Full report - Brook Lyndhurst

Transcription

Engagement with re-use and repair
services in the context of local provision
Exploring the relationship between re-use and repair
behaviours and the provision of services in different areas
across Scotland
Zero Waste Scotland works with
businesses, individuals, communities and
local authorities to help them reduce
waste, recycle more and use resources
sustainably.
Find out more at
www.zerowastescotland.org.uk
Published: 11th December 2012
Report authors: Lee-Woolf, C., Hughes, O., Fernandez, M., Cox, J. (2012)
Engagement with re-use and repair services in the context of local
provision. A report by Brook Lyndhurst for Zero Waste Scotland.
Engagement with re-use and repair services in the context of local provision
1
Contents
Contents ................................................................................................................................................................ 1
Executive summary ................................................................................................................................................. 3
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Background and aims.....................................................................................................................................10
1.1
Previous research on re-use and repair.....................................................................................................10
1.2
Supporting re-use and repair in Scotland ..................................................................................................11
1.3
Research needs, aims and objectives .......................................................................................................12
Overview of methodology and approach .........................................................................................................13
2.1
Selection of study areas ..........................................................................................................................13
2.2
Mapping re-use and repair service provision .............................................................................................13
2.3
Quantitative survey of re-use and repair attitudes and behaviours .............................................................15
2.4
Qualitative discussion groups with local residents ......................................................................................16
2.5
Triangulation of results and identification of actions to boost uptake ..........................................................16
Local provision of re-use and repair services....................................................................................................17
3.1
Finding what is available locally ...............................................................................................................17
3.2
Overview of local service provision ...........................................................................................................18
3.3
Reported supply and demand ..................................................................................................................23
3.3.1
Purchase of second-hand items ........................................................................................................23
3.3.2
Donation or re-sale ..........................................................................................................................24
3.3.3
Repair sector insight ........................................................................................................................25
Purchasing second-hand ................................................................................................................................27
4.1
Overview of behaviours ...........................................................................................................................27
4.2
Key motivations ......................................................................................................................................29
4.3
Key barriers ............................................................................................................................................30
4.4
Focus on key product categories ..............................................................................................................34
Re-using and repairing household items ..........................................................................................................37
5.1
Donating and selling behaviours...............................................................................................................37
5.2
Key motivations underpinning re-use disposal ...........................................................................................40
5.3
Key barriers to re-use disposal .................................................................................................................41
5.4
Repair behaviours ...................................................................................................................................43
5.5
Key motivations for repair........................................................................................................................46
5.6
Key barriers to repair ..............................................................................................................................47
5.7
Relationships between re-use and repair behaviours .................................................................................48
5.8
Focus on key product types – re-use and repair ........................................................................................50
Summarising the influence of local provision on engagement ...........................................................................54
6.1
Purchasing second-hand ..........................................................................................................................54
6.2
Re-use disposal .......................................................................................................................................55
6.3
Repair ....................................................................................................................................................55
Summary of suggested actions to boost re-use and repair................................................................................57
2
8.
Annex ...........................................................................................................................................................62
8.1
Summary of re-use and repair sector interviewees ....................................................................................62
8.2
Qualitative discussion groups – participant profiles ....................................................................................62
8.3
Service provision in each study area, by product type ...............................................................................63
8.4
Quantitative questionnaire – Respondent profile .......................................................................................65
8.5
Quantitative questionnaire – Survey results ..............................................................................................68
8.5.1
Donation or sale ..............................................................................................................................68
8.5.2
Acquisition ......................................................................................................................................71
8.5.3
Repair .............................................................................................................................................73
8.6
Analysis of results by socio-demographic characteristics ............................................................................76
8.7
Quantitative questionnaire .......................................................................................................................92
8.8
Discussion group topic guide ................................................................................................................. 106
8.9
Sector interview guide ........................................................................................................................... 115
3
Executive summary
Background and aims
The Scottish Government recognises the importance re-use and repair have in prolonging the lifespan of products
during use. On its behalf, Zero Waste Scotland (ZWS hereafter) has been working to improve the capacity,
professionalism and consistency of the re-use sector through the Revolve re-use quality standard. They have also been
working to encourage uptake of re-use services by members of the public with a new „national re-use hotline‟
information and signposting service.
While there is a growing understanding of re-use capacity across the UK and of consumer attitudes and behaviours
towards re-use, far less is known about the repair sector. Little is also known about how the local provision influences
peoples‟ engagement with re-use and repair services.
These are pertinent issues to explore as ZWS seeks to improve re-use service provision in the future and as these
activities are aligned with actions to improve the repair service offering. In parallel, those tasked with developing
communications campaigns to boost engagement levels will need to be mindful of the landscape of provision, to avoid
delivering confusing or contradictory messaging.
Within this context, Brook Lyndhurst was commissioned by ZWS to undertake a piece of research that addressed two
aims:
 To understand engagement with re-use and repair services in the context of local provision
 To identify additional actions required to increase re-use and repair behaviours
More specifically the research sought to understand how the nature and extent of service provision influences
engagement in different geographical and socio-economic contexts. Three distinct study areas were selected to explore
this:
 A rural area (Strathallan and Strathearn wards in Perth and Kinross)
 An affluent urban area (Southside/Newington ward in Edinburgh)
 A less affluent urban area (Leith ward in Edinburgh)
Though the research was concerned with the re-use and repair provisions for a range of household product types, it
focused on four product categories of particular interest to ZWS, namely: clothing, furniture, large electrical items and
other electrical items. Also within the scope of the research were various types of organisations including third sector
re-use organisations, local authority services and private sector enterprises.
Once the study areas had been selected, three strands of evidence were gathered in each area comprising:
 A mapping exercise and selected sector interviews to identify and characterise service provision
 A quantitative questionnaire survey to assess attitudes and behaviours towards re-use and repair
 A series of qualitative discussion groups to explore the relationship between service provision and engagement
In the final stage of the research, the three strands of evidence were combined and evaluated to determine the
influence of provision on re-use and repair behaviours, and to identify suggested actions to boost engagement.
Re-use and repair service provision
The mapping exercise and sector interviews revealed some surprising and challenging results about service provision:
Searching for services is time consuming




There is a lack of readily available information online, particularly for private sector enterprises
Information about service characteristics such as pricing, quality or products handled is particularly lacking
Third party signposting is currently restricted to charity/third sector re-use organisations and is patchy
It is much easier to find services and characterise them from street level but this is resource intensive
4
A large number of services were discovered, many of which are multi-functional




228 services were uncovered within or near to the three study areas
Repair organisations make up around one quarter of those identified
Multi-functional services (typically accept donations/buy items as well as selling used items) make up about half
The majority of services found are private enterprises such as shoe repairers, pawn shops or antique centres
Services are unevenly distributed within and between the study areas:




Considerably more services were found in the two urban study areas, than in the rural area
Within urban centres, services tend to be clustered in and around local shopping districts
Those located off the high street tend to handle bulky items and are less visible to shoppers
Some products, notably electrical items and furniture, are represented by fewer services in all areas
Demand for second-hand items is buoyant as re-use services become more commercially orientated:



Sector representatives report that demand for second-hand items is buoyant, across a broad customer base
The re-use sector is working to professionalise its offering and to match supply more closely with demand
While many customers are reported to be local, some are willing to travel considerable distances to purchase
specialist items or those perceived to be higher quality than those available locally
Less desirable donations are a burden for re-use services, leading to some being turned away:



Partnerships between the local authorities and third sector organisations have developed to boost re-use levels
Yet re-use organisations handling bulky goods are becoming more selective about what donations they will accept
High street charity shops accept all donations, but lack capacity to maximise re-use of low quality donations
Demand for repair services is reported to be very low:



A small number of repair representatives were interviewed, they reported that demand for their services is very low
The high cost of repair compared with replacement is largely blamed for a lack of demand
There are currently no partnerships between local authorities and repair services in the study areas to boost product
repair
Purchasing second-hand
For many household items, the survey results demonstrate that there is a gap between happiness to purchase secondhand and reported experience of doing so. This suggests there may be scope for boosting uptake of this behaviour.
The vast majority of purchases were found to take place in high street charity shops, with online shopping also being
reported for some types of items. Socio-demographic factors – including gender and life stage – were found to
influence the types of purchasing services used and the kinds of second-hand items purchased.
The survey results and qualitative groups show that a series of core motivations and barriers to purchasing secondhand items apply to all product types, although barriers tend to be more of an obstacle for electrical items and soft
furniture. Key motivations relate to cost-saving and opportunism, whereas barriers are associated with the perceived
quality, reliability and safety of second-hand items. The qualitative groups revealed that these key drivers underpin two
very different kinds of purchasing behaviours:


‘Nice to have’ opportunistic purchases
‘Borne out of necessity’ deliberate purchases
Opportunistic purchases were found to be associated with browsing for unusual items or bargains in charity shops or
online, whereas deliberate purchases described by participants were strongly driven by an inability to afford new
products.
5
Donating or selling household items
Disposal patterns reported in the survey and qualitative groups varied by product type. The following broad patterns
were observed:




Clothes are disposed of more than other items, most commonly being donated to charity, but a notable proportion
are thrown into the household bin
Furniture items are disposed of less frequently and tend to be donated to re-use organisations or disposed of via
council services
The majority of large electrical items are handled by the council where breakage is the trigger for disposal
High value electrical items may be sold online or donated to charity, but discussion group participants revealed that
small, low value electrical appliances are commonly thrown in the household bin
As is the case with purchasing of second-hand items, socio-demographic factors (life stage, gender and affluence affect
disposal decisions). For example, women tend to dispose of more clothes and are more likely to donate them to charity
than men.
A number of core motivations and barriers influence decisions to donate or sell items rather than to discard them, and
which disposal channel is ultimately used. These drivers which act to influence disposal outcomes can be grouped into:



Product characteristics which inform judgements about the suitability of an item to be re-used
Situational factors that determine what items can be disposed of, re-used or repaired in the local area
Individual attitudes associated with convenience, financial need or a desire to support charity
In one example cited by a discussion group participant, they believed their piece of furniture was suitable to be re-used
and had decided that they would rather donate it to a re-use organisation for this reason. They were dismayed to find
that no re-use organisations in the area would accept their donation, however, because it was not deemed to be
fashionable enough to re-sell. This example highlights the interplay between these factors and the instrumental role
local service provision plays in re-use behaviours.
Repairing broken items
Many household items, with the exception of electrical appliances, tend to be disposed of before they break. Around
half of respondents who experienced clothing, furniture or electrical items breaking chose to discard their item rather
than having it repaired. Rates of repair of other items, such as bicycles and shoes, are considerably higher.
Many repairs are undertaken at home and these behaviours are sometimes facilitated by the use of amateur „how to‟
videos available on the internet.
Lower socio-economic groups are less likely to repair items if they break (and are more likely to throw them in the
household bin). Other socio-demographic factors, including gender, also influence the likelihood of repair of different
types of household items.
Interviews with a small number of sector representatives suggest that repair behaviours are strongly influenced by
cost. This was strongly supported by the survey results, as cost-related motivations and barriers to repair were
consistently cited by respondents.
There was a general pessimism about the cost-effectiveness of professional repair among discussion group participants.
This view was particularly apparent for electrical items, large and small. Insurance and warranties were cited as a
motivation for repair among survey respondents and discussion group participants confirmed that these would
encourage them to consider repair of electrical items, even though they generally believed it would not be worth it.
Linkages between purchasing, disposal and repair behaviours
6
Further analysis of behavioural patterns associated with clothing re-use and repair uncovered linkages between these
behaviours. This showed that people who donate or sell unwanted clothing items (tend to be women and socioeconomic grade ABC1s) are more likely to have bought clothing items second-hand. Moreover those who tend to
donate and sell clothing items are more likely to repair clothes when they do break.
These results are limited by small sample sizes, however, they suggest that further research should be undertaken to
understand the linkages between re-use and repair behaviours for other product types.
Influence of local provision and suggested actions to boost uptake
The research demonstrates that local service provision influences repair and re-use behaviours on numerous levels:





Provision of information about services and its accessibility influences the ease of finding disposal and repair options
The number of services determines the amount of choice but not all products or local areas are well catered for
The location of services influences how visible they are to local people; those on the high street are easier to spot
The proximity of services to areas of housing affects how accessible they are, particularly for bulky items
Service characteristics (such as pricing, products handled, collection/delivery services) strongly influence re-use and
repair outcomes
By understanding the nature of the relationship between service provision and engagement, it is clear that there is
scope for ZWS to boost uptake by improving provision and expanding signposting activities. Yet this research has also
demonstrated that commonly held perceptions about re-use and repair present key barriers and opportunities for
engagement with re-use and repair services, irrespective of local provision. This emphasises the importance of working
to change attitudes and behavioural norms in parallel with activities to improve service provision.
A large number of suggested actions were identified by Brook Lyndhurst to boost uptake of re-use and repair services,
on the basis of the research findings. Further work by ZWS is required to understand which of these actions should be
taken forward, following assessment of the potential impacts of each of them either individually or in combination, and
in relation to current activities to boost engagement and improve service provision. The suggested actions are
summarised in the tables below according to the behaviour they refer to:
Type
Boosting purchase of second-hand items
PROVISION
Encouraging the re-use sector to continue professionalising its offering and the appearance of outlets
without reducing cost-saving opportunities, is likely to continue improving the desirability of the shopping
experience and demand for second-hand items.
PROVISION
High Street charity shops currently offer very standard product profiles, which have been found to deter
men and younger groups from shopping in them. In particular charity shops offer clothing ranges which
are heavily skewed towards adult women. Helping the sector to develop stock profiles and customer
specific stores, which match the needs of different consumer segments more closely, may broaden their
customer base.
PROVISION
Although there is a notable trade in high value electrical items online, there may be appetite for locally
orientated services such as the WEEE recycling centre at Perth College (which was uncovered during the
mapping exercise), where the demand for reconditioned mobiles and laptops is very high. Replicating
this model would broaden the number of purchasing options, especially for those without access to the
internet.
PROVISION
Working to professionalise the appearance of re-use services selling bulky items, such as furniture and
white goods, may improve the shopping experience of these services, as has been the case with high
street charity shops. For example, „re-use rooms‟ or attractive window displays in store could be used to
help inspire shoppers.
Type
7
Boosting purchase of second-hand items
COMMS
The number and variety of second-hand shops on the high street could provide a real alternative to
conventional outlets selling household products. The research suggests that communication activities
which promote these services should build upon positive perceptions of charity shops as sites of „normal‟
and enjoyable shopping experiences to benefit other acquisition channels.
COMMS
Key barriers – perceived cleanliness; reliability and safety of second-hand items – will be difficult to
overcome for certain product types (especially large electrical items and soft furniture). Improving the
appearance of services and offering standardised information about the expected lifetime of used items
as part of a guarantee may help for those who struggle to afford new, but is unlikely to succeed with
other consumers.
COMMS
There is an opportunity to close the value-action gap for hard furniture items, as the research found an
absence of strong barriers to purchase. Awareness of re-use services for furniture is lower than for other
items, however, which suggests that increasing signposting to these may boost uptake.
COMMS
Purchasing second-hand items tends to be locally oriented, although people will travel further afield for
particular types of items. Locally-orientated signposting will therefore be most useful, particularly for
furniture and electrical items where access to private transport or collection services is important.
COMMS
Younger age groups (especially those in their 20s) more frequently report that they are happy to
purchase second-hand items than other age groups, though their experience of purchasing these items
is no higher. Focusing communications on this age group may help to catalyse their good intentions.
Type
Boosting donation, sale or passing on
PROVISION
The mapping exercise found that third-sector organisations and charities are benefiting from
partnerships and networking opportunities facilitated by local authorities. Extending these partnerships to
private sector organisations may help to maximise re-use opportunities.
PROVISION
There is a need to consider the landscape of re-use options and how different service types impact on
one another, to prevent sub-optimal disposal outcomes for re-use or conflicting messages for the public.
These include the influence of retailer take back schemes on re-use of electrical appliances. The
mismatch between supply and demand leading to some bulky items being „knocked back‟ by re-use
organisations might also be considered.
PROVISION
Working with bulky re-use services to boost their willingness to manage lower grade or less desirable
items would improve re-use rates, as fashion not function can be a barrier to re-use for less desirable
items of furniture. One way of achieving this might be for re-use organisations to offer less desirable
products for free, but this may not be in keeping with their brand identity, so alternative solutions may
need to be developed in collaboration with the sector.
COMMS
The mapping exercise demonstrated that it was harder to find information about private sector re-use
services online, partly because they are less well represented by third party signposting activities.
Broader promotion of different types of services would considerably improve choice for the public.
COMMS
There is a need to align public understanding of what should be donated where to maximise re-use (and
recycling) potential. For example, there is a need to clear up confusion about what to do with low grade
textiles to keep them out of the bin and to make sure that services are not overburdened with low
quality donations. Further research should be conducted with the re-use sector before communication
8
Type
campaigns are developed, however, to make sure communications messages are aligned with the
sector‟s capacity to handle lower grade items.
COMMS
The experience in the mapping exercise suggests there is a gap in information provided online about reuse services. A „one stop-shop‟ providing authoritative information about the location and nature of
services would improve access to information, but this would be resource intensive to maintain. There
was appetite for a „one stop shop‟ service, in the form of ZWS‟s re-use hotline, among research
participants. Participants emphasised the importance of such a service to be locally-orientated and free
of charge. They were particularly keen on a service which could help them identify disposal solutions for
specific products (particularly in identifying free collection of bulky items). Nevertheless communications
should not seek to boost donations until sector capacity to handle less desirable items is remedied.
COMMS
Convenience is key to disposal, especially among men and lower social grades. Emphasising
characteristics of re-use services which improve ease of access will appeal to those without strong
altruistic motivations for donating their belongings. These might include the availability of free collection
services, the speed of collection, the breadth of items accepted.
COMMS
Those in their 30‟s and 40‟s report higher rates of disposal than other age groups, though their disposal
decisions do not differ greatly from other age groups. Though younger age groups (early 20‟s) do not
dispose of as many items, they are significantly more likely to throw clothing items in the household bin.
This shows there is a generational difference in how people dispose of lower grade textiles, which could
be addressed through targeted communications.
COMMS
Many still refer to Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs) as the „tip‟ or „the dump‟, so changing
language associated with the HWRC towards re-use may help to change perceptions of the baseline
disposal option/council role in re-use.
COMMS
There is a need to discourage hoarding of items for long periods prior to disposal, to increase their
desirability for re-use. People could be encouraged to donate or sell items rather than storing them away
by emphasising their diminishing use or monetary value over time.
Type
Boosting repair of broken items
PROVISION
The mapping exercise demonstrated that there is a need for more extensive research into the state of
the repair sector in Scotland, its role in the landscape of re-use and recycling organisations for different
product types and what sector-level support may be required. In better understanding the capacity of
the sector, it may be discovered that it is more effective to work with retailers and manufacturers to
increase take back and repair services offered, rather than through independent repair services.
COMMS
The mapping exercise revealed that information about repair services (and private re-use organisations)
is harder to find online, partly because they are less well represented by third party organisations who
signpost re-use services. A reported lack of awareness about where to fix broken items amongst
research participants also suggests that marketing repair services through a repair sector network
would be beneficial to consumers.
COMMS
Strong cost barriers are associated with repair. It will be important to communicate the costeffectiveness of repair (where it exists) for functional items. Offering guarantees or warranties with
professional repair services would help to improve perceived cost-effectiveness of repair.
COMMS
The biggest gains may be had by focussing communications on middle age groups (30/40s), who tend
Type
9
Boosting repair of broken items
to report that they experience items breaking more than other age groups. The qualitative research
identified that this was partly influenced by life stage (household items purchased by participants in
their 20s becoming worn out).
COMMS
The research found that many items are discarded before they break or wear out as people fall out of
love with their possessions. Using emotional messaging that provokes notions of caring and attachment
may help prevent these “broken relationships” and encourage repair if breakage does occur.
COMMS
There is a need to address lack of awareness about what to do with broken or unwanted electronic
items, other than selling them online or via high street shops.
COMMS
Manufacturer warranties and purchased warranty cover are a motivation for repair of electrical items
but they are only relevant to a minority of people at present. Working with manufacturers and retailers
to boost uptake of warranties for new (and used) electrical goods may increase repair rates when
breakage occurs.
PROVISION
There is a gap in service provision for certain items across rural and urban study areas. It will not be
possible to promote uptake of repair services in the absence of provision, so alternative solutions may
be required. For example, signposting people to re-use channels where they can donate broken items.
If this is taken forward, however, it will be necessary to develop capacity in the re-use sector to handle
broken items.
PROVISION
In-home repairs make up the majority of repair behaviours for items, except shoes. There is a need to
consider the role of self-skilling and in-home repair to prolong the lifetime of items and any basic
information or advice required to facilitate this, such as diagnostic tools, „how to fix…‟ guides or
signposting to spare parts services. For example, an online video about how to replace a filter on a
dishwasher or sew a button onto a shirt would facilitate basic repairs in the home for those who lack
the knowledge necessary to do so.
PROVISION
Consider providing collection banks next to conventional recycling facilities to keep people from putting
smaller electrical items in the household bin, until WEEE regulations are extended.
PROVISION
One possible way of improving the affordability of repair would be to encourage more join up between
the re-use and repair sectors to allow for acceptance of broken items and trade in affordable, secondhand parts. The business case for such action could be tested through a pilot exercise with selected reuse organisations and professional repair services. It would be particularly helpful to conduct such a
pilot for large and small electrical items, which are not considered cost-effective to repair by many
research participants because of the cost of obtaining spare parts.
10
1. Background and aims
 There is a growing body of evidence on the scale and nature of re-use service provision across the UK, although




much less is known about repair services. Alongside this, various databases providing information about services
are starting to emerge on a regional or local level.
Work has also been done to understand consumer attitudes and behaviours towards re-use, to inform the
development of communications campaigns.
Zero Waste Scotland has been working to improve re-use service provision and has started to develop
communication tools to encourage members of the public to engage with these services.
In recognising the need to boost uptake in re-use and repair services in the future, Zero Waste Scotland needs
to ensure communications activities and service provision are aligned.
This purpose of this study, therefore, is to explore the relationship between engagement with re-use and repair
services in the context of local provision and to identify actions to encourage further uptake in the future.
1.1 Previous research on re-use and repair
There is a growing body of evidence that focuses on the impacts of re-use behaviours. For example the Waste and
Resources Action Programme (WRAP) has articulated the benefits of re-use in the context of waste reduction, product
lifetime extension and the economic vibrancy of the re-use sector itself1 2.
Various attempts have been made to map re-use activities and assess capacity for expansion at a local or regional
level. At the time of writing the Welsh Government is working to understand re-use activity in Wales3, whilst re-use
capacity in London was mapped by The Greater London Authority a few years ago4. Zero Waste Scotland (ZWS) is also
working to understand the scale and activities of third sector re-use and recycling organisations across Scotland5.
As understanding of re-use provision improves, numerous databases of services have started to emerge, though these
do not currently provide a complete picture of provision. For example, details of re-use services in London are available
via the London Re-use Network, which is organised by local area6. In Scotland ZWS has developed Revolve, Scotland‟s
national re-use standard, which will offer information on accredited re-use organisations to members of the public,
businesses and the public sector from the end of 2012.
Research published by WRAP has demonstrated the potential for increasing re-use and repair activity for particular
products or channels of exchange. WRAP is currently undertaking a study to review current models and assess the
potential to increase re-use and repair of electrical items7. More specifically a report published last year assessed the
potential for increasing online exchange, through channels such as eBay8. With a focus on Waste Electrical and
Electronic Equipment (WEEE), WRAP also examined opportunities for increasing re-use of items disposed via Household
Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs)9.
Meanwhile case studies of best practice have been produced, as steps are taken to optimise re-use and repair services.
The European Commission presented the example of service provision in Flanders as one of the best developed re-use
1
WRAP (2011) Benefits of re-use: A methodology for quantifying environmental and economic impacts of re-use, and WRAP‟s Bulky Waste Guidance:
„Benefits of re-using and recycling bulky waste‟ (undated), available online (http://www.wrap.org.uk/content/bulky-waste-guidance-benefits-reusingand-recycling-bulky-waste; accessed 17/07/12).
2
WRAP (undated) Benefits of re-use case study: Clothing (available online: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Clothing%20re-use_final.pdf;
accessed 20/07/12).
3
Brook Lyndhurst (2012) Waste Prevention in Wales: A briefing paper for Welsh Government to map re-use activity. A report by Brook Lyndhurst on
behalf of the Welsh Government (unpublished).
4
Greater London Authority (undated) Third sector re-use capacity in London.
5
ZWS (2012) State of the Sector Report 2011: A study into the activities of Scottish third sector re-use and recycling organisations (on-going).
6
London Re-use Network (http://www.londonre-use.com/).
7
WRAP (on-going) Understanding the opportunities to increase re-use and repair.
8
WRAP (2011) Online Exchange Potential.
9
WRAP (2011) Realising the re-use value of household WEEE.
11
sectors in Europe, in the lead up to the development of waste prevention guidelines 10. Closer to home WRAP is in the
process of developing a series of case studies, some of which are based in Scotland 11.
On the consumer side, research has been carried out to understand how and why people behave the way they do
when household items break or when people no longer need them. A study by Defra on product lifetimes and durability
explored actions taken by consumers to extend the life of their products and factors underlying decisions about when
and how to discard products. The particular focus of this research was on the motivations and barriers to re-use of
bulky household items12.
Alongside work to understand consumer attitudes and behaviours with respect to re-use, organisations responsible for
boosting uptake have begun developing campaigns and associated materials. For example, key lessons from a selection
of campaign initiatives were reported on by Dorset County Council in 2009 13. Communication materials are also
currently being developed by WRAP for use across the UK14. Furthermore consumer re-use and repair behaviours are
being monitored by WRAP/ZWS‟s 3Rs tracker, which will help to evaluate the impact of these kinds of campaigns over
time15.
WRAP is also developing a UK re-use standard as part of its 2011-15 business plan. It is hoped that the standard will
aid the development of the re-use sector by reassuring consumers that re-used items adhere to a series of quality
specifications set out in the standard16.
1.2 Supporting re-use and repair in Scotland
The Scottish Government recognises the vital role re-use has in reducing the demand for new materials and extending
their lifespan in use. Together with ZWS, the government intends to build on existing work to increase supply and
demand of reusable items17.
Much of ZWS‟s work to-date to boost supply of reusable items has been through Revolve. The purpose of Revolve is to
increase re-use by improving professionalism, customer experience and visibility of re-use organisations.
Various systems for capturing reusable items have also been implemented in Scotland – from re-use centres at HWRCs,
to kerbside collections of textiles or partnerships between retail businesses and third sector organisations to handle
unwanted items.
Other than working to improve service provision, the Scottish Government is also looking to develop targeted
communications to engage members of the public and change behaviours. ZWS has launched a telephone information
and signposting service, known as the national re-use hotline, to enable members of the public to donate unwanted
items more easily and without charge18.
10
Kringloop Re-use Centres (Flanders), Best Practice Factsheets in preparation for Waste Prevention Guidelines, European Commission, June 2009
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/prevention/pdf/Kringloop%20Re-use%20Centres_Factsheet.pdf; accessed 17/07/12).
11
WRAP (2012) Re-use best practice case studies (unpublished).
12
Brook Lyndhurst (2010) Public understanding of product lifetimes and durability: Part 1 & 2. A report by Brook Lyndhurst for the Department of
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Report reference: EV0520.
13
Dorset County Council (2009) Waste Prevention in Dorset: Key lessons from a selection of campaign iniatives.
14
WRAP (2012) „Pass it on‟ re-use communications trial (in draft at the time of writing).
15
WRAP/ZWS (2012) Evaluation of Recycling, Re-use and Repair (3Rs) Consumer Behaviours (unpublished).
16
WRAP (2010) Working together for a world without waste – Business plan 2011 - 2015 (available online:
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Bus_Plan_2011_Final_WEB_2.pdf; accessed 08/09/12).
17
The Scottish Government (2012) Safeguarding Scotland‟s Resources: A programme of efficient use of our resources.
18
ZWS‟s national re-use hotline was launched in February 2012. It is a free phone number which aims to make it easier for people across many parts
of Scotland to donate unwanted items. The advice line, managed by The Wise Group, was initially launched across 16 local authority areas, including
Edinburgh and Perth. The intention is to roll the initiative out across the whole of Scotland by the end of the year.
12
1.3 Research needs, aims and objectives
While there is a growing body of evidence and expertise surrounding re-use provision and consumer behaviours at
various levels across the UK, far less research has been done on the repair sector and in understanding consumer
appetite for services.
There has also been very little research activity to understand the nature of re-use and repair services alongside one
another. Moreover, the historic focus of research has been on the contribution of third sector re-use organisations,
while private sector provision has often been overlooked.
As re-use and repair communication campaigns are developed in Scotland, however, ZWS will need to be mindful of the
landscape of service provision so as not to confuse or frustrate members of the public. Communications will need to be
underpinned by information about services which is useful and relevant to the people using them. They should also be
aligned with work to improve the quality and capacity of provision in anticipation of increased uptake.
Within this context there is a need to build on existing evidence by understanding the relationship between service
provision and public engagement on a local level for re-use and repair, to:
 Inform the development of re-use and repair communications in Scotland that reflect service provision
 Shape future development of ZWS‟s national re-use hotline as it continues to be rolled out
 Identify opportunities to enhance re-use service provision further, as ZWS continues to support the sector
 Identify opportunities for ZWS to work with the repair sector, and align these opportunities with re-use activities
Brook Lyndhurst was commissioned by ZWS to provide insight on the interplay between public engagement and local
provision of services by addressing two research aims:


To understand engagement with re-use and repair services in the context of local provision 19
To identify additional information and actions required to increase re-use and repair behaviours
More specifically, the research sought to understand how the following factors might influence engagement with re-use
and repair services:
 The nature and extent of service provision
 The proximity of services and access
 Affluence levels amongst the local population
In order to explore these issues, the research was carried out in three different local areas across Scotland (see chapter
2 for further details):
 More affluent urban area – Southside/Newington in Edinburgh
 Less affluent urban area – Leith in Edinburgh
 Mixed affluence rural area – Strathallan and Strathearn in Perth and Kinross
Although the research was concerned with a range of household product types, it focused on four categories of
particular interest to ZWS, namely: clothing, furniture, large electrical items and other electrical items. It also covered a
range of different organisations when mapping the nature and extent of service provision in the three study areas –
third sector organisations, charities, private businesses and local authority services.
19
Repair refers to activities designed to restore functionality of a non-working devise or component. Re-use relates to products destined for use again
in the same application (WRAP, 2012).
13
2. Overview of methodology and approach
 Three locations were selected as a focus for the research to assess engagement levels and service provision in
different types of areas – they varied according to their geographical context, affluence levels and extent of
service provision.
 Three strands of evidence were gathered in each area to understand the relationship between engagement and
provision. These included a mapping exercise to identify services available, a quantitative survey of attitudes and
behaviours and a series of qualitative discussion groups with local residents.
 Each strand of evidence was independently analysed before being collated and evaluated to identify suggested
actions for ZWS to boost engagement levels while working to improve re-use and repair service provision.
The research comprised three strands of evidence gathering within each study area, before the results were
triangulated to understand the relationship between local service provision and engagement and to identify actions to
boost engagement levels:
 A mapping exercise and interviews with sector representatives to document the nature and extent of provision
 A quantitative questionnaire survey to assess attitudes and behaviours towards re-use and repair
 Six qualitative discussion groups to explore the relationship between service provision and engagement
Each of these phases are summarised below, following an overview of the rationale for selecting the three study areas.
2.1
Selection of study areas
Several different areas were required to explore the influence of social and geographical factors on service provision
and engagement levels, to capture variability across a range of locations. Three areas were selected according to a
series of criteria drawn up in conjunction with ZWS:
 Two urban areas and one rural area
 One urban area of below average affluence and one of above average affluence20
 All areas to contain at least 15,000 people from which to draw an adequate sample size in the survey
 Study areas to represent differing levels of service provision
 All areas to be large enough in scale to be meaningful to local residents, but practical from a research perspective
Local authority administrative wards were deemed the most appropriate scale of focus, apart from in the rural area
where it was necessary to cover two adjacent wards to obtain a sufficient population size in the quantitative survey.
Box 1 provides a summary of the study areas. Both urban study areas were selected from wards within Edinburgh.
Since residents in both areas have access to similar local authority services and may also access services in other areas
of the city, the selection of these areas allowed for a more meaningful comparison between them.
2.2
Mapping re-use and repair service provision
The purpose of the mapping exercise was to identify re-use and repair (and where relevant recycling) services in each
of the study areas that are available to local residents. A pragmatic approach was employed to mimic steps that might
reasonably be taken by members of the public in finding out about services in their area. In this sense the exercise was
not intended to be exhaustive, nor was it designed to use information from databases unavailable to the public. Three
days were allocated to search for services in total. One day per area was thought to reflect the maximum amount of
time people might be prepared to spend looking for information – assuming they were searching for solutions for a
number of different household items.
20
According to the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (available online: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/SIMD/; accessed 17/07/12).
14
BOX 1: Overview of study areas
1. More affluent urban: Southside/Newington ward,
Edinburgh
 Population of 33,083 in 2001
 7% of population income deprived in 2005
 Located close to city centre
 Large residential area and busy local shopping district
 Large number of services within the study area (some higher end
services such as antique shops)
2. Less affluent urban: Leith ward, Edinburgh
 Population of 18,913 in 2001
 19% of population income deprived in 2005
 Located on north-east side of city
 Large (post) industrial area with residential districts
 Main shopping area less vibrant than city centre
 Large number of services within the study area (many budget end)
3. Rural: Strathallan and Strathearn wards, Perth & Kinross
 Total population of 19,842 in 2001
 7% and 9% of population income deprived in 2005, respectively
 Adjacent wards located between Perth and Stirling
 Sparsely populated rural area
 Limited re-use and repair services within the study area
21
Box 1 sources: Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation , the General Register for Scotland and fieldwork observations.
In some cases the mapping exercise extended beyond the study area boundaries, where equivalent services were not
available more locally or where is was felt that residents would have easy access to services in adjacent areas. While
no firm rules were applied to the distance that these services could fall outside each study area, judgements were
made by the research team about whether local residents could reasonably reach services from where they live,
before they were logged as part of the mapping exercise. For example, Services in Perth and Stirling were included in
the mapping exercise for Strathallan and Strathearn because it was assumed that residents might reasonably travel to
nearby urban centres to access services.
The exercise began with a desk-based search for services using a range of sources from local authority websites to
keyword searches in Google, local business directories and charity websites. Information was also sought about the
nature of services, including the type of household products services related to and any other noteworthy
characteristics, such as whether a collection service or call out charge applied.
The type of organisations mapped included local authority services, third sector re-use initiatives, charities, locallyorientated online channels, private sector services and informal events such as car-boot sales. The research focused
on services that repair or enable re-use of the following items: clothes, shoes, other textiles, furniture, large and other
electricals, bicycles, IT equipment and bric-a-brac. Services handling other products such as baby equipment were
also recorded if they were uncovered during the searching process.
21
The Index of Multiple Deprivation shows relative levels of social and economic deprivation across Scotland at a ward level. Deprivation is
commonly defined as people who cannot obtain, at all or sufficiently, the conditions of life - that is, the diets, amenities, standards and services which allow them to play the roles, participate in the relationships and follow the customary behaviour which is expected of them by virtue of their
membership of society. If they lack or are denied resources to obtain access to these conditions of life and so fulfil membership of society, they may
be said to be in poverty‟. Townsend, P. (1987), „Deprivation‟, Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 16, Part 2, pp125–146.
14
15
Desk-based mapping was supplemented by researcher observations at street level to ensure that services without an
online presence were not excluded. These observations also served as a means of assessing the geographical context
in which services were situated (e.g. proximity to local shopping areas, availability of parking) and the appearance of
services (e.g. the layout of the store, information provided about services), which helped to inform the design of
qualitative research materials.
Finally a small number of interviews with representatives of re-use and repair services were carried out in each study
area (section 8.1). The purpose of these interviews was to understand more about the nature of services provided
that could not be ascertained from searching online or by walking past at street level. They also offered an
opportunity to explore perceptions about supply and demand for services, from those working in the sector. It should
be noted, however, that the small sample size restricts the extent to which conclusions can be drawn about the re-use
and repair sector as a whole. To this end, a short interview guide was developed to steer these discussions through a
series of broad themes (section 8.9).
Information about services was captured in an Excel spreadsheet that was presented to ZWS. The results of the
mapping exercise are summarised in chapter 3 including an overview of the challenges associated with the process
and the implications of these for engagement.
2.3
Quantitative survey of re-use and repair attitudes and behaviours
A questionnaire survey was developed and administered to assess attitudes and behaviours towards re-use and repair
of people living within each of the study areas. The questionnaire was developed in conjunction with ZWS (box 2 and
section 8.7) and once finalised, it was administered face-to-face by survey partners ICM Research. The questionnaire
took an average of 15 minutes to complete with each respondent. The survey was in-field for four weeks, during
which time a total sample of 1659 was obtained across the three study areas, to allow for comparisons between
them22. A random location method was used to provide a representative sample of residents in each area23.
Box 2: Key themes covered in the questionnaire
Disposing of household items
 Awareness of re-use channels
 Disposal behaviours
 Motivations and barriers
Purchasing second-hand items
 Happiness to purchase
 Purchasing experiences
Repair
 Incidence of breakage
 Behaviours (disposal or repair)
Importance of selected values
 Supporting charity
 Success amongst peers
 Owning up-to-date products
 The environment
Socio-demographics, including:
 Gender
 Age
 Social grade
 Car access
An overview of the respondent profile is provided in the annex (section 8.4), together with the topline results (section
8.5). The results were used to carry out a topline and comparative analysis of engagement with re-use and repair
22
Sample sizes for each study area were: Leith n=555; Southside/Newington n=552; Strathallan & Strathearn n=553.
This was achieved by drawing a stratified random sample of Output Areas within each ward according to the affluence of residents. Output Areas
are the base unit of the 2001 Census outputs. They are based on groups of post codes and fit within the boundaries of electoral wards and
parishes. They represent the lowest geographical level on which full information can be generated through census output with approximately 140
households in any defined geography. A series of „micro-areas‟ were then identified within each OA, within which to conduct the survey within, in
order to achieve a representative distribution of interviews across each of the three entire study areas. To ensure the sample was demographically
representative at the micro-level and for each study area, interviewers were required to interview a sample with a demographic profile that exactly
matched that of the Output Area population profile.
23
15
16
services in different areas. Further analysis was also done to explore the influence of socio-demographic
characteristics and selected values on behavioural patterns, motivations and barriers.
Another line of enquiry was to explore whether there was any relationship between different kinds of behaviour – for
example whether people who tend to use re-use channels to purchase second-hand items also use re-use channels to
discard of them. Although this exercise was constrained by the small size of sub-samples, section 5.5 demonstrates
that it provided some interesting results.
2.4
Qualitative discussion groups with local residents
Two discussion groups were conducted in each study area to explore attitudes and behaviours in more detail and to
link them to re-use and repair service provision. The groups also provided an opportunity to explore awareness levels
of different services uncovered during the mapping exercise.
Participants were recruited by sub-contractors Criteria Ltd. Potential recruits were required to have purchased or
disposed of at least one common household item in the last two years, to ensure that group discussions were based
on actual experiences as much as possible. Each group comprised 8-10 participants representing a range of sociodemographic characteristics broadly reflective of the local population (section 8.2).
A topic guide was developed to steer discussions through a series of themes that examined re-use and repair attitudes
and behaviours in depth (section 8.8). At all times throughout the discussion, participants were encouraged to
describe their experiences in the context of local provision, including:





Awareness of local re-use and repair options and levels of experience
Methods used to search for information about services
Amount of effort employed and distance travelled to services
Likes and dislikes about the nature of services
Motivations for and barriers to using different services
These aspects were explored through a series of scenarios, in which participants were invited to deliberate over
different disposal and/or repair options available for different product types within their local area.
The discussions focused on four key products types – clothing, furniture, large and other electrical items - to ensure
that insight was generated for each of these products against acquisition, disposal and repair behaviours as much as
possible within the time available.
The groups were facilitated by one researcher, while another took detailed notes. This allowed for „real time‟ analysis
of insights generated and key observations, such as body language or sentiment, to be noted down. The discussions
were also recorded and transcribed to allow for more detailed analysis after the fieldwork period.
2.5
Triangulation of results and identification of actions to boost uptake
The results from each phase were analysed independently before they were brought together in a series of meetings
involving the research team and ZWS project steering group representatives. These sessions allowed the research
team to explore the relationship between engagement with re-use and repair service provision, by synthesising key
findings from each strand of evidence. Through this process opportunities to enhance service provision were
identified, along with suggestions for improving targeted communications to encourage more engagement with
services.
The results of the research are presented in this report, which was accompanied by a presentation of the results to
the project steering group at ZWS. This presentation allowed for a discussion about the implications of the findings for
ZWS‟s activities to encourage greater re-use and repair in Scotland.
16
17
3. Local provision of re-use and repair services
 The mapping exercise was more time consuming than had been expected because a large number of services
were uncovered and because information about the nature of services was lacking online. Street level
observations proved valuable for identifying services and learning more about the nature of their offering.
These experiences suggest that access to information may act as a barrier to engagement because it is difficult
to locate information and evaluate different service options against one another. This suggestion was later
explored during the qualitative discussion groups.
Although a large number of services were uncovered, the majority tend to be clustered in shopping areas in
urban centres, which suggests that residents in rural areas have unequal access to services.
The majority of services identified are re-use services. Although many of these are high street charity shops, a
surprisingly high number are private sector services, which are currently least well represented by signposting
activities undertaken by third sector organisations.
There are fewer re-use and repair services for furniture, large electrical items and household appliances, than
for other items. Where these services do exist they tend to be located off the high street so they may be less
visible to residents.
While interviews with sector representatives suggested that demand in the re-use sector is benefiting from
greater commercialisation, challenges from accepting donations of less desirable items leave room for
improvement. Meanwhile a limited number of interviews in the repair sector suggest that demand has fallen to a
low level and that the sector could benefit from join up with the re-use sector.





