.9
Age group
Below 24
11%
10%
11%
11%
25–39
51%
29%
28%
26%
40–59
34%
38%
36%
34%
60+
4%
23%
25%
29%
1 All respondents were 15 or older. 2 All respondents were 18 or older 3 Figure applies to the
population above the age of 18.
In order to be able to relate these results to a nationally representative sample and follow changes
over time, some of the questions were repeated in two larger surveys during 2011 and 2017. These
surveys included several consumption-related themes, and mending of clothes was only a minor part
of them. Due to financial limitations, not all mending and making questions from 2010 could be
repeated in these surveys, and we chose to focus on some common techniques. These surveys were
conducted by a professional opinion polling company (TNS Gallup). They use a pre-recruited
random sample panel of 500,000 people who are willing to participate in surveys. The sample is pre-
stratified by age, sex, and education level. The final sample is weighted by TNS Gallup corresponding
to the distribution of the population. The total weighting is based on a demographic weight (region,
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2899 6 of 21
gender, and age), which is adjusted for education according to the population distribution [35]. Only
respondents above the age of 18 were recruited to our surveys.
In total, 1124 respondents answered the survey in 2011 and 1001 in 2017. These survey samples
have equal gender distribution, and the average age of respondents was 45 in 2011 and 46 in 2017.
The surveys were conducted over the Internet. Since 2010, over 90% of the population of 15 years and
older have had internet access in Norway. Therefore, this method can increasingly be used for
nationwide representative surveys. Internet access falls from the age of 65–70, but is generally
adequate for the survey target group. The received data from these surveys were analysed with the
SPSS software.
The survey method is limited to what people choose to say about their opinions and habits, and
various biases can affect the response as discussed in the method literature [36].
4. Results
4.1. Prevalence of the Different Mending and Making Activities
In 2010, 35% of the respondents said they repaired damaged clothing often, 51% sometimes, and
only 14% said they never did it. Easier reparations, such as sewing on a button or repairing a seam
that has unravelled, were the most common (Figure 2). This is followed by mending holes or tears on
clothing either by patching or darning. The more demanding repairs, such as zipper replacement and
amending the size of clothing, were not that common. The results indicate that it is more common to
repair clothing and make something new from old clothing than to sew new clothing. The survey
conducted in 2010 was based on a non-representative sample and is therefore only used to see how
common the various mending and making activities are among these respondents.
Figure 2. Percentage of respondents that have mended their own clothing or made new clothing
during the past year. (Data from 2010 survey where selection was female-dominated).
There is a significant correlation between respondents who said they repair damaged clothes
when possible and respondents reporting having done these activities. They report to have done
repairs during the past year more often than respondents who do not generally intend to repair
clothing (Figure 3). Interestingly, a high percentage of respondents that said that they “never repair
clothing” also said that they have done some repairs during the past year, usually either sewing on a
button or fixing an unravelled seam. This suggests that making such minor repairs may not be
considered as “real” clothing repair. This also shows that one should interpret the answers to such
7%
10%
16%
16%
18%
26%
27%
31%
55%
73%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Sewn new clothing
Changed zipper
Dyed clothing
Adjusted size
Made something new of old clothing
Fixed trouser length
Darned clothing
Patched clothing
Fixed unravelled seam
Sewn on a button
Percentage of respondents that have mended their clothing during
the past year. Survey 2010, N=268, 83% women
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2899 7 of 21
general questions with caution and that more specific questions, such as whether you have or have
not sewn on a button, may give different answers.
Figure 3. Comparison of respondents’ intent to repair clothing and the reparations they have done
during the past year. (Survey 2010, N = 268).
Figure 4 shows that it is most common for the respondents to do most mending and making
activities by themselves. The only exception is changing a zipper, which is more often done by others
through private networks that are more commonly used than professional repair services. Due to the
non-representative sample with a small number of men and elderly respondents, it is not possible to
draw any conclusions on differences between demographic variables in this matter.
Results from the representative surveys in 2011 and 2017 are given in Figure 5. As the method
and sample selection are similar, these surveys can be used to see the changes over time. Both surveys
indicate that a majority of respondents have undertaken at least some simple mending activities, such
as sewing on a button, during the past year, but there is a reduction in the percentage of respondents
between these two surveys undertaken 6 years apart. The reduction in all mending activities is
significant (p <0.000 when tested with the Pearson Chi-Square), while the differences in clothes-
making activities are not significant between the two surveys. In 2017, 65% of respondents had done
at least one of the six mending or making activities included in the survey (62% if knitting is
excluded); while in 2011, the same figure for the five activities was 70%.
91%
73%
63%
27%
84%
29% 34%
79%
43%
26%
9%
63%
13% 14%
70%
14%
20%
5%
41%
14%
7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Has sewn
a button
Patched
clothing
Darned
clothing
Changed
zipper
Fixed
unravelled
seam
Dyed
clothing
Adjusted
size
Percentage of repondents that have repaired clothing during the past year
Comparison of clothes mending during the past year and intention to
repair damaged clothes when possible
Intends to
repair often
Intends to
repair
sometimes
Never repairs
clothing
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2899 8 of 21
Figure 4. Percentages of respondents that have either mended/sewn their own or others’ clothing or
have had someone else sew/mend their clothing (private or business) during the past year. (Survey
2010, N = 268, 83% women).
0%
5%
0%
2%
0%
3%
0%
3%
2%
1%
1%
12%
1%
7%
1%
9%
7%
10%
8%
9%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
23%
24%
30%
34%
45%
7%
10%
16%
16%
18%
26%
27%
31%
55%
73%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sewn new clothing
Changed zipper
Dyed clothing
Adjusted size
Made something new
of old clothing
Fixed trouser length
Darned clothing
Patched clothing
Fixed unravelled seam
Sewn a button
Percentages of respondents that have either mended/sewn their own
or others' clothing, or have had someone else sew/mend their
clothing (private or business) during the past year
Yes, own clothing Yes, for someone else
Someone has done it for me (private) Someone has done it for me (business)
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2899 9 of 21
Figure 5. Percentage of respondents that have mended their own clothing or made new clothing
during the past year. (Data from two representative surveys from 2011 and 2017).
4.2. Who Are the Clothing Menders and Makers?
The two representative surveys from 2011 and 2017 were used to see differences between
demographic variables. The results for 2011 divided by demographics are given in Table 2. There are
significant differences between the genders in all clothing mending and repair categories, as women
say they are more active in all the different activities. There are significant differences between age
groups in four of the five mending categories. The elderly are more active in repair, including sewing
on buttons, fixing unravelled seams, and darning clothing, whereas the young are more likely to
make something new from old clothing. There was no significant difference in sewing new clothing
between the age groups. Respondents reported that their economic situation the past year had only
minor importance for the repair activities. Respondents who were struggling economically, were
more likely to sew new clothing, whereas the slightly higher percentages in the other categories are
not statistically significant. However, even some of the high-income families do repair. Education
only had a minor effect, as respondents with a higher level of education were more likely to conduct
minor repairs (sewing on buttons and darning clothing), but the difference in other activities was not
significant. Non-working respondents were more likely to fix unravelled seams and darn clothing
than students and working respondents were. Having children below the age of 15 decreased the
likelihood of some mending and making activities, but the difference was not significant for darning
clothing or making something new from old clothes. This tendency confirms the Swedish study,
where this group (families with small children) said that they did not have as much time to repair
[20].
The results from the most recent survey (2017) by background demographics are given in Table
3. The tendencies are similar to those of the previous survey, as women are more active in all clothing
mending and making activities than men are.
This survey included an additional question about knitting that had not been asked before. The
answer to this question shows that about every fourth Norwegian adult had knitted during the past
year (almost half of all women), which is a high percentage. The oldest age group (above 60 years
old) of respondents knits the most followed by the youngest (18–24 year olds).
Similarly to previous studies, this survey shows that respondents in older age groups are more
active within all three listed mending activities [37], while there are not significant differences
between the age groups in making new clothing. Non-working respondents were more likely to darn
and knit clothing, while students were more likely to make something new from old clothing.
5%
9%
25%
25%
41%
51%
8%
11%
34%
52%
64%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Sewn new clothing
Made something new of old clothing
Knitted clothing
Darned clothing
Fixed unravelled seam
Sewn on a button
Percentage of respondents that have mended their clothing during
the past year in 2011 and 2017
2011 survey (N=1124, 50% women) 2017 survey (N=1001, 49% women)
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2899 10 of 21
Differences between the other mending and making categories were not significant between student,
working, and non-working respondents. We no longer see the significant difference in mending
activities between households with and without children. This may be partly explained by the fact
that this time, the respondents were asked to report whether they have children under the age of 18
in the households, while the previous survey included smaller children (below the age of fifteen).
Also in this study, respondents with a higher education are more active in all clothing repair
categories as well as in making something new from old clothing, while the level of education had
no significant effect on knitting or sewing new clothing.
All activities in both surveys are dominated by women. For mending, age is the second most
important of the surveyed demographic variables, as the older age groups repair more than the
younger. However, the age distribution in making activities is more even.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2899 11 of 21
Table 2. Percentage of respondents who said they had repaired or made clothing during the past year. Survey 2011, N = 1124. Significance tested with the Pearson
Chi-Square and the level is indicated as: ** = p <0.01, * = p <0.05.
Sewn on a Button
Fixed Unravelled
Seam
Darned Clothing
Made Something
New of Old Clothes
Sewn New
Clothing
(%)
Chi-Square
(%)
Chi-Square
(%)
Chi-Square
(%)
Chi-Square
(%)
Chi-Square
All
Mean
64
52
34
11
8
Gender
Male
45
χ = 187.694,
30
χ = 238.545,
17
χ = 154.018,
4
χ = 46.628,
2
χ = 51.787,
Female
84
p <0.000 **
76
p <0.000 **
52
p <0.000 **
17
p <0.000 **
14
p <0.000 **
Age
18–24
59
χ = 13.275,
44
χ = 15.651,
23
χ = 14.252,
18
χ = 8.058,
7
χ = 7.074,
25–39
60
p = 0.004 **
48
p = 0.001 **
33
p = 0.003 **
11
p = 0.045 *
10
p = 0.070
40–59
64
53
34
9
5
60+
73
62
43
10
10
Children
No children
67
χ = 9.499,
54
χ = 4.450,
36
χ = 1.815,
12
χ = 2.854,
9
χ = 4.574,
Children below
age of 15
58
p = 0.002 **
48
p = 0.035 *
31
p = 0.178
8
p = 0.091
5
p = 0.032 *
Activity
Student
64
χ = 5.911,
51
χ = 8.234,
27
χ = 8.024,
16
χ = 5.797,
6
χ = 3.011,
Working
62
p = 0.052
50
p = 0.016 *
34
p = 0.018 *
9
p = 0.055
7
p = 0.222
Non-working
71
60
41
12
10
Economic
situation
Good
63
χ = 2.982,
52
χ = 0.485,
34
χ = 2.095,
10
χ = 3.135,
7
χ = 3.954,
Bad
70
p = 0.084
55
p = 0.535
40
p = 0.148
14
p = 0.077
12
p = 0.047 *
Education
Elementary, secondary or
vocational
63
χ = 4.879,
52
χ < 0.000,
33
χ = 4.063,
11
χ = 0.024,
8
χ = 0.173,
College or university
70
p = 0.027 *
52
p = 0.994
39
p = 0.044 *
11
p = 0.877
9
p = 0.678
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2899 12 of 21
Table 3. Percentage of respondents who said they had repaired or made clothing during the past year. Survey 2017 N = 1001. Significance tested with the Pearson
Chi-Square and the level is indicated as: ** = p <0.01, * = p <0.05.