3.1
Finding what is available locally
Mapping re-use and repair services was more time consuming than had been anticipated for several
reasons:



Certain types of services were not well represented online
It was difficult to find information about the nature of service provision
Overall many more services were uncovered than had been anticipated
Part of the difficulty associated with tracking down services was caused by a lack of direct advertising or
representation in business directories, which was particularly true of small independent services. National charities,
such as Oxfam, tended to be the exception by having a presence on parent company websites 24.
Charities and other third sector organisations were also found to be well represented on third party signposting
webpages or by umbrella associations such as the Charity Retail directory 25. Small independent businesses and repair
services, such as cobblers or mobile phone repairs, tended not to benefit from such support and were harder to find
as a result.
Apart from the difficulty of finding services, it was challenging to find out about what kinds of services
are offered. Information was particularly lacking on the following aspects:





24
25
The types of products sold, accepted or repaired
Pricing
Delivery/collection services and charges
Special requirements for donation, such as condition
Quality of services in comparison to other options
Oxfam‟s online shop (available online: http://www.oxfam.org.uk/shop; accessed 18/07/12).
Charity Retail Directory (available online: www.charityretail.org.uk; accessed 18/07/12).
17
18
Some local signposting resources do offer this level of detail, but they are restricted to third sector
services which gives the public an incomplete picture of provision. For example a printable „charity shop and
re-use map‟ of Edinburgh produced by Changeworks,26 maps the location of services across the centre of Edinburgh
and offers information about types of products handled and collection/delivery services. This resource was cited by
several discussion group participants who live in Edinburgh as a means of identifying re-use disposal options (see
chapter 4). A similar map covering Perth and Kinross Council (including Strathallan/Strathearn) was also uncovered27.
In some cases information sources were found to contradict one another, leading to some uncertainty
about which resources are the most reliable. For example contact telephone numbers for services sometimes
differed between an organisation‟s website and information provided by third parties. The level of detail about the
types of products accepted and/or offered by services was also found to vary between information sources.
There was also a lack of comparative information about the quality of different service options. This suggests that not
only could information about the nature of different types of services be more accessible, but it could also benefit
from being consolidated in a consistent manner.
Street level observations and sector interviews proved particularly valuable for tracking down
independent services and for characterising the type of service offered. In the areas where researchers
searched for services on foot, over half of the total services identified were found in this way 28. Subjective judgements
about the appearance and market positioning of services were also more easily made from the pavement, as
researchers were able to assess the layout and condition of the store and access information about the price and
variety of products offered.
3.2
Overview of local service provision29
228 re-use and repair services were identified within or near to the three study areas, as a result of the
mapping exercise. These services included anything from HWRCs, to high street shops, car boot sales or
recycling banks. Although beyond the scope of this project, it should be noted that local authority services, such as
HWRCs, represented a small proportion of the number of services mapped but a considerably larger throughput
capacity.
Table 1 demonstrates that the services mapped are not evenly distributed between the study areas. While the number
of services in and around the two urban areas is similar, there are far fewer services within the rural study area
despite containing a population of equivalent size to the other two study areas. These differing levels of provision may
influence residents‟ propensity to engage in different areas.
Services identified also vary considerably by organisational type (Figure 1). While many are high street
charity services, perhaps surprisingly the largest minority are private businesses. Private sector
organisations might include pawn brokers, antique shops, vintage clothing shops or „cash for clothes‟ services.
26
Charity shop and re-use map, produced by Changeworks (available online: http://www.changeworks.org.uk/uploads/Edinburgh-Charity-ShopMap-2010-Full.pdf; accessed 18/07/12).
27
Charity shop and re-use map, produced by Perth and Kinross Council (available online:
http://www.pkc.gov.uk/Planning+and+the+environment/Waste+and+recycling/Waste+minimisation/Reuse+organisations/Perth+and+Kinross+Network+of+Charity+Shops+and+Re-use+Projects/Charity+Shops+and+Re-use+Projects+Map++remainder+Perth+and+Kinross.htm; accessed 18/07/12).
28
49% of services identified were found on foot, 33% were found by searching online and 18% were found by both means. Please note that this
data excludes services found in the urban centres proximate to the rural ward, as the research team did not search for services on the ground in
these places (therefore n=164).
29
Due to the difficulties finding information about services during the mapping exercise, a number of assumptions were made when characterising
services. All numbers relating to services in this section should, therefore, be viewed as indicative of the scale of provision. Please see annex 0 for
more details.
18
19
Table 1 - Overview re-use and repair services uncovered in or immediately around each study area
Location
Number of services
Urban more affluent - Southside/Newington ward
66
Urban less affluent – Leith ward
77
Rural - Strathallan/Strathearn wards
21
Rural – Urban centres proximate to Strathallan/Strathearn30
64
Total
228
2%
5%
3%
Local authority
Third sector
Charity
49%
41%
Private
Other/not known
Figure 1 – Services identified, by organisational type31
Almost half of services mapped are ‘multi-functional’ re-use services, that is to say they engage in a
combination of activities associated with second-hand purchase, donation and/or sale. Charity shops or
pawn brokers are examples of multi-functional services that accept donations or purchase items from members of the
public, while also selling on those items.
The distribution of services types also varies across the three study areas. Figure 2 illustrates that a similar
number of services in and around the two urban study areas were found, while far fewer were identified in the rural
study area. Services in urban centres proximate to the rural study area are shown separately in this chart because the
discussion groups revealed that participants in the rural area engaged with these services very infrequently.
30
Urban centres proximate to the rural wards of Strathallan and Strathearn were defined as Perth and Stirling.
3%, were categorised as „other/not known‟ because of a lack of information about the type of organisation or because they represented more
unusual models such as community partnerships.
31
19
20
90
80
Number of services
70
60
Multiple function
50
Repair only
40
Donation only
30
Re-sell/Pass on only
20
Acquisition only
10
0
Urban, affluent Urban, less
Rural - Southside/ affluent - Leith Strathallan &
Newington
Strathearn
Urban centres,
proximate to
rural wards
Figure 2 – Different types of services identified, by area and type32
33
Across these different types of services, some product categories are better represented than others (section 8.3 in
annex). Products accepted or offered for sale by high street charity services (such as clothes, shoes, other textiles,
DVDs, books, bric-a-brac) tend to have high coverage in all three study areas because there are a large number of
these types of services which handle very similar product profiles. There are also a sizeable number of services that
accept donations of furniture items, such as sofas or wardrobes, though re-use facilities at HWRC‟s account for some
of these.
The number of services accepting or re-selling items was found to be lowest for large electrical items and bicycles in
all study areas, nevertheless interviews with sector representatives suggests that some re-use services for bicycles
have considerable geographical reach34. A considerable number of services were uncovered that handle other
electrical items, although street level observations revealed that these almost exclusively deal in high value electronic
items such as mobile phones, rather than household appliances.
A similar pattern emerges for repair options, though there are far fewer services altogether. Repair services were most
commonly found to be tailors or shoe repairers. Very few or no repairers were found to exist for furniture and
electrical in or around the three areas.
Services are also unevenly distributed within study areas, tending to be clustered within local shopping districts in
urban centres. For example, most services near to the rural study area are clustered in urban centres of Perth and
Stirling, with a few identified in small towns across Strathallan and Strathearn. These configurations suggest that
people will have uneven access to services, depending on whether they have access to a car or public transport to
local shopping areas.
32
Note that services in urban centres proximate to rural wards (predominately Perth and Stirling) are shown separately from those within the rural
study area because the discussion groups suggested that residents of Strathallan and Strathearn use re-use and repair services in Perth and Stirling
infrequently.
33
Note: n=374 due to 100 of 228 services offering more than one services from the following: acquisition; re-sale; donation; repair. For example
many charity shops accept donated household products but they also offer second-hand items for sale.
34 Representatives of bicycle re-use centres suggest that people travel from wide catchment areas (i.e. well beyond the ward areas) to donate
and/or purchase bicycles.
20
21
The uneven distribution of services is demonstrated in Figure 3, which presents three maps (one for each study area)
on which different types of services are plotted.
Map key
Donation
Repair
Acquisition
Multiple function
(a) Services identified in and around Strathallan & Strathearn wards
21
22
(b) Services identified in and around Southside/Newington ward
(c) Services identified in and around Leith ward
Figure 3 – Distribution of services within the three study areas: Leith; Southside/Newington; Strathallan/Strathearn
(and proximate urban centres) (map data: © 2012 Google and third-party supplier www.mapchannels.com).
22
23
Finally, street level observations revealed some interesting features about the nature of services in each area in terms
of their appearance, their market positioning and how commercially vibrant the surrounding area appeared to be:

In general high street charity shops appeared to be well organised with very similar product ranges, although
those located in more affluent areas tended to exhibit higher value items for sale. Some charity shops had very
appealing window displays, similar to those of conventional high street shops.

While most services were found to be clustered around local shopping areas those handling bulky items, such as
furniture or large electrical goods, were found to be located further afield, except in the less affluent area where
there was also a high street presence.

The more affluent urban area was found to contain several „high end‟ services35 for clothing and furniture (such as
antique shops or vintage clothing stores), compared with the less affluent urban area.

In general the local shopping district in the more affluent urban area was very busy with many people seen
browsing in re-use outlets when visited by members of the research team. In contrast the shopping district in the
less affluent area of Edinburgh was less vibrant and many services appeared to be quiet or even closed during core
shopping hours. In towns within Strathallan and Strathearn, high street charity shop services (which accounted for
the majority of re-use options) were busy at the time they were visited, attracting more interest than other high
street shops offering similar items.
3.3
Reported supply and demand
Interviews with selected sector representatives revealed a very different outlook for the re-use and repair sectors, in
terms of reported supply and demand. These results should, however, be viewed in the context of the very small
sample size generated by this element of research (as discussed in section 2.2).
3.3.1
Purchase of second-hand items

All accounts from representatives involved in the re-sale of items suggest that demand for second
hand items is buoyant and is expected to grow in the future. The current economic climate and the gradual
erosion of stigma associated with second-hand purchase are thought to underpin this trend. It is also recognised
that re-use services have become more professional and commercially orientated in the recent past, which has
improved the shopping experience by offering better quality and range of items, good customer service and well
organised outlets.

In what was often referred to as ‘the Mary Portas effect’ by sector representatives and discussion
group participants alike, services are striving to compete more and more with conventional high
street services. A signal of this change is a shift in reference to bric-a-brac as “home ware” by some high street
charity shops, similar to terms used by large department stores. These commercial drivers seem to be particularly
acute in the city of Edinburgh (i.e. affecting both Edinburgh-based study areas), as opposed to the rural areas of
Strathallan and Strathearn.

Members of the public who purchase second-hand items are thought to represent a wide range of
ages and affluence levels, although teenagers and men were observed in charity shops less
frequently than other groups. In particular a marked gender gap was highlighted where women are observed
browsing or purchasing items in charity shops far more than men.

Little overlap was reported between individuals who donate items to specific charity services, and
those who purchase from the same service. There was speculation amongst sector representatives that
35
„High end‟ services are defined as those selling more expensive products, relative to equivalent items offered across the market as a whole. They
may also include „added value‟ services which are those which recondition or adapt products to increase their market value (e.g. a vintage home
ware store).
23
24
donators may purchase second-hand items from other outlets but were reluctant to undertake both behaviours in
the same location.

Certain services were identified as having a strong local or regional ‘draw’ because of the quality of
items or uniqueness of service offered. In these cases shoppers are believed to be prepared to travel further
afield to access them. Examples included the Bike Station in Edinburgh, The Cancer Club in Comrie, and high street
charity shops in Stockbridge (Edinburgh) which is perceived to be an area that benefits from high quality
donations. These views were strongly echoed by participants in the discussion groups.

There is also a greater demand for some types of household items over others. For example, there is low
demand for 1970‟s furniture or large wall units. By contrast, pine furniture is reported to be highly sought after.
There is very strong demand for bicycles and healthy demand for clothes, books and bric-a-brac. There is
reportedly high demand for laptops and plasmas televisions, but much less for desktop computers and Cathode
Ray Tube (CRT) televisions.
3.3.2
Donation or re-sale

Supply of donated items is reported to be slowing for some re-use services, which was also thought
to be linked to the recession by sector representatives. Moreover, a considerable proportion of
donations are not subsequently re-sold or passed on by charities for reasons of quality, function or a
mismatch between supply and demand.

The quality of donations to high street charity services is an issue in all study areas. One representative
suggested that as much as 70% of donations are unsaleable because they are broken, tarnished or of low quality.
As a result charity shops run labour intensive sorting processes to discard or recycle unusable items. Chain outlets
may be better placed to handle such items by redistributing them to other outlets via central sorting centres or
selling them to merchants for export. Nevertheless, all representatives interviewed agreed that they lacked the
skills or capacity to optimise re-use of broken or low grade items.

The quality of donations to re-use services handling bulky furniture and electronic equipment is also
an issue, which has increased since charges for council-run bulky waste collection were introduced in
all three study areas. Non-council run services that tend to offer free collection, have responded by screening
donations for breakage and aesthetic quality before they are accepted. Interviewees explained that screening
donations helps to ensure that services are not burdened with disposal costs of unsaleable items and helps to
boost the quality of items they offer for sale. It does however mean that a proportion of items offered by the
public, estimated to be in the region of 20-30%, are turned away.

Additionally, there are a series of barriers to acceptance and/or passing on of donated items reported, which relate
to safety – these include fire retardant labels on soft furnishing like sofas and the cost of Portable Appliance
Testing (PAT) on electronic equipment (coupled with the potential cost of disposing of electrical items that fail the
test).

The interview process revealed that networks between local authorities and third sector re-use
organisations are in existence across all three study areas to increase re-use of donated items. In
Edinburgh, the city council has assembled a group of third sector charities who meet once a quarter to discuss
issues and opportunities associated with donations. These networks exclude private sector organisations, however.

Edinburgh Council has also facilitated the formation of informal partnerships to allow third sector organisations and
charities access to bulky items donated to re-use centres at HWRCs and select items to sell on. A similar model is
also in operation by Perth and Kinross Council. The nature of these arrangements means that less desirable items
may not necessarily be re-used even if donated to HWRCs for this purpose.

Whilst these activities are acting to increase the proportion of items that are re-used via HWRCs, they also face
some challenges. Increasing competitiveness to improve demand for second-hand items has
24
25
discouraged charities and third sector organisations from accepting lower quality, broken or
tarnished items donated to HWRCs, which means that a considerable proportion go unclaimed.
3.3.3
Repair sector insight

Only two interviews were undertaken with representatives from the repair sector36. Insight from
these interviewees suggests that demand for repair services has reached a low level, which
threatens the continuing viability of these operators’ businesses.

The increasing cost of labour and parts, in comparison to the cost of purchasing new household
items is largely blamed for the decline in demand for repair. A fading „mind-set of repair‟ is also
implicated, which is linked to older generations who are thought to be more likely to repair items even as the cost
increases.

Accounts of members of the public asking repairers whether they can fix items beyond their
repertoire is not uncommon, which suggests there could be a lack of knowledge about where to find
services to fix broken items. For example a shoe repairer interviewed said he had been asked to fix crockery,
gardening equipment and large white goods.

A secondary barrier to repair relates to the perceived irreparability of some items, especially
cheaper electrical goods. In these cases it is reported not to be possible to purchase replacement parts or to
access core mechanisms that are sealed off during manufacture. These findings, echoed in WRAP‟s report on the
re-use value of WEEE37, suggest that some customers may be unable to repair items despite a willingness to do
so.