Sewn on a Button
Fixed Unravelled
Seam
Darned Clothing
Made Something
New of Old Clothes
Sewn New Clothing
Knitted Clothing
(%)
Chi-Square
(%)
Chi-Square
(%)
Chi-Square
(%)
Chi-Square
(%)
Chi-Square
(%)
Chi-Square
All
Mean
51
41
25
9
5
25
Gender
Male
36
χ = 08.446,
20
χ = 188.652,
10
χ = 131.978,
3
χ = 36.558,
1
χ = 33.588,
3
χ = 271.208,
Female
69
p <0.000 **
63
p <0.000 **
41
p <0.000 **
14
p <0.000 **
10
p <0.000 **
48
p <0.000 **
Age
18–24
37
32
10
9
6
27
25–39
44
χ = 34.186,
34
χ = 20.173,
19
χ = 27.828,
9
χ = 0.520,
7
χ = 1.852,
23
χ = 11.325,
40–59
53
p <0.000 **
45
p <0.000 **
31
p <0.000 **
8
p = 0.914
4
p = 0.604
22
p = 0.010 *
60+
65
50
31
9
5
33
Children
No children
53
χ = 0.862,
41
χ = 0.181,
24
χ = 1.501,
8
χ = 1.064,
5
χ = 0.019,
26
χ = 1.260,
Children below
age of 18
50
p = 0.353
43
p = 0.671
28
p = 0.221
10
p = 0.302
6
p = 0.890
23
p = 0.262
Activity
Student
45
χ = 7.613,
41
χ = 4.224,
16
χ = 8.231,
11
χ = 1.405,
10
χ = 6.675,
25
χ = 6.492,
Working
50
p = 0.022 *
40
p = 0.121
25
p = 0.016 *
8
p = 0.495
4
p = 0.036*
23
p = 0.039 *
Non-working
59
47
30
9
6
31
Education
Elementary, secondary
or vocational
46
χ = 9.927,
37
χ = 5.219,
21
χ = 7.155,
6
χ = 5.535,
4
χ = 2.387,
23
χ = 1.404,
College or university
56
p = 0.002 **
45
p = 0.022 *
28
p = 0.007 **
10
p = 0.019 *
6
p = 0.122
27
p = 0.236
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 21
4.3. Mending and Making Activities’ Connection to Environmental Opinions
There is much we do not know about the motivation for the various activities. The review of
changes in motivations for mending since the beginning of the 20th century [17] shows that the same
activities can be motivated by economic as well as environmental reasons or be linked to the desire
for creativity and the joy of making something. Here, we will only discuss possible links between
activities and environmental concerns.
The 2011 survey included claims related to environmental opinions. The respondents were
asked if:
• Recycling is an important environmental measure (five point likert scale from disagree to agree
strongly)
• Climate change and extreme weather worry me (five point likert scale from disagree to agree
strongly)
• New technologies will solve environmental problems without us needing to make big changes
to our way of living (five point likert scale from disagree to agree strongly)
• Have environmental problems caused you to reduce your clothing purchases? (Answering
alternatives: yes, no, or do not know. Do not know answers were excluded from the analysis.)
These can be used to compare whether people who are active in repair and making differ in their
environmental opinions from those who are not. These results are given in Table 4. Respondents’
environmental opinions are significantly correlated with their clothing mending and making
activities. We can see that consumers that are more active in clothing mending and making are more
likely to:
• Report to have reduced their clothing purchases for environmental reasons
• Are more worried about climate change and extreme weather
• Think that recycling is an important environmental measure
Respondents’ opinion on whether new technologies will solve environmental problems did not
have significant connection to most of the mending and making activities. The exception was darning
clothing, as respondents that darned more were less likely to believe that new technologies will solve
environmental problems.
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 21
Table 4. Comparison of environmental opinions between respondents that either had or had not repaired or made clothing during the past year. Survey 2011 with
One-way ANOVA where the significance level is indicated as follows: ** = p <0.01, * = p <0.05.
New Technologies Will Solve
Environmental Problems
(from 1 Disagree Strongly to 5
Agree Strongly)
Climate Change and Extreme
Weather Worry Me
(from 1 Disagree Strongly to 5
Agree Strongly)
Recycling Is An Important
Environmental Measure
(from 1 Disagree Strongly to
5 Agree Strongly)
Reduced Clothing Purchases
for Environmental Reasons
(0 = No, 1 = Yes)
Mean
Anova
Mean
Anova
Mean
Anova
Mean
Anova
Sewn on a button
Yes
3.00
F(1, 1112) = 0.422,
p = 0.516
3.28
F(1, 1111) = 15.619,
p <0.000 **
4.43
F(1, 1112) = 9.113,
p = 0.003 **
0.22
F(1, 982) = 11.810,
p = 0.001 **
No
3.04
2.98
4.27
0.13
Fixed unravelled
seam
Yes
2.98
F(1, 1109) = 1.536,
p = 0.216
3.31
F(1, 1108) = 15.853,
p <0.000 **
4.46
F(1, 1110) = 13.034,
p <0.000 **
0.24
F(1, 977) = 18.954,
p <0.000 **
No
3.05
3.03
4.28
0.13
Darned clothing
Yes
2.88
F(1, 1100) = 8.883,
p = 0.003 **
3.40
F(1, 1099) = 20.025,
p <0.000 **
4.53
F(1, 1101) = 18.030,
p <0.000 **
0.31
F(1, 971) = 41.672,
p <0.000 **
No
3.07
3.06
4.30
0.14
Made something
new of old clothing
Yes
2.91
F(1, 1106) = 1.373,
p = 0.242
3.48
F(1, 1105) = 8.489,
p = 0.004**
4.61
F(1, 1107) = 10.197,
p = 0.001 **
0.43
F(1, 977) = 41.686,
p <0.000 **
No
3.02
3.14
4.35
0.17
Sewn new clothing
Yes
2.92
F(1, 1110) = 0.763,
p = 0.383
3.46
F(1, 1108) = 5.819,
p = 0.016 *
4.65
F(1, 1110) = 10.136,
p = 0.001 **
0.33
F(1, 981) = 10.113,
p = 0.002 **
No
3.01
3.14
4.35
0.18
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 21
5. Discussion
Norwegians’ clothing mending and making practices were surveyed during three different
surveys conducted in 2010, 2011, and 2017. We obtained more detailed data concerning mending than
making because the surveys included a larger number of different mending techniques.
The results confirm that many consumers do mend their clothing, as 65% of the respondents
report to have undertaken at least one mending or making task, such as sewing on a button or fixing
an unravelled seam in 2017. It is clear that repairing is more common than people think, especially
when compared to the common assumption of “nobody” repairing clothing anymore. The figure is
quite high, and may be related to the fact that even though Norway has a high standard of living, it
is also characterized by a high degree of craft-production [38]. Handicrafts are valued, very much
associated with national folk dresses and knitting [27,39]. Folk dresses and hand knitting have
contributed to the maintenance of industrial textile production in Norway and to the fact that there
are outlets for hand knitting yarn and other equipment for home production also in small towns [27].
Every fourth respondent reported that they had knitted something during the past year. This
indicates that knitting in Norway is about twice as common as in other Western countries, such as
the U.S. and U.K. In the U.S., 13% of adults participated in weaving, crocheting, quilting, needlepoint,
knitting, or sewing in 2012 [40]. The Immediate Media Craft Intelligence survey [41] estimates the
number of knitters in the U.K. to be 5.9 million, which equals to about 9% of the U.K. population. The
few comparable data we have from several countries indicate that there may be major differences in
the scope and that this should be investigated further.
The results correlate with the time use statistics where women and the elderly were more active
than the young and men. The surveys’ percentages are different because time use statistics give
figures for how many people conduct the activity on an average day [33], while our surveys indicate
how many have repaired or made something during the past year. The higher percentage among
women than men was as expected, as taking care of clothing and textiles are female-dominated areas
of household chores. For example, women more often take responsibility for laundering [42,43] and
the purchase of clothing for other family members [44,45].
Interestingly, a number of respondents that answered that they “never repair clothing” also
reported to have done some repairs, such as sewing on a button or fixing an unravelled seam. This
suggests that making such minor repairs may not be considered as “real” clothing repair. Another
interpretation is that people believe in the common assumption that nobody repairs, and tend to
forget that their own practice differs from this. Future studies should take into account the
significance of the research method and the level of detail in the questions as here demonstrated by
the difference between these answers.
It is less common to remake clothes from old textiles, or make clothes from new materials, than
to mend clothes. These activities are also very female-dominated, but they do not follow the same
age pattern as mending. Young respondents are more active in remaking, and knitting has a more
even age distribution than mending activities. The motivations among the young may differ from the
elderly respondents. Previous studies on motivations for participating in home-based crafts have
shown a variety of reasons, such as personal pleasure gained from making things skillfully by hand,
saving or earning money, socializing with other makers, passing on family traditions and values, and
occupying spare time [46]. It seems that there is not only a decline, but also a change in activity
patterns. Mason [46] (p. 262) writes that “while craft education is declining in schools, [47]
participation in amateur crafts in society is increasing”. A survey among young people in the U.K.
showed that 75% of 11–16 year olds were ‘making’ things at home [48]. There may be several reasons
for this. Studies on clothing lifespans have shown that older people’s clothes have higher average
lifespans than the clothes that young people own [49]; thus potentially in more need of repair. In
addition, the repair activities are higher among the non-working respondents, indicating that they
may have more time for repairs as well as economic incentives.
We stated initially a question about the relationship between environmental opinions and
clothing-making and mending actions. There was a significant connection between intention to repair
and respondents who said they had repaired something. We also found a significant correlation
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 21
between some environmental opinions and many mending and making activities. There was an
especially strong connection between respondents who said they had reduced clothing purchases for
environmental reasons, and mending and making activities. This may be related to an increased need
for mending as existing clothes are kept longer. Another possibility is that an increased awareness of
the environmental consequences of textile consumption leads to changes in both attitude and praxis.