Interviews with repair representatives and local authority officers found a lack of join up with other
services, which means the repair sector do not have access to the same networks as organisations in
the re-use sector. Repair services are least well represented online, because they do not tend to be promoted
by representative bodies or third party organisations promoting sustainable behaviours and they do little direct
advertising themselves. This means they are heavily reliant on word-of-mouth referrals and passing trade.
36
Only two interviews were secured following difficulties securing interviewees with repair businesses during the fieldwork period and because there
was very limited number of repair services within the rural study area from which to sample.
37
WRAP (2011) Realising the re-use value of household WEEE.
25
26
A number of suggested actions were identified as a result of the mapping exercise, many of which were revisited in
the qualitative discussion group phase:
COMMUNICATIONS: The experience in the mapping exercise suggests there is a gap in information provision. A
„one stop-shop‟ providing authoritative information about the location and nature of services would improve access
and availability of information, but this exercise has shown that maintaining a resource of this kind would be
resource intensive.
COMMUNICATIONS: Private sector re-use organisations and repair services are currently less visible to the public
than third sector services. Broader promotion of different types of services would improve choice for the public. A
reported lack of public awareness about where to fix broken items suggests that third party marketing of repair
services through a network or cross-referral basis would be beneficial to consumers.
INFORMATION: There is a need for more extensive research into the state of the repair sector in Scotland, its
role in the landscape of re-use and recycling organisations for different product types and what sector-level support
may be required. In better understanding the capacity of the sector, it may be discovered that for example, it is
more effective to work with retailers and manufacturers to increase take back and repair services offered, rather
than through independent repair services.
PROVISION: Third-sector organisations and charities are benefiting from partnerships and networking
opportunities facilitated by local authorities. Opening these partnerships out to private sector organisations would
be of benefit to these organisations and may help to maximise re-use opportunities.
COMMUNICATIONS: Educating the public about what quality of items should be donated to different re-use
services may reduce the number of misplaced donations, however, it should be noted that re-use organisations are
nervous about turning away potentially valuable donations so broader consultation about this issue may be required
before communications messages are developed.
PROVISION: Working with re-use services to boost their capacity to accept lower grade items could also improve
the disposal outcomes of these types of items.
26
27
4. Purchasing second-hand
 The survey results show that there is a gap between stated happiness to purchase second-hand and reported





4.1
experience of doing so, for a range of household items. This pattern is particularly marked for furniture,
electrical items and other textiles.
The vast majority of purchases are made from high street charity shops, which are becoming more aspirational
sites of purchase as services seek to meet their customers‟ needs. Services offering bulky items for sale are less
visible to discussion group participants and could therefore benefit from more signposting.
Cost-saving drivers are important for deliberate second-hand purchases, whereas the experience of rummaging
and the thrill of finding a bargain influence opportunistic purchases.
Perceived issues associated with safety, reliability and cleanliness of products are strong barriers to purchase. To
a lesser extent a lack of choice and effort associated with second-hand channels are also apparent.
While second-hand shopping for clothes is common among women there is scope for boosting uptake among
men.
No strong barriers to purchasing hard furniture exist. This suggests there may be potential for boosting
engagement with furniture re-use services. Large electrical items and small household appliances are a different
story. Strong risk-based barriers mean increasing purchase of these product types will be challenging, although
more opportunities may exist for high value, electronic items.
Overview of behaviours
The questionnaire survey results show there is a gap between happiness to purchase second-hand and
reported experience of having done so, which represents a broad opportunity to increase uptake. Figure
4 shows large variations in the size of this gap for different product types, however, which suggests there may be
greater room for improvement with some more than others. Interestingly stated happiness to buy furniture and
electrical items is somewhat lower than in WRAP/ZWS‟s 3Rs data for 201138.
Clothes and shoes
35%
Other textiles (e.g. carpets, mats, rugs, bedding, curtains
etc.)
29%
7%
Furniture
41%
16%
Large electrical appliances such as fridge, cooker,
washing machine
9%
Cycles and other sports equipment
b) have bought
(n=1659)
28%
29%
5%
Bric-a-Brac
45%
25%
29%
None
0
a) Happy to buy
(n=1659)
24%
3%
Other electrical items (e.g. small kitchen appliances, TVs,
hairdryers, radios, cameras, DVD players etc.)
46%
20
40
42%
60
80
100
%
Figure 4 – Stated happiness to purchase second-hand and reported purchasing behaviours
38
ZWS (2011) Recycling, Re-use and repair (3Rs) Consumer Behaviours, Scotland data, evaluation of tracker survey data by GfK for ZWS
(unpublished).
27
28
The results also show that the vast majority of reported purchasing experiences occurred in high street charity shops,
although a notable minority of purchases were reported to have been made via online channels, such as eBay (see
Table 28). In contrast survey respondents rarely cited experience of purchasing second-hand items from private
sector services.
These results were broadly supported by the experiences of participants in the qualitative discussion groups. Many
had experience of browsing or purchasing items from charity shops, such that it was often described as a „normal‟
shopping experience by participants, as one remarked:
"I meet my pals for coffee and we go around the charity shops"
(Female, C2DE)
Further analysis shows that attitudes towards purchasing used items and reported purchasing behaviours tend to vary
according to socio-demographic characteristics:

A greater proportion of women reported purchasing clothes, shoes and bric-a-brac than men, although
men are more likely to have reported purchasing second-hand bicycles or other electrical item in the last 12
months (see Table 35). These differences in behaviours between men and women concur with those in the latest
WRAP/ZWS 3Rs tracker data39.

Women are more likely to report purchasing items from charity shops and are significantly less likely
to have purchased items online than men (Table 36). In the discussion groups many more women had
purchased items from charity shops than male participants, who often expressed discomfort in doing so. The
following comment made by a female participant supports this notion, which was also reported to have been
observed by sector representatives:
"He’ll [my boyfriend] come in to the charity shops with me; he’ll go and look at the books, the CDs
and DVDs. He will never ever look at the clothes, he just wouldn’t”
(Female, C2DE)

Age influences the nature of purchasing behaviours for different product types. Reported experience of
purchasing second-hand items was higher among younger survey respondents (especially 18-24 years) for clothing
and shoes, other electrical items and bicycles. On the other hand reported experience of purchasing bric-a-brac
was higher among older aged groups (especially 55-64 years) (Table 37).

Age also influences the type of second-hand channels used. Younger age groups (especially 18-24 years)
are significantly more likely to report using internet channels to purchase items than older groups (especially 65+
years). In contrast older survey respondents reported purchasing second hand items from charity shops more
frequently than their younger counterparts (Table 37).

More affluent groups (ABC1’s) are slightly less likely to state that they are happy to purchase
second-hand products (except in relation to bric-a-brac), which follows the pattern observed in WRAP/ZWS‟s
3Rs data40. More affluent groups are also less likely to report purchasing clothes and shoes, but the pattern is less
clear for other types of products (Table 39).

There are strong variances in purchasing behaviours of respondents living in the rural wards,
compared with those living in the affluent urban ward. Respondents in the rural study area of Strathallan
and Strathearn are significantly less likely to report that they have purchased clothes and shoes or other electrical
39
ZWS (2011) Recycling, Re-use and repair (3Rs) Consumer Behaviours, Scotland data, evaluation of tracker survey data by GfK for ZWS
(unpublished).
40
ZWS (2011) Recycling, Re-use and repair (3 R‟s) Consumer Behaviours, Scotland data, evaluation of tracker survey data by GfK for ZWS
(unpublished).
28
29
items second-hand, whereas respondents living in Southside/Newington are significantly more likely (no significant
difference was found in Leith) (Table 40).

Those who believe it is important to support charitable causes are more likely to purchase certain
second-hand items than the total sample. Respondents who stated that they believe it is „very important‟ to
support charitable causes are significantly more likely to report having purchased clothing and shoes and other
electrical items second-hand (Table 41).

Those who feel being seen to be successful is important are less likely to have purchased certain
second-hand items. Respondents who stated that it is „very important‟ to be seen to be successful by one‟s
peers are significantly less likely to have reported purchasing clothes and shoes second-hand, compared with the
total sample (Table 42).

Those who feel it is ‘very important’ to own up-to-date products are less likely to have shopped in
charity shops and more likely to have done so via online re-use channels than the total sample (Table
43). This was supported by the discussion groups in which some participants had experience of purchasing
electronic equipment such as phones or televisions online, but did not associate these behaviours with purchasing
second-hand items from charity shops which they felt “wasn‟t for them”.
4.2
Key motivations
Figure 5 - Motivations for second-hand purchase shows that the most consistent motivations for purchasing secondhand items are (Table 29):



Value for money
Cost saving opportunities
‘Just seeing something I liked’
Despite environmental issues being reported to be important to the vast majority of respondents, these issues were
not found to be associated with purchasing behaviours, which supports findings in the WRAP/ZWS 3Rs tracker data 41.
The qualitative discussion groups strongly supported the presence of these core motivations behind purchasing
decisions. It became clear, however, that these core drivers tended to be more or less important depending on the
product type in question. For example bric-a-brac and clothing items were more commonly associated with the driver
„I just saw something I liked‟ than did functional items, such as large electrical items.
In addition to the core purchasing drivers, however, the qualitative groups suggested that the local context of services
acts as a motivation for some people. For example, some participants and re-use sector representatives emphasised
the „community‟ aspect of charity shops as places where “people can go and have a chat”. In another case, numerous
participants explained that they liked to use Gumtree to purchase items because it allowed them to visit the home of
the seller and view an item before purchasing it. As one participant put it:
"With Gumtree you can find out where they [the seller lives] and you can go and view it [the item]
then you can make your decision, because it’s like in a local network thing. That’s the kind of
bonus of Gumtree isn’t it?"
(Male, ABC1)
41
ZWS (2011) Recycling, Re-use and repair (3 R‟s) Consumer Behaviours, Scotland data, evaluation of tracker survey data by GfK for ZWS.
29
30
71%
It was cheaper than buying new
70%
It offered good value
13%
It was the easiest / most convenient way of getting what I needed
10%
If I can get things second hand, I prefer it
a) All that apply
(n=964)
62%
I just saw something I liked
I couldn't find anything I wanted in shops selling new things / it's
not possible to buy this item new
2%
It had more character / was more original than anything I could
buy new
9%
23%
I like being able to support a good cause through my purchasing
6%
The shop was very welcoming / appealing
5%
It's better for the environment to buy 2nd hand
It seems like a waste to buy things new, when there are perfectly
good things that people don't want
17%
0
20
40
60
80
100
%
Figure 5 - Motivations for second-hand purchase (multi-code)42
A final motivation for purchasing items from charity shops was identified during the discussion groups. Many group
participants described how they felt charity shopping is becoming more aspirational as these services become better
organised and stock higher quality items; consequently they explained that they were more inclined to shop in them
than they had been in the past. These views closely mirror those of the re-use sector and suggest that more
commercial strategies are paying off.
The perception that charity shops are becoming more aspirational sites of purchase was often coupled with the view
that the stigma associated with charity shopping has all but disappeared, allowing group participants to speak freely
about their experiences. It should be noted however that purchasing items from low end private sector services, such
as Cash Generator, was not perceived as positively by group participants.
4.3
Key barriers
Figure 6 shows that primary barriers to purchasing second items are as follows (i.e. at least 46% of the sample
reported them as barriers to purchase) (Table 30):



Quality/reliability
Cleanliness/hygiene
Safety
Interestingly these primary barriers are significantly less likely to be identified by respondents in the
rural area of Strathallan and Strathearn, than those in the less affluent urban area of Leith (Table 44).
These findings may indicate that perceptions of risk associated with buying second-hand items are influenced by the
socio-cultural fabric of the shopping context – in other words, those in less affluent areas associate the material
wealth of the surrounding population with the quality of second-hand items available for purchase.
42
Please note, „other‟, „don‟t know‟ responses removed owing to small sample sizes.
30
31
A host of secondary barriers to purchasing second-hand are also evident in figure 6 (between 10-30% of the sample
defined these factors as barriers):




Less choice than buying new
Less effort to buy new items
It wouldn’t occur to me to buy new
Desire to have the most up-to-date/fashionable products
The first two of these are significantly more important to respondents in the more affluent area of
Southside/Newington, whereas the third barrier is more of an issue in the other two areas. This finding
suggests that while respondents in the affluent area are well aware of the possibility of buying items second-hand
they may not be „bothered‟ because of the convenience of buying new.
It is also true that more affluent groups (ABC1’s) are less affected by these primary barriers and more
affected by secondary barriers (Table 45). This analysis supports the WRAP/ZWS 3Rs tracker data where quality
and safety were more important barriers for lower social grades, while choice was more important for higher grades43.
I'm concerned about quality / reliability
46%
I'm concerned about cleanliness / hygiene
45%
48%
I'm concerned about safety
2%
I would not know where to buy these items second hand
8%
I want the best for myself/my family, don't want to buy second…
12%
I like to have the most up-to-date / fashionable items
a) All that apply
(n=1349)
4%
Using second-hand items is for people that can't afford to buy new
29%
I can choose exactly what I want if I buy new
12%
It's less effort to buy new
Second hand products are not good value / cheap enough…
3%
There are no second hand / charity shops close / convenient… 0.3%
I find the second hand / charity shops in my area unappealing /…
1%
I can never find items I like in the second hand / charity shops in…
2%
3%
I don't like the idea of shopping for second hand goods online
19%
It wouldn't occur to me to buy these items second hand
0
20
40
60
80
100
%
Figure 6 – Barriers to purchasing second-hand (multi-code)44
Figure 6 shows that awareness of services from which to purchase second-hand items is not a barrier to
purchasing second-hand, and this was confirmed by discussions in the qualitative groups, in relation to
high street charity shops. Nevertheless there was limited awareness of services away from the high
street, particularly in relation to services selling bulky items. The group discussions suggested that lack of
awareness of services from which to buy these kinds of items may not have been raised during the quantitative
survey because primary barriers (and to an extent secondary barriers) barred some from even considering secondhand as an option.
Additionally, though not explored in the qualitative survey the proximity of services was found to
influence participants’ stated willingness to use them in the discussion groups. In general participants
explained that they were less willing to travel to services that were further away unless they offered items that were
43
(unpublished).
44
Please note, figure excludes „other‟ and „don‟t know‟ response options owning to small sample sizes.
31
32
of a higher quality than those in their local area. For example, some participants in the less affluent area of Edinburgh
suggested charity shop services nearby are of inferior quality to those in more affluent areas of the city. Areas of
Edinburgh such as Morningside, Stockbridge and Southside/Newington were generally recognised for offering higher
quality items and some participants explained that they were willing to travel to them for this reason.
Proximity of services as an influence over engagement was even more pronounced in the rural study
area. Discussion group participants who live in the rural study area explained that they would be reluctant to use
services in nearby Perth or Stirling, unless they were going there anyway because of the cost of driving there. In
contrast, the cost of travel was not such a strong disincentive for participants in the urban study areas although none
of these participants suggested that they would travel outside of the city of Edinburgh to access re-use or repair
services.
The findings from the discussion groups support the relative importance of these primary and secondary
barriers, but they were also able to draw out differences in their influence for different products. For
example, primary barriers of perceived cleanliness, hygiene and safety were commonly cited in relation to large
electricals and soft furnishings, while these were found to be less important for hard furniture items.
As participants in the discussion groups were asked to describe why and how they had come to
purchase different second-hand items, it became apparent that participants were explaining two
different types of behaviours:


Opportunistic purchases made as a result of browsing or rummaging in second hand shops
Deliberate purchases made as a result of purposive searching
Figure 7 summarises these two different behaviours including the types of products they were most commonly
associated with in the discussion groups and the motivations and barriers which influence them. The diagram
summarises how opportunistic purchases made by participants were described as being made on the spur of the
moment because the items was unusual, attractive or perceived to be a bargain. This finding suggests that these
types of purchases may not displace the purchase of new items, as described in WRAP‟s work on the „displacement
effect‟ from second-hand purchasing45.
In contrast some participants in the groups explained how they had been driven by cost and affordability, to
deliberately purchase second-hand items. In these cases, participants may have explained that they were concerned
by the safety, reliability or cleanliness of items but were willing to overcome these fears because they did not feel they
had an alternative. These findings echo those presented by Defra that showed those who struggle to afford new
household items are more willing to take risks they perceive in making a second-hand purchase46.
45
E.g. WRAP (2011) Benefits of Re-use Case Study: Clothing, produced November 2011. Project code: SAP134.
Brook Lyndhurst (2010) Public understanding of product lifetimes and durability: Part 1 & 2. A report by Brook Lyndhurst on behalf of the
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Report reference: EV0520.
46
32
Opportunistic purchases
Made as a result of browsing or
rummaging in charity shops or online
"I like the element of surprise, you never
know what you are going to find”
(Female, ABC1)
"I never plan to buy anything in a charity
shop - If I see something I like I buy it“
(Female, ABC1)
Especially clothes, bric-a-brac, or high
value fashion-led electrical appliances.
Unusual or novelty items.
Hit and miss nature of choice and the thrill
of finding a bargain appreciated as part
of the experience.
Tends to be more affluent, women
33
Deliberate purchases
Made as a result of purposive searching
M: "It [a cooker] was £75, which in times of
austerity when they cost £300 or £400, that
was out of the question...so I took a chance”
F: “I would take a chance as well...when you
have kids in the house you can't afford
£300" (Male/female, C2DE)
Especially white goods and furniture, but
also accounts relating to clothing
Hit and miss nature of choice a hassle,
may dislike the ‘experience’ of searching.
May also be sensitive to stigma.
Cleanliness and safety an issue, but willing
to take a risk because can‟t afford new
Tends to be less affluent, younger .
Figure 7 - Different types of purchasing behaviour, derived from experiences described in qualitative group discussions
33
34
4.4
Focus on key product categories
While broad motivations and barriers were found to influence the purchase of all product types, the discussion groups
revealed subtle differences in how those drivers affect different product types. These findings are presented for the
four product types of focus – clothing, furniture, large electrical items, small electrical items – in boxes 3 to 6 below.
BOX 3 – Clothes: Is the next generation of
charity shops gender-specific?
BOX 4 – Furniture: Scope to close the valueaction gap for hard furniture?
The survey showed that purchasing of secondhand clothes is commonplace (Figure 4),
although mainly among women (Table 36). The
discussion groups reinforced this finding, as
participants described how buying clothes
online or in charity shops is normal “these
days”.
The gap between happiness to purchase and
experience is particularly large for furniture,
suggesting scope for improvement (Figure 4),
although this gap may be a function of the less
frequent need to buy furniture items compared to
other products in a given year.
The qualitative groups also revealed that many
purchases of second-hand clothes are
opportunistic. This calls in to question whether
these purchases are displacing the purchase of
new items.
Charity shops are the most common site of
clothing purchase according to survey
respondents, followed by online channels such
as eBay, according to discussion group
participants. Participants described how they
believed the quality of service and items offered
in charity shops is improving, which supports
the view of re-use sector representatives
interviewed.
Nevertheless the „hit and miss‟ nature of clothes
shopping in charity shopping was widely
recognised in the groups.
The qualitative groups confirmed that the key
motivations for purchasing second-hand (value,
cost and „seeing something I liked‟) apply to
clothes, but that other factors – uniqueness,
trendiness and novelty – also apply in the
context of opportunistic purchases.
Finally the groups suggested that primary
barriers to purchasing second-hand (quality,
cleanliness, safety) prevent some men
purchasing clothes altogether, whereas
secondary barriers (e.g. choice, fashion) can be
more important for younger shoppers.
Encouragingly qualitative groups suggested that
primary barriers to purchase (safety, quality and
cleanliness) were not keenly felt by participants for
hard furniture items, despite these factors acting as
strong barriers for soft furniture items.
Choice is a barrier to purchase of second-hand
furniture for discussion group participants, many of
whom were unaware of re-use centres in the local
area. Awareness of furniture re-use services in the
groups tended to be restricted to services such as
antique shops, auctions and online services such as
Gumtree. Awareness of third sector re-use services
was somewhat lower. This suggests awareness is a
barrier to purchase of second-hand furniture.
Knowing where an item has come from also
seemed to be important to discussion group
participants in assessing the quality and condition
of an item. For this reason and that of the
convenience of transporting bulky items, locallyorientated channels such as Gumtree were often
favoured in the groups. This emphasises the
importance of the socio-cultural context in directing
purchases within local areas.
Value for money was a key motivation for
purchasing second-hand furniture by discussion
group participants. Many described how they
believed the quality of used furniture to be superior
to new equivalents of the same price.
34
BOX 5 - Large electrical: Standard
guarantees may help overcome very
strong purchasing barriers for some
shoppers who are motivated by costsaving opportunities
BOX 6 - Other electrical: There is appetite
for purchasing high value, fashionorientated items but strong barriers exist
for cheap household appliances
Stated experience of purchasing other electrical
items is higher than for large electrical goods,
but still lower than other product categories
(Figure 4).
The survey findings show that happiness to
purchase and stated experience of large
electrical items is lower than for any other
product type (Figure 4).
Those survey respondents who stated that is it
very important to be seen to be successful to
their peers and to own the most up-to-date
products are more likely to have purchased
other electrical items second-hand, although
this is not significant (Table 42).
This pattern was confirmed in the qualitative
groups, especially amongst older, more affluent
participants who explained they had no need to
buy second-hand electrical items because they
could afford a new one (juxtaposed with strong
risk-based barriers relating to cleanliness and
reliability). Retailer „take-back‟ schemes were
also found to be a disincentive for these
participants.
The qualitative groups suggest the survey
results of reported purchases of other electrical
items mask very different patterns for
household appliances compared with high
value, fashion items. Participants in the groups
described how high value items, such as phones
or laptops, were sought after and commonly
acquired. In stark contrast appliances, such as
kettles or irons, had rarely been purchased and
were not considered appealing.
Motivations for those in the groups willing to
consider purchasing large electrical goods
related to cost-saving opportunities and an
inability to afford new. Uncomfortable accounts
of these kinds of purchases suggested that
there is a stigma attached with purchases of
these types of used products.
Guarantees/warranties were appealing to group
participants, though they were not found to be
enough to alleviate primary barriers (reliability,
safety and cleanliness), which strongly
outweighed any cost-saving opportunities for
most participants.
Despite these challenges sector representatives
stated that demand for large electrical items is
high, especially amongst landlords who are
seeking good value for money purchases and
are less concerned by perceived cleanliness.
Awareness of re-use services selling large
electrical items was very low in the groups,
except in the less affluent study area of Leith
where several high street services were listed.
This matches the actual availability of services
identified in the mapping exercise.
35

Key barriers of safety and reliability were
strongly voiced as reasons against purchasing
household appliances in the groups. The cheap
cost of buying these types of items new was
also raised as a disincentive.
Cost-saving and opportunism motivations for
purchase were found to apply to the purchase
of high value items in the groups. Participants
sometimes described how they had bought an
electrical item off a friend or had come across
one to buy online.
There was less awareness of high-street
services for purchasing other electrical items in
the discussion groups, despite a considerable
number of services selling second-hand phones,
laptops and televisions being uncovered in the
mapping exercise (Table 9).
35
36
Suggested actions to boost uptake of second-hand purchase are as follows:
PROVISION: Encouraging the re-use sector to continue professionalising its offering and the appearance of
outlets, without reducing cost-saving opportunities, is likely to continue improving the desirability of the shopping
experience and demand for second-hand items.
PROVISION: High Street charity shops currently offer very standard product profiles, which have been found to
deter men and younger groups from shopping in them. In particular charity shops offer clothing ranges which are
heavily skewed towards adult women. Helping the sector to develop stock profiles and customer specific stores,
which match the needs of different consumer segments more closely, may broaden their customer base.
PROVISION: Although there is a notable trade in high value electrical items online, there may be appetite for
locally orientated services such as the WEEE recycling centre at Perth College (which was uncovered during the
mapping exercise), where the demand for reconditioned mobiles and laptops is very high. Replicating this model
would broaden the number of purchasing options, especially for those without access to the internet.
PROVISION: Working to professionalise the appearance of re-use services selling bulky items, such as furniture
and white goods, may improve the shopping experience of these services, as has been the case with high street
charity shops. For example, „re-use rooms‟ or attractive window displays in store could be used to help inspire
shoppers.
COMMUNICATIONS: The number and variety of second-hand shops on the high street could provide a real
alternative to conventional outlets selling household products. The research suggests that communication activities
which promote these services should build upon positive perceptions of charity shops as sites of „normal‟ and
enjoyable shopping experiences, to benefit other acquisition channels.
COMMUNICATIONS: Key barriers– perceived cleanliness, reliability and safety of second-hand items – will be
difficult to overcome for certain product types (especially large electrical items and soft furniture). Improving the
appearance of services and offering standardised information about the expected lifetime of used items as part of a
guarantee may help for those who struggle to afford new, but is unlikely to succeed with other consumers.
COMMUNICATIONS: There is an opportunity to close the value-action gap for hard furniture items, as the
research found an absence of strong barriers to purchase. Awareness of re-use services for furniture is lower than
for other items, however, which suggests that increasing signposting to these may boost uptake.
COMMUNICATIONS: Purchasing second-hand items tends to be locally oriented, although people will travel
further afield for particular types of items. Locally-orientated signposting will therefore be most useful, particularly
for furniture and electrical items where access to private transport or collection services is important.
COMMUNICATIONS: Younger age groups (especially those in their 20s) more frequently report that they are
happy to purchase second-hand items than other age groups, though their experience of purchasing these items is
no higher. Focusing communications on this age group may help to catalyse their good intentions.
36
37
5. Re-using and repairing household items
 Disposal rates for clothes and shoes are far greater than for other items, but they also tend to be donated or







5.1
sold rather than thrown away.
Charity shops account for the majority of small items donated, whereas council services are more heavily used
for large items. A minority of items are sold for re-use, mostly via online channels.
Perceived „suitability for re-use‟ is central to disposal decisions, along with situational factors associated with
service provision and individual motivations and barriers for re-use and repair.
Most items are disposed of before they break though breakage is commonly a trigger for disposal of electrical
items.
Rates of repair are relatively low for clothing, furniture and electrical items once they do break. The majority of
repairs are conducted in the home (with the exception of shoe repairs).
Enjoyment of fixing things and the severity of damage influence in home repairs, whereas cost drivers are key to
professional repair for which there is a general pessimism about the cost-effectiveness.
The types of people who donate or sell clothing items for re-use are also more likely to purchase clothing items
second-hand and to repair clothes if they break. This analysis suggests there are many synergies to be had from
changing these behaviours side by side.
Since convenience is an important motivation for disposal, the effort to find services and their proximity have an
important bearing on whether a re-use channel is used. This is especially true for bulky items.
Donating and selling behaviours
Reported disposal rates for clothing and shoes are markedly higher than for other product types, with
over 80% of survey respondents claiming to have disposed of these items in the last 12 months (Figure
8). These results suggest somewhat higher rates of disposal of clothing and shoes than in the WRAP/ZWS 3Rs tracker
data, but lower for other product types 47.
84%
Clothes and shoes
Other textiles (e.g. carpets, mats, rugs, bedding, curtains
etc.)
31%
Product types
(n=1659)
22%
Furniture
washing machine
19%
22%
13%
None/Don't know
0
20
40
60
80
100
%
Figure 8 - Incidence of disposal of household items in the last 12 months (percentage of respondents)
47
37
38
Respondents who threw away one of the five product types, where asked how they disposed of them. The results are
displayed in Table 2, which shows that not all disposal channels are used to the same extent. The „any product type‟
column illustrates some broad patterns as follows:
 Charity shops were used by more respondents than any other disposal option;
 A surprising proportion of respondents reported throwing items in the household bin;
 More respondents reported using donation channels (such as charity shops, clothing banks, or
collection bags) than private re-sale channels (such as car boot sales, or secondhand shops);
 Niche disposal channels, such as Freecycle, were used by a very small proportion of respondents;
 Passing items onto family and friends is a relatively common way of disposing of household items.
The dominance of charity disposal options as a means of getting rid of small household items (excluding electrical
items) was discussed in all of the qualitative groups. Many group participants spoke about charity shops as being the
default disposal option, when considering how to get rid of unwanted items. For example:
"It’s just ingrained in you to take your clothes to the charity shop"
(Female, C2DE)
Table 2 reveals a further layer of variance in the use of different disposal channels, according to different product
types (also see section 5.8):
 Respondents who disposed of clothes and shoes or textiles tended to do so via charity or third sector
re-use services, rather than council-run services;
 Respondents who disposed of large or small electrical items tended to do so via the HWRC or council
collection service, rather than charity or third sector re-use channels;
 Disposal of furniture items was more mixed, with most respondents passing these items onto family
and friends, as well as council-led services and third sector re-use channels;
 Only a few respondents reported disposing of items in the domestic bin, with the exception of 21%
who disposed of clothing and shoes this way;
 Few respondents reported selling items online or in classified ads, with the exception of 10% who
disposed of small electrical items by this means;
 Very few respondents reported disposing of items via retailer ‘take back’ services, with the exception
of 10% who disposed of large electrical items this way.
Table 2 – Disposal decisions, by product type (percentage)48
Disposal route
% Clothes
and shoes
(n=1389)
% Other
textiles
(n=510)
% Furniture
(n=369)
% Large
electrical
appliances
(n=317)
% Other
electrical
items
(n=356)
% Any
product
type
(n=1451) 49
Put it in the normal bin
21
9
2
0
7
23
Put it in the recycling bin/
box
8
8
1
2
8
10
Council collection
1
2
13
23
4
8
Took it to the HWRC
4
8
22
37
39
20
Retailer ‘take back’ service
0
0
0
10
1
2
Took it to a charity shop
65
54
13
5
13
63
48
Note: Excludes „other‟, „not stated‟ and „took it to a swishing party‟ categories.
This column indicates whether respondents who reported throwing away any of the five product category types, disposed of the item, or items,
via a given disposal channel. Respondents to this question were routed from Q2, which asked about materials disposed of in the last 12 months,
meaning that the different numbers of responses were gathered for each product type. The calculation of the 'any product type' percentages was
based on 1451 respondents who threw away any of the five product categories.
49
38
% Clothes
and shoes
(n=1389)
% Other
textiles
(n=510)
% Furniture
(n=369)
% Large
electrical
appliances
(n=317)
% Other
electrical
items
(n=356)
% Any
product
type
(n=1451) 49
23
17
1
1
1
22
3
5
22
8
3
9
12
13
2
0
1
13
2
2
1
0
0
2
4
2
7
3
10
6
Sold it at a car boot sale
4
2
2
1
8
4
Gave it away via networks
(e.g. Freecycle)
0
1
3
2
2
1
Gave it to family or friends
16
18
27
11
11
21
Disposal route
Put it into a charity sack
collection bag
Charity/re-use organisation
collection
Put it into a charity
donation bank
Took it to a second-hand
shop
Sold it on the internet or in
classified ads
39
As with purchasing behaviours, socio-demographic factors were found to influence donation and sale patterns:

Life stage (age) has an important influence upon disposal patterns. Survey respondents between 35-44
years reported that they dispose of furniture, large electrical appliances and other textiles more than other age
groups. Conversely those aged between 18-24 years are significantly less likely to report disposing of these items
(Table 48). This finding suggests that younger people are less likely to be in a position to dispose of household
items (as opposed to personal items) as they are setting up home, whereas it can be hypothesised that those in
middle age groups are more likely to dispose of household items with rising disposable income, growing families
and household items they have owned for some time reaching the end of their useful lifetime. Nevertheless
younger age groups (18-24 years) are significantly more likely to report throwing clothes into the household bin,
which suggests that there is a strong generational influence in how people choose to dispose of clothes and shoes
(Table 64).