These assumptions need to be confirmed by further research on actual changes in behavior. Here,
survey as a method is limited due to the well-documented gap between knowledge, attitudes, and
behaviors [50,51]. We could also observe that respondents more active in mending and making were
more worried about climate change and extreme weather and thought that recycling is an important
environmental measure. The respondents that darned or remade clothing were slightly more likely
to disagree with the statement “new technologies will solve environmental problems“, but this
correlation was less strong than the correlation between other environmental claims and mending
and making activities. However, previous research has indicated that consumers are more motivated
to mend in order to save favourite garments than for environmental reasons [10].
The literature indicates that the main obstacles for mending and domestic repair of clothing are
a lack of skills and time. Competence makes work easier, quicker, and more enjoyable and provides
a better and more even result. In this matter, education is of importance. Knowing how to operate a
sewing machine is an advantage. Clothes could be designed in a way that they are easy to alter, for
example by having extra seam allowance that permits size adjustments [9]. Another example is that
a rubber band that is threaded in a casing is easier to replace than an attached elastic band.
Even though consumers’ competence in handicrafts and sewing affects whether they decide to
repair, not all consumers who have the skills choose to repair their clothing. A barrier to overcome is
the perception of mending being connected to poverty and not wishing to use clothes with visible
mending at social occasions or work [10]. Therefore, the process could be facilitated by planning the
garments in a way that the visibility of repair would not matter [9], using easy repair solutions, such
as adhesive patches or woolfiller, or embroidery stitch techniques that could be part of a decorative
element [9,10].
The fact that consumers do have practical knowledge of simple basic techniques for repair is a
great advantage in terms of both the extension of existing clothing’s lifespan and the potential for
increasing reuse. Better knowledge in current practices and barriers for clothing mending can
potentially increase the use time of clothing. These results can be beneficial in clothing design, home
economics, and crafts education as well as understanding consumer behavior and making policies
that aim at environmental improvements within clothing consumption.
6. Conclusions
Mending contributes directly to increased product lifespans. However, it is possible that making
also can lead to this, indirectly. One of the major problems related to a shift to sustainable
consumption is the growth in the amount of textiles, low-cost clothing, low value, and consumers
with little competence in selecting of quality products and thus products with a longer life.
Behavior is not only a result of attitudes and intentions, but also the opposite: behavior leads to
change in attitudes [52]. Practical experience in mending and making clothes can potentially make
consumers better able to recognize quality and thus allocate a higher respect for the labor-intensive
production as well as the aesthetic and technical quality of said clothes.
These practices will thus help to spread attitudes that are important in the conversion to more
sustainable textile consumption, where better products and longer lifespans will be important.
Viewed in such a perspective, it is important to expand the knowledge of domestic making and
mending and look at the relationship between such activities and attitudes and more concrete
opportunities to assume responsibility as environmentally conscious consumers. Future research
should include investigating the relationship between those who repair and those who do not in
terms of clothing lifespan. What contributes most to increasing repair: could it be, for example,
repairable clothes, more practical knowledge, changing attitudes, or easier access to materials,
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 21
equipment and spare parts? There is a need for further comparative studies between countries but
also studies on repair between different types of products.
Attention to repair services and industry increases. This is important for increasing product
lifespans. We need more concrete studies on what is repaired and why through qualitative
approaches and preferably wardrobe studies [53]. However, we also need knowledge of what can
and should be done at home and when is it desirable to use professional actors. Do the professional
repair services replace private repair, or are they rather used by people who also repair themselves?
What can increase domestic and professional services? There is probably also a large grey market for
favours between friends as well as help across generations. Such relationships can help to increase
the lifespan of textiles and strengthen social ties; but again, access to knowledge is limited.
Making and mending clothes is a very female-dominated activity. These are also activities linked
to something that all people use: clothes. Clothes are important contributors to environmental
problems, but also important to our well-being, self-understanding, creativity, and social interactions
with other people. More knowledge about how, why, and what is being mended and made
domestically will not only be important for environmental policies, but will also enable us to better
balance the relationship between production and consumption of clothing, and thus the importance
of clothing in our society.
Repairing clothes requires knowledge, access to proper equipment and materials, and to some
extent also that the clothes are actually repairable. Repairing clothes makes it possible to wear clothes
longer, which in turn gives the wearer the opportunity to gain more knowledge about them. Being
able to repair clothes makes it more profitable to buy more expensive clothes, and potentially also
clothes you like better or are made in higher quality, with better fabrics, etc. People who are familiar
with repair are likely to be better equipped to detect poor-quality products on the market and to
choose better clothes. We therefore believe that repairing clothes can affect clothing consumption and
thereby also what it is profitable to produce. Growth in the amount of clothing produced and sold is
a major challenge in the textile industry today. Reducing the amount requires increasing the value
and lifespans of the individual garments. Access to repair is essential for this to succeed.
Author Contributions: Formal analysis, K.L.; Investigation, K.L. and I.G.K.; Writing (original draft), K.L. and
I.G.K.; Writing (review & editing), K.L. and I.G.K.
Funding: This research was funded by the Research Council of Norway under Grants 244618 and 189960.
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank the editors and anonymous reviewers whose critiques and
comments greatly improved the manuscript. We also acknowledge with gratitude comments and language
editing help given by Tone S. Tobiasson.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 21
Appendix A
Table A1. Time consumption on maintenance of clothing, shoes, and sewing among 16–74 year old Norwegians in 1980–2010 [33].
Maintenance
Percentage That Carries Out the
Activity on an Average Day
Time Use Among Those That Carry
Out the Activity (Hours:Minutes)
Average Time Use Among All
Respondents (Hours:Minutes)
Year
1980
1990
2000
2010
1980
1990
2000
2010
1980
1990
2000
2010
Average
5%
3%
2%
1%
1:00
1:07
0:52
0:42
0:03
0:02
0:01
0:00
Men
1%
1%
1%
0%
0:47
0:44
1:23
0:30
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Women
9%
5%
4%
1%
1:01
1:09
0:47
0:44
0:06
0:04
0:02
0:01
Age 16–24
3%
2%
1%
0%
1:00
-
-
-
0:02
0:01
0:00
0:00
Age 25–44
5%
3%
1%
1%
0:57
1:04
0:34
0:34
0:03
0:02
0:00
0:00
Age 45–66
6%
4%
3%
1%
1:03
1:16
1:09
0:48
0:04
0:03
0:02
0:01
Age 67–74
5%
5%
3%
3%
-
-
0:32
0:43
0:03
0:03
0:01
0:01
Table A2. Time consumption on knitting among 16–74 year old Norwegians in 1980–2010 [33].
Knitting
Percentage That Carries Out the
Activity on an Average Day
Time Use Among Those That Carry
Out the Activity (Hours:Minutes)
Average Time Use Among All
Respondents (Hours:Minutes)
Year
1980
1990
2000
2010
1980
1990
2000
2010
1980
1990
2000
2010
Average
7%
6%
3%
3%
1:06
1:14
1:02
1:33
0:04
0:04
0:02
0:02
Men
0%
0%
0%
0%
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Women
12%
11%
6%
5%
1:05
1:14
1:22
1:33
0:08
0:08
0:05
0:05
Age 16–24
4%
3%
1%
0%
0:52
1:16
-
-
0:02
0:02
0:00
0:00
Age 25–44
7%
5%
2%
1%
1:07
1:05
1:05
1:08
0:05
0:03
0:01
0:01
Age 45–66
7%
7%
4%
4%
1:11
1:16
1:31
1:32
0:05
0:05
0:04
0:04
Age 67–74
8%
11%
10%
10%
1:06
1:29
1:19
1:49
0:05
0:01
0:08
0:01
“-” In the table indicates that less than 25 persons have performed the activity, and due to this small sample size, the figure is left out.
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 21
References
1. Gracey, F.; Moon, D. Valuing Our Clothes: The Evidence Base; WRAP: Banbury, UK, 2012; p. 69. Available
online: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/10.7.12%20VOC-%20FINAL.pdf (accessed on 9 March
2018).
2. Cooper, T.; Hill, H.; Kininmonth, J.; Townsend, K.; Hughes, M.; Shorrocks, J.; Knox, A.; Fisher, T.; Saicheua,
V. Design for Longevity—Guidance on Increasing the Active Life of Clothing; Wrap: Banbury, UK, 2013.
Available online: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Design%20for%20Longevity%20Report_0.pdf
(accessed on 13 March 2018).
3. Cooper, T.; Claxton, S.; Hill, H.; Holbrook, K.; Hughes, M.; Knox, A.; Oxborrow, L. Clothing Longevity
Protocol; Project Code: REC100-008; Nottingham Trent University Banbury: Nottingham, UK, 2014; p. 11.
Available online: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Clothing%20Longevity%20Protocol_0.pdf
(accessed on 8 May 2018).
4. Fisher, T.; Cooper, T.; Woodward, S.; Hiller, A.; Goworek, H. Public Understanding of Sustainable Clothing: A
Report to the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs; Defra: London, UK, 2008. Available online:
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=EV0405_7666_FRP.pdf (accessed on 2 February
2018).
5. Lapolla, K.; Sanders, E.B.-N. Using cocreation to engage everyday creativity in reusing and repairing
apparel. Cloth. Text. Res. J. 2015, 33, 183–198, doi:10.1177/0887302X15572877.
6. Bergin, O. Vivienne Westwood: ‘I Don’t Wash My Own Clothes Very Often’. Telegraph.co.uk, 25 November
2010. Available online: http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/news-features/TMG8160552/Vivienne-Westwood-I-
dont-wash-my-own-clothes-very-often.html (accessed on 10 May 2018).
7. Gwilt, A. What prevents people repairing clothes? An investigation into community-based approaches to
sustainable product service systems for clothing repair. Mak. Futures J. 2014, 3, 332–337. Available online:
http://shura.shu.ac.uk/id/eprint/8125 (accessed on 9 March 2018).
8. Holroyd, A.T. Perceptions and practices of dress-related leisure: Shopping, sorting, making and mending.
Ann. Leis. Res. 2016, 19, 275–293, doi:10.1080/11745398.2015.1111148.
9. Laitala, K.; Boks, C. Sustainable clothing design: Use matters. J. Des. Res. 2012, 10, 121–139,
doi:10.1504/JDR.2012.046142.
10. McLaren, A.; McLauchlan, S. Crafting sustainable repairs: Practice-based approaches to extending the life
of clothes. In Proceedings of the Plate Product Lifetimes and the Environment Conference, Nottingham,
UK, 17–19 June 2015; Cooper, T., Braithwaite, N., Moreno, M., Salvia, G., Eds.; Nottingham Trent
University, CADBE: Nottingham, UK, 2015; pp. 221–228. Available online:
http://www.plateconference.org/crafting-sustainable-repairs-practice-based-approaches-extending-life-
clothes/ (accessed on 11 May 2018).
11. Klepp, I.G.; Laitala, K. Shared use and owning of clothes: Borrow, steal, or inherit. In Contemporary
Collaborative Consumption—Trust and Reciprocity Revisited; Cruz, I.S., Ganga, R., Wahlen, S., Eds.; Springer:
Wiesbaden, Germany, 2018; pp. 153–177.
12. Klepp, I.G. Hvorfor Går Klær ut av Bruk? Avhending Sett i Forhold Til Kvinners Klesvaner [Why Are Clothes No
Longer Used? Clothes Disposal in Relationship to Women’s Clothing Habits]; SIFO: Oslo, Norway, 2001.
Available online: http://www.sifo.no/files/file48469_rapport2001-03web.pdf (accessed on 11 February
2016).
13. Sennett, R. The Craftsman; Penguin Books: London, UK, 2009.
14. Holroyd, A.T. Folk Fashion: Understanding Homemade Clothes; IB Tauris: London, UK, 2017; p. 236.
15. Bresee, R.R. General effects of ageing on textiles. J. Am. Inst. Conserv. 1986, 25, 39–48.
16. Baker, M.M. Clothing Repair; University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension: Lexington, KY, USA, 2007.
Available online: https://fleming.ca.uky.edu/files/clothing_repair.pdf (accessed on 11 May 2018).
17. Klepp, I.G. Fra Eggvendte Laken til Festlig Lapp På Baken—Råd og Teknikker for å Økonomisere Med Tekstiler
1900–2000; SIFO: Lysaker, Norway, 2000. Available online:
http://www.sifo.no/files/file48391_arbeidsrapport3-2000.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2016).
18. Johnson, D. A new direction in clothing construction. J. Home Econ. 1960, 52, 752–753.
19. Aalto, K. Kuka Pesee Suomen Pyykit?: Tekstiilienhoito Kotitalouksissa ja Tekstiilienhoitopalvelut;
Kuluttajatutkimuskeskus: Helsinki, Finland, 2003.
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 21
20. Schwarz, M.; Yair, K. Making Value: Craft & the Economic and Social Contribution of Makers; Crafts Council:
London, UK, 2010; p. 122. Available online:
http://www.craftscouncil.org.uk/content/files/making_value_full_report.pdf (accessed on 13 August 2018).
21. McIntyre, M.H. Consuming Craft: The Contemporary Craft Market in a Changing Economy; Crafts Council:
London, UK, 2010; p. 65. Available online:
http://www.craftscouncil.org.uk/content/files/consuming_craft_full_report.pdf (accessed on 13 August 2018).
22. Lewis-Hammond, S. The Rise of Mending: How Britain Learned to Repair Clothes Again. The Guardian, 19
May 2014. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/may/19/the-rise-of-mending-
how-britain-learned-to-repair-clothes-again (accessed on 12 April 2018).
23. Orange, R. Waste Not Want Not: Sweden to Give Tax Breaks for Repairs. The Guardian, 19 September 2016.
Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/19/waste-not-want-not-sweden-tax-
breaks-repairs (accessed on 12 April 2018).
24. Fox, S. Third wave do-it-yourself (diy): Potential for prosumption, innovation, and entrepreneurship by
local populations in regions without industrial manufacturing infrastructure. Technol. Soc. 2014, 39, 18–30,
doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2014.07.001.
25. Tojo, N.; Kogg, B.; Kiørboe, N.; Kjær, B.; Aalto, K. Prevention of Textile Waste: Material Flows of Textiles in
Three Nordic Countries and Suggestions on Policy Instruments; Nordic Council of Ministers: Copenhagen,
Denmark, 2012; p. 121. Available online: http://www.norden.org/en/publications/publikationer/2012-545
(accessed on 4 September 2017).
26. Nielsen, M.-B.O. Norvegr—Norges Historie. Bind 4: Etter 1914; Aschehoug: Oslo, Norway, 2011.
27. Klepp, I.G.; Laitala, K. Nisseluelandet—The impact of local clothes for the survival of a textile industry in
norway. Fash. Pract. 2018, 10, 171–195, doi:10.1080/17569370.2018.1458497.
28. Hebrok, M.; Klepp, I.G. Wool is a knitted fabric that itches, isn’t it? Crit. Stud. Fash. Beaut. 2014, 5, 67–93,
doi:10.1386/csfb.5.1.67_1.
29. Hebrok, M.; Klepp, I.G.; Turney, J. Wool you wear it?—Woollen garments in norway and the united
kingdom. Cloth. Cult. 2016, 3, 67–84, doi:10.1386/cc.3.1.67_1.
30. Klepp, I.G.; Laitala, K.; Tobiasson, T.S. Woolbed—Sweet Dreams in Merino; SIFO: Oslo, Norway, 2016; p. 203.
Available online: http://sifo.no/files/file80443_oppdragsrapport_no_2_2016_-_woolbed_final.pdf (accessed
on 27 October 2016).
31. Cooper, T.; Fisher, T.; Hiller, A.; Goworek, H.; Woodward, S. Excessive speed/short lives —Attitudes to
clothing longevity and disposal. In Proceedings of the LeNS Conference Sustainability in Design,
Bangalore, India, 29 September–1 October 2010; Ceschin, F., Vezzoli, C., Zhang, J., Eds.; pp. 728–737.
Available online:
https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/6726/3/Ceschin%20Vezzoli%20Zhang_2010_LeNS%20proceedin
gs_vol1.pdf (accessed on 13 August 2018).
32. Ekström, K.M.; Gustafsson, E.; Hjelmgren, D.; Salomonson, N. Mot en Mer Hållbar Konsumtion: En Studie om
Konsumenters Anskaffning och Avyttring av Kläder [Towards a More Sustainable Consumption: A Study of
Consumers’ Acquisition and Disposal of Clothing]; University of Borås: Borås, Sweden, 2012; p. 143. Available
online: http://bada.hb.se/bitstream/2320/10630/1/Vetenskapnr20.pdf (accessed on 23 September 2017).
33. Vaage, O.F. Tidene skifter. Tidsbruk 1971-2010; Statistics Norway: Oslo/Kongsvinger, Norway, 2012; p. 233.
Available online: http://www.ssb.no/emner/00/02/20/sa125/sa125.pdf (accessed on 9 November 2016).
34. Statistics Norway. Table 11800: Population 31.12, by Age (c) 2015–2017; Kostra-Municipality-State-Reporting;
15 March 2018 ed.; SSB: Oslo, Norway, 2018. Available online: https://www.ssb.no/en/statbank/table/11800
(accessed on 8 May 2018).
35. TNS Gallup. Sifo-Surveyen 2011; TNS Gallup: Oslo, Norway, 2011.
36. de leeuw, E.; Hox, J.; Dillman, D. International Handbook of Survey Methodology; Taylor & Francis Group:
New York, NY, USA, 2008; p. 560.
37. Norum, P.S. Examination of apparel maintenance skills and practices: Implications for sustainable clothing
consumption. Fam. Consum. Sci. Res. J. 2013, 42, 124–137, doi:10.1111/fcsr.12047.
38. Undheim, K.; Døving, R.; Moe, H.T. Skammens tjenester. Magma—Econas Tidsskrift for Økonomi og Ledelse
2015, 6, 44–52.
39. Klepp, I.G.; Vramo, L.; Laitala, K. Too old: Clothes and value in norwegian and indian wardrobes. In Global
Textile Encounters; Nosch, M.-L., Feng, Z., Varadrajan, L., Eds.; Oxbow Books: Oxford, UK, 2014; Volume
20, pp. 237–244.
Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 21
40. Iyengar, S.; Shewfelt, S.; Ivanchenko, R.; Menzer, M.; Shingler, T. How a Nation Engages with Art: Highlights
from the 2012 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts; National Endowment for the Arts: Washington, DC,
USA, 2013. Available online: https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/highlights-from-2012-sppa-revised-
oct-2015.pdf (accessed on 9 March 2018).
41. The UK Hand Knitting Association. About Us. Available online: http://www.ukhandknitting.com/about-
us (accessed on 11 June 2018).
42. Kaufmann, J.-C. Dirty Linen: Couples and Their Laundry; Middlesex University Press: London, UK, 1998.
43. Klepp, I.G. Skittentøyets Kulturhistorie-Hvorfor Kvinner Vasker Klær; Novus Forlag: Oslo, Norway, 2006.
44. Klepp, I.G. Klippe, klipp, klippe: Kjønnsarbeidsdeling på frammarsj. Tidsskrift Kulturforskning 2005, 4, 23–
40.
45. Miller, D. A theory of Shopping; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 1998; p. 180.
46. Mason, R. The meaning and value of home-based craft. Int. J. Art Des. Educ. 2005, 24, 261–268,
doi:10.1111/j.1476-8070.2005.00449.x.
47. Mason, R. Craft Education in Secondaryschools at Key Stages 3 and 4: Pupils as Makers; Crafts Council of
England: London, UK, 1998.
48. Houghton, N. An Investigation into Pupils’ Views about Craft and Its Educational Value; Roehampton
University: London, UK, 2000.
49. Langley, E.; Durkacz, S.; Tanase, S. Clothing Longevity and Measuring Active Use; Wrap: Banbury, UK, 2013.
Available online: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/priv_download/Clothing%20longevity%20SU
MMARY%20REPORT.pdf (accessed on 21 March 2018).
50. Brosdahl, D.J.C.; Carpenter, J.M. Consumer knowledge of the environmental impacts of textile and apparel
production, concern for the environment, and environmentally friendly consumption behavior. J. Text.
Appar. Technol. Manag. 2010, 6, 1–9. Available online: http://ojs.cnr.ncsu.edu/index.php/JTATM/article/dow
nload/854/730 (accessed on 25 January 2016).
51. Markkula, A.; Moisander, J. Discursive confusion over sustainable consumption: A discursive perspective on
the perplexity of marketplace knowledge. J. Consum. Policy 2012, 35, 105–125, doi:10.1007/s10603-011-9184-3.
52. Fazio, R.H.; Zanna, M.P.; Cooper, J. Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency: An information
processing analysis. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1978, 4, 48–51, doi:10.1177/014616727800400109.
53. Fletcher, K.; Klepp, I.G. Opening Up the Wardrobe: A Methods Book; Novus: Oslo, Norway, 2017; p. 195.
© 2018 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