Gender roles around the home heavily influence who disposes of clothing, shoes and textiles and by
what means. Men are significantly less likely to have reported disposing of clothing, shoes and textiles than
women (Table 49). Men are significantly more likely to have reported putting clothes in the household bin and less
likely to take them to a charity shop, than women. They are also significantly more likely to have reported taking
large electrical items to the HWRC than women (Table 68).

To a lesser extent, social grade influences the type of disposal channels used. C2DEs are significantly
less likely to report that they donated clothes and shoes to charity shops and more likely to report throwing them
in the bin than ABC1s (see Table 63). C2DEs are also less likely to report taking large electrical items to the HWRC,
but are significantly more likely to report selling other electrical items online (Table 67 and Table 68). Table 50
shows that ABC1s tended to report throwing more items away in the last 12 months, but many of these findings
are not significant.

Respondents who stated strong positive values about the environment and charity are more likely to
report taking clothes and shoes to charity and less likely to throw them in the bin. They also report
disposing of household items more commonly than the rest of the sample. Those who stated that
supporting charitable causes or „doing my bit to help the environment‟ is „very important‟ are significantly less likely
to have reported throwing clothes and shoes in the bin (17% and 15% respectively) than the total sample (21%),
though this pattern does not follow for other product types (Table 63). These respondents are also significantly
more likely to have reported throwing household items away in the last 12 months (Table 50).
39
40

Access to a car was not found to influence disposal decisions for the sample, except in relation to the
use of HWRC’s for electrical items. Those with access to a car are slightly more likely to take electrical items to
the HWRC, though this is not a significant result (Table 46 and Table 47).

Some differences in disposal patterns emerge in the different study areas, but this varies by product
type. Respondents living in the rural area of Strathallan and Strathearn are significantly more likely to report using
the HWRC to dispose of other electrical items than respondents in other wards. This pattern is also evident for
large electrical appliances and furniture, although not significant (Table 60, Table 61, and Table 62). Differences in
the extent of usage of HWRC between urban and rural areas may be linked to access to private transport, as
suggested in the qualitative discussion groups. There are also significant differences in disposal patterns for clothes
and shoes; where respondents in Southside/Newington are more likely to report throwing these items in the bin
(Table 58). This pattern does not hold for the disposal of other textiles, however (Table 59).
5.2
Key motivations underpinning re-use disposal
One key motivation (emboldened) for donating products for re-use was identified by at least 58% of the survey
sample, across all product types:

Expected lifetime/usefulness
This driver is followed by a plethora of secondary factors that were reported to influence re-use disposal decisions to a
greater or lesser extent and, as such, the survey did not reveal clear cut patterns in motivations for different product
types as for motivations associated with purchasing. A list of these secondary factors is provided below, where over
10% of the sample reported them to be a motivation (Table 26):







Item is still in fashion (especially clothes and shoes, textiles)
Supporting charity (all product types)
To make a bit of money (especially electrical items)
To help family and friends (all product types)
To help those more in need or those less fortunate (all, especially clothes and shoes, textiles)
The easiest, most convenient thing to do (all product types)
It is the ‘right thing to do’ (especially clothes and shoes)
Perhaps surprisingly, environmental issues were rarely cited by the sample as an issue in relation to reuse disposal. Between 4-8% of survey respondents stated that they had donated or sold items because it was „good
for the environment or future generations‟ (Table 26). This is despite 79% of the sample stating that environmental
issues are „important‟ or „very important‟ to them (Table 21), which demonstrates that survey respondents do not
associate disposal of household items with environmental issues. This finding was echoed in the qualitative groups
where some participants (mainly older and more affluent) suggested an element of guilt in relation to disposal
decisions they had made because of a dislike of waste, but by and large environmental issues were not raised.
Since the perceived condition of an item and expected lifetimes act as both motivations and barriers to
re-use, perceived suitability for re-use is central to whether re-use disposal options are considered and,
if so, which are chosen as a means of disposal.
Situational factors also have an important influence on disposal decisions, as there was much confusion
and uncertainty in the discussion groups about what items should be donated where. For example there
was much debate about whether donating poorer quality clothing items to high street charity shops is a help or a
hindrance to those organisations. Some believed that charity shops benefit from recycling textiles that are not of
sufficient quality to re-sell and chose to leave the final re-use decision in the hands of the charity shop. Others
believed poorer quality textiles are better placed in collection banks – but even here participants were unsure about
whether items placed in a bank would be re-used or recycled.
40
41
These insights, together with the reported experiences of sector representatives interviewed
demonstrate a disjoint between service provision and peoples’ understanding of what services are
available for different products.
Of all disposal options, the household bin was often described as the ‘last resort’ by discussion group
participants; nevertheless it was found to be used relatively often to dispose of clothing and other
electrical items. 21% of survey respondents have disposed of clothes and shoes in the household bin in the last
year, but less than 10% have done so for other key product categories (see Table 24). This relatively high level of
disposal for clothes in the bin was confirmed by discussion group participants. Many participants also admitted that
they had thrown smaller electrical appliances in the household bin. Accounts of this behaviour, that were only
provided when asked for directly, were often presented apologetically (tending to be females and more affluent
groups). This suggests there may have been some under-reporting of disposal behaviours via the household bin in the
survey results.
In the case of bulky items, several discussion group participants described how their donations had been turned away
from re-use organisations because they were not of a suitable condition for re-sale. In some cases these experiences,
which are matched by those reported by the re-use sector, this left participants feeling disillusioned that they were
unable to find a home for useable objects:
W: “I had a major refurbishment of my house...the toughest thing to get rid of was a great big
living room unit, and there was absolutely nothing wrong with it but none of the charity shops
would take it because it was old fashioned”.
Q: “So what did you do with it?”
W: “It had to be broken up and went to the tip and it was heart-breaking because it was actually
in good condition but nobody would take it"
(Female, C2DE)
Finally the discussion groups identified that many participants store unwanted items (especially
clothes) before disposing of them in a mass ‘clear out’. This emphasises the importance of discouraging
hoarding of items before disposal, as any delay will mean fashion-orientated items are less desirable for
re-use. This supports the results of the WRAP/ZWS 3Rs tracker which shows that 60% of people in Scotland store
clothes and shoes before disposing of them and at least 20% store electrical items and pieces of furniture before
disposal50. These findings are also supported by a report recently launched by WRAP, which found that around 30% of
clothing found in wardrobes in the UK has not been worn for at least one year 51.
5.3
Key barriers to re-use disposal
Two key primary barriers (emboldened) stand out as the most important reasons against choosing re-use disposal
options for survey respondents. Across all product types, at least 49% of the sample highlighted these barriers to reuse disposal. A third barrier was constantly identified by a smaller but nonetheless notable minority of the sample,
across all product types (see Table 25):



Convenience
Perceived condition for re-use
How fashionable the item is perceived to be
50
(unpublished).
51
WRAP (2012) Valuing our clothes: The true cost of how we design, use and dispose of clothing in the UK.
41
42
The discussion groups confirmed the primacy of the convenience and perceived condition for re-use as
key barriers. Moreover, scenarios were used in the groups to explore what factors make up perceptions of suitability
for re-use and how that influences channel choice. These deliberative sessions revealed that drivers related to fashion,
the condition of the item, its functionality and perceived monetary value all make up perceptions of suitability (Figure
9), although the importance of these vary by product type. For example, functionality was found to be an important
factor for participants in determining whether an electrical item was fit for re-use, while fashion was more relevant to
clothing items.
If participants in the groups felt an item was suitable for re-use they reported that they would be more likely to
dispose of it via a re-use channel, such as donating to a charity shop or selling it online. If the item was perceived to
have less re-use value it would be more likely to be disposed of via a non re-use route, such as the household bin or
via the HWRC.
Alongside product-related factors that inform judgements about the suitability of re-use, individual and
situational factors were also found to influence disposal decisions in group scenarios (shown on the
right-hand side of Figure 9). Situational factors, such as availability of services and their characteristics were found
to influence whether it was possible to use a disposal channel of choice. A host of individual factors were also found to
have an influence on final disposal decisions including convenience, financial need or enjoyment of selling items on.
These findings highlight the importance of shaping perceptions of ‘suitability for re-use’ through
communications at the same time as addressing situational barriers associated with provision and
individual motivations and barriers.
Product characteristics
which inform judgements
about the suitability of an
item to be re-used
Range of disposal channels
in the local area
Monetary value
Sell online, give to friends
and family, or donate to
charity/re-use organisation
Function (expected
lifetime/breakage)
Aesthetic condition
(damage/wear and
tear)
Fashion
Suitability
for re-use
Situational factors which
determine what items can be
disposed where in the local
area
Understanding of what ‘should’
be donated where
Actual availability and nature
of services (e.g. cost, collection
services, etc.)
Collection bank/cash for
clothes
Individual attitudes
Household bin, HWRC
Convenience (time, proximity,
transport)
Attachment to item
Financial need
Support/trust in charities
Thrill of selling
Family/friend need
Figure 9 – Factors that influence choice and disposal outcomes
Knowledge about services amongst group participants tended to be best in the areas in which they
lived. Awareness of services further afield tended to be patchy and tended not to extent too far beyond
the immediate area. For example, those living in Leith or Southside/Newington were able to identify some services
in other areas of Edinburgh but did not speak of disposal options outside of the city. Similarly, participants living in
Strathallan and Strathearn were very familiar with disposal options in their local town or village but had much less
consistent knowledge of services in Perth and Stirling.
42
43
The discussion group scenarios also identified uncertainty in knowledge about the specific nature of
services, particularly those located off the high street (i.e. whether they offer collection/delivery services, what
types of products they accepted and/or offered). This finding suggests that limited knowledge about the nature of
services online is reflected in low levels of awareness among local residents, and supports the idea that people would
benefit from a signposting service that provided more specific information.
When searching for disposal solutions discussion group participants suggested the internet and wordof-mouth referrals are the most useful sources of information. In the groups, local authority sources were
only raised in relation to council-run uplift services and HWRCs (commonly referred to as “the dump”) and not re-use
channels. These findings suggest that people do not perceive local authorities as information sources on re-use
channels, although these findings do differ from those in the WRAP/ZWS‟s 3Rs tracker 52 data, which found that local
authority information sources were most commonly cited as sources of information for product disposal.
Discussion group participants’ were not aware of ZWS’s re-use hotline, but in general they were
enthusiastic about the service when more information about it was provided. Overall participants preferred
the idea of a web-based service, though there were many who said they would appreciate being able to phone
someone to discuss different options. Participants in all groups expressed a preference for the number to be a local or
Freephone number. In many cases participants felt that the service would be helpful to them if it was able to help
them identify free collection solutions for unwanted bulky items – these comments were often linked to lower grade
furniture or electrical items that re-use organisations would not accept.
5.4
Repair behaviours
The proportion of respondents who experienced a household item breaking in the last 12 months is
somewhat lower than the proportion who disposed of these items, with the exception of electrical
products (Figure 10). This suggests that some types of items are disposed of before they break, whereas breakage
may be a trigger for disposal of others.
The relationship between breakage and timing of disposal was explored in the discussion groups.
Participants commonly cited breakage of electrical items (understood as no longer working) as the
reason for disposal. In contrast, those who told how they had disposed of clothing items because they were broken
usually said these items were “a bit tatty” or that they had simply got fed up with them, when asked to explain the
nature of the breakage. The tone used revealed a „broken relationship‟ with these kinds of items.
For example:
W: "Sometimes things just go out of fashion and you just don't want them anymore"
(Female, ABC1)
52
(unpublished).
43
44
14%
Clothes
10%
Shoes
Damage/breakage
/product
(n=1659)
8%
Furniture
24%
Electrical items/ appliances
3%
Cycles or other sports equipment
56%
None/not stated
0
20
40
60
80
100
%
84%
Clothes and shoes
31%
Other textiles
Product types
(n=1659)
22%
Furniture
19%
Large electrical appliances
22%
Other electrical items
13%
None/Don't know
0
20
40
60
80
100
%
Figure 10 – (a) breakage or damage of items in last 12 months, by product type (b) disposal of items53
The survey and discussion groups also revealed that rates of repair also vary considerably for different
products when they do break. Table 3 shows that around half of all broken furniture, clothing items, and electrical
items are discarded, rather than repaired. Bicycles and other sports equipment, and shoes, display a different pattern
altogether, with over 60% being repaired in each case.
53
Please note that the product categories in Figure 10 (a) and (b) do not match exactly.
44
45
Table 3 demonstrates that if items are repaired, the majority of repairs occur at home for clothing, electronic items,
furniture and bicycles. Shoes are the anomaly, with over half of respondents reporting their shoes breaking and
paying someone to repair them (also see section 5.8 for product-specific summaries).
Table 3 – Repair/disposal behaviours of broken items, by product type54
% Clothing
(n=229)
% Shoes
(n=171)
%
Electronic/
electrical
items or
appliances
(n=390)
% Furniture
(n=127)
% Cycles
or other
sports
equipment
(n=55)
% Any
product
type
(n=735)55
Disposed of it (including
recycling, donation etc.)
50
35
48
59
18
46
I repaired it myself
38
4
10
19
31
21
6
2
7
9
5
7
0
1
6
1
3
4
0
0
4
1
0
2
0
2
4
1
1
3
3
51
7
7
22
18
0
1
0
0
0
0
Other
0
0
0
0
0
0
Not stated
3
9
16
4
20
12
Disposal/ repair behaviour
My friends or family
repaired the item
The manufacturer/ retailer
repaired it (under
manufacturer's warranty)
repaired it (under extended
warranty)
repaired it (charged)
I paid someone else to
repair the item
I had it repaired under a
separate insurance cover/
policy I have
Discussions in the qualitative groups threw up similar patterns of behaviour for clothing items to those
reported in the survey results, but experiences were more mixed for electronic items and furniture.
Some participants explained that they had had experience of fixing broken washing machines or mobile phones for
example, often with the aid of „how to‟ videos freely available online. Others said they had not considered repairing
electronic items because they lacked the skills to do so and were unwilling to pay for them to be repaired. Very few
participants had experienced furniture items breaking in the last 12 months – most of which were described as cheap,
„flat-pack‟ items that were not thought possible to repair.
The discussion groups also revealed that damaged or broken items are far less likely to be donated or
sold for re-use than their unbroken counterparts. Participants explained that broken bulky items are often
taken to the HWRC or collected by the council. Some also told how they had offered these kinds of items to re-use
organisations but their donations had been turned away.
Socio-demographic factors were found to influence the incidence of products breaking and being repaired among
survey respondents:

Lower social grades are significantly less likely to have experienced household items breaking in the
last 12 months. When items do break, however, these respondents are less likely to report getting
54
Note: excludes „other‟ and „not stated‟ response option.
This column indicates what respondents did with items that they reported breaking in the last twelve months, across any of the five product
category types. Respondents to this question were routed from Q9, which asked about items which had broken or been damaged in the last 12
months, meaning that the different numbers of responses were gathered for each product type. The calculation of the 'any product type'
percentages was based on 735 respondents who reported a broken item across any of the five product categories.
55
45
46
them repaired (with the exception of bicycles) – a finding which mirrors the WRAP/ZWS 3Rs tracker
data56. Over 60% of C2DEs reported that they had not experienced items breaking, compared with 52% of ABC1s
(see Table 52). C2DEs are more likely to dispose of broken clothing items than ABC1s (69% and 40%
respectively); the same pattern follows for shoes, electrical appliances and furniture though these results are not
significant (see Table 54). Discussions in the qualitative groups suggest this is because more affluent groups make
greater use of retailer „take back‟ schemes for large electrical items and may not consider repair as an option. They
may also own more expensive items, such as clothes, which increase the financial incentives to repair them.

Respondents in middle age bracket (35-44 years) are generally more likely to experience products
breaking than the total sample. Respondents in this age bracket are significantly more likely to experience
furniture items and bicycles breaking than other age groups. This pattern also follows for clothes and shoes,
though the findings are not significant (Table 53). The qualitative groups suggested that once people reach their
30s, 40s and 50s, household items they purchased in their 20s when they were setting up home have broken or
become unloved as their disposable income rises. These findings are supported Defra‟s work on product lifetimes
and durability which showed that age (associated with life stage) strongly influences disposal decisions as
disposable57.

Gender-specific repair skills have a mild influence on the pattern of disposal for broken items. Male
respondents are more likely to report throwing broken clothes and shoes away than female respondents, whereas
the reverse is true for electronic items, furniture and bicycles. The discussion groups identified a gender difference
in reported repair skills that reflected these behavioural patterns (Table 55).

Values relating to supporting charitable causes, helping the environment and being seen to be
successful by one’s peers appear to positively influence repair behaviours. Respondents to the survey
who stated that they believe supporting charitable causes, helping the environment or being seen to be successful
are „very important‟ were more likely to report repair behaviours than the total sample (though few of these
findings are significant) (Table 56 and Table 57).
5.5
Key motivations for repair
Although motivations for repair vary by product type, the most important motivation is:

Cost-effectiveness of repair over replacement
Over 50% of survey respondents identified that „it was cheaper than replacing it‟ as a motivation across all product
types. Secondary drivers for repair (where more than 10% of respondents cited it as a reason for at least product
types) were identified as follows (see Table 33):





Enjoyment of fixing things (all items except shoes)
Little effort to repair (clothing, electrical, bicycles)
Minor repair required (all product types)
Attachment to the item (clothing, shoes and furniture only)
Trust in the repairer (shoes, electrical and bicycles only)
Interestingly very few of respondents identified the desire to help the environment or support local
repair shops as reasons for repair. Less than 5% of respondents selected these factors as reasons for repairing
different product types. While this matches findings in the survey for re-use behaviours with respect to the
environment, it demonstrates that repair services do not enjoy the same level of support that charitable organisations
do.
56
Brook Lyndhurst (2010) Public understanding of product lifetimes and durability: Part 1 & 2. A report by Brook Lyndhurst on behalf of the
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Report reference: EV0520.
57
46
47
A notable minority of survey respondents cited warranties or household insurance as a motivation for
repair. 21% of respondents cited this factor as a reason for having items repaired. This finding was not strongly
supported by the experiences of those in the discussion groups, however, where very few had had experience of
using warranties or insurance to repair items.
Repairs can occur as nurturing behaviours throughout the lifetime of a product or as essential actions to
reinstate functionality after breakage58. These types of behaviours were found to vary markedly
according to product type. Much discussion about repair in the discussion groups centred upon the latter for
electronic items (such as drum replacement) and the former for clothing items (such as hem adjustments or buttons).
Emotional attachment to items was key to maintenance of furniture and clothing items, but this was largely absent for
electrical items. As one participant put it:
M: "I've never fallen in love with a washing machine or a hoover"
(Male, ABC1)
5.6
Key barriers to repair
Though barriers to repair also vary by product type, in general the most important factor reported to negatively
influence repair behaviours is:

The perception that the item is beyond repair
Discussion group participants revealed that perceptions relating to whether an item is ‘beyond repair’
do not merely relate to the practical possibility of repair, however, but involve a bundle of underlying
factors which together inform peoples’ judgements about whether a product is worth repairing. These
factors were generally represented as secondary drivers in the survey results, to a greater or lesser extent for
different products (where at least 10% of respondents cited it as a reason for at least three items) (see Table 34):




Lack of repair skills (especially clothing, electronic items and furniture)
Too expensive to repair the item (especially electrical items and shoes)
Easier to buy new (especially clothing, shoes and electrical items)
Not cost-effective to repair the item (especially shoes and electrical items)
Interestingly very few survey respondents cited concerns about product lifetime after repair as barriers
to repair, but these were often raised in the discussion groups. Less than 5% of survey respondents cited this
as reason for disposing of broken items, whereas expected lifetimes tended to be included in notions of reparability by
group participants, along with repair skills, and the cost and convenience of repair.
A general pessimism about the cost-effectiveness of professional repair services was expressed in the
discussion groups. This was often underpinned by experience of seeking out a quote for repairing large
electrical items, but was based much more on hearsay for other electrical appliances and furniture.
When weighing up different solutions for broken items in the scenarios exercises, decisions tended to be based upon a
brutal balance between the costs of replacement versus repair. Only when participants felt emotionally attached to an
item or had a „mind-set of repair‟ would they go to extra lengths or cost to opt for repair rather than disposal.
Some items were regarded as less feasible to repair than others by group participants - electrical items,
large and small, were particularly prone to being considered not worth repairing. For example:
58 Defra (2011) Public understanding of product lifetimes and durability (1). A report completed by Brook Lyndhurst for the Department of
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
47
48
W:"I just buy the cheaper ones [kettles] and when they break I just toss them in the bin and go get
another one from Tesco"
Q: “Is there any reason for not getting those things repaired?"
W: "It's not worth it. You can get a kettle for a fiver" (Female, C2DE)
Barriers to repair associated with awareness of convenient repair services was rarely stated by survey
respondents, yet the discussion groups revealed very low levels of awareness about where to fix
electrical items and furniture. Less than 5% of survey respondents cited a lack of repair services as reason for
disposing of broken items, but in the scenarios exercises the majority of participants could not identify local repairers
who could fix a broken washing machine or microwave. Some participants explained that they had personally sought
out repair services for electrical items in the past, but had been unable to find any. In some cases this led to
abandoned or stalled attempts to repair, for example:
W: "I’ve got a Kenwood Chef that's broken and I really love that because it costs hundreds to buy,
so if there were somewhere it could be repaired...I wouldn't really know where to go"
(Female, ABC1)
There was also very low awareness of re-use services that would accept broken items for parts or reuse if repair options were not thought to be feasible. For example:
W: "It [broken iron] is still in the cupboard. I don't want to put it in the bin. I don't know where I
am meant to put it. Is it for parts?"
(Female, ABC1)
5.7
Relationships between re-use and repair behaviours
Further analysis of the topline survey results show that people who donate, sell or pass on clothes and
shoes to charity are more likely to have bought clothes and shoes second-hand, than those who
disposed of items via non re-use disposal options. Interestingly, they are also more likely to get broken
or damaged clothing repaired59.
Figure 11 summarises these behavioural inter-linkages. The circles in the centre of the diagram represent survey
respondents who donated/sold on clothes and shoes, those who disposed of them via non re-use channels and those
who did both of these things (i.e. used re-use and non re-use channels). The red circles to either side show whether
or not those who only used non re-use channels (to left) and those who only used re-use channels (to right) are
happy to buy/have bought clothes and shoes second-hand. The green circles show whether or not those who only
used non re-use channels (to left) and those who only used re-use channels (to right) repaired broken clothes only60.
Further analysis reveals that those who reported only donating or selling clothing and shoes are more likely to be:


More affluent
Female
In contrast those who only reported using non re-use channels to dispose of clothes and shoes are more likely to be:



59
60
Less affluent
Live in a less affluent areas
Male
Note small sample sizes. Sample sizes for other product types were too small to conduct this analysis.
Note this data excludes survey respondents who repaired or disposed of shoes.
48
49
These results may be important when thinking about how to boost re-use and repair behaviours for clothing and
shoes because they suggest that that people who donate or sell items for re-use are also more likely to engage in
other re-use and repair behaviours associated with clothing. Unfortunately it was not possible to run this analysis for
other product types, due to small sample sizes for the sub-groups, though this would be an interesting area for further
research.
Disposal of clothes/shoes
Non-re-use
(n=131)
Purchase of
clothes/shoes
Both
(n=292)
Purchase of
clothes/shoes
Donation/
sale
(n=952)
59% not
happy to
buy
53% not
happy to buy
32%
broken
(n= 41)
Treatment of
broken
clothes
10%
broken
(n= 91)
20%
repair
(n=8)
78%
dispose
(n=32)
69%
repair
(n=63)
Treatment of
broken
clothes
28 %
dispose
(n=25)
Figure 11 - Relationship between acquisition, disposal and repair behaviours for clothing/shoes
49
50
5.8
Focus on key product types – re-use and repair
BOX 7 – Clothing: Increase re-use by
refining disposal decisions for low grade
textiles
The survey results showed that clothing items
tend to be disposed of before they wear out
(Figure 10). This was supported by descriptions
given by group participants who had fallen „out
of love‟ with their clothes.
Re-use rates for clothes are high amongst the
survey sample (Table 2), with charitable
donations being considered „normal‟ amongst
discussion group participants. A notable
proportion of clothes were reported to end up in
the household bin by survey respondents,
however, which was supported by experiences
of group participants. Young people (18-24
years) are significantly more likely to dispose of
clothes this way (Table 64). These patterns do
not hold for other textiles (Table 65).
Perceived „suitability for re-use‟ was found to
influence disposal decisions in the groups, as
well as situational factors, including uncertainty
about where to donate lower grade textiles.
Awareness of local re-use options was found to
be high in the groups, so is not a barrier.
If clothes were damaged during use, survey
respondents most commonly reported disposing
of them; though a notable proportion repaired
broken clothes at home (Table 3). Group
participants explained that skills and enjoyment
were important to in-home repair.
Group participants described how repair
services may be used for more difficult repairs
and awareness of these services is high. Cost of
replacement and the disposable nature of
clothing consumption were barriers to repair for
group participants.

Further analysis of the survey results
that women and more affluent groups are
likely to repair clothing items (Table 54,
55). Those who donate or re-sell clothes are
more likely to purchase second-hand and to
repair clothes if they break (
Figure 11).
BOX 8 – Furniture: Increase re-use by
finding a home for less desirable items
Disposal of furniture items is split between reuse and non re-use channels in the survey
results (Table 2). Gender influences mode of
disposal of furniture – men are more likely to
take these items to HWRCs (Table 66).
Common motivations and barriers to re-use
apply to furniture (sections 5.3 and 5.2), but
the qualitative groups found that channel choice
is also influenced by re-sale value. The
discussions also suggest disposal choices are
heavily linked to access to services (transport
and collection services).
Experiences of discussion group participants
revealed that charity „knock backs‟ of less
desirable items are leading to non re-use
disposal outcomes. Older participants were
most likely to face difficulty disposing of
furniture for fashion reasons in the groups.
These findings are supported by outcomes
reported by re-use sector representatives.
In the groups, younger renters do not perceive
furniture repair or disposal to be their
responsibility, which suggests that landlords
and home owners may be a more important
target audience for communications.
There was good awareness of re-use
organisations in Edinburgh amongst group
participants, though this was less so amongst
those living in the rural study area. Proximity of
services and high street visibility both had a
bearing on awareness of services.
The local aspect of services was also often
acknowledged in the groups as a way of
assessing the quality of items – this highlights
the importance of the socio-cultural context as
a proxy for quality in purchasing decisions.
Awareness of furniture repair services was very
low in the groups, but was in line with
provision. Repair, which mostly occurs at home
(Table 3), was found to be influenced by
enjoyment of fixing for group participants.
50
BOX 9 - Large electrical: Develop reuse/repair partnerships to handle broken
items more effectively
BOX 10 - Other electrical: Keep small
appliances out of the bin by making
recycling easy
The survey results show that large electrical
items are far more likely to be disposed of when
broken than other product types (Figure 10)
and most commonly via non re-use options –
especially the HWRC (Table 2)
The survey results illustrate that the majority of
other electrical items are not re-used, though
some are sold online (Table 2). Furthermore the
discussion group findings suggest that levels of
disposal via the household bin may be higher
than the survey results suggest.
Common motivations and barriers to re-use
identified in the questionnaire survey apply
(sections 5.3 and 5.2), but qualitative groups
suggest breakage is a real/perceived barrier to
donation as is awareness of services that will
accept broken items.
Warranties may encourage repair of broken
large electrical items (Table 33), but only a
small proportion of these actions reportedly
taken by group participants suggest a gap in
uptake. Conversely retailer take back schemes
were found to disincentive repair amongst
group participants because of the convenience
and immediacy of replacement.
Self-skilling online and purchasing of spare
parts was evident among group participants
with an interest and capacity for repairing items
at home.
In contrast, incidences of failed attempts to use
professional repair services were fairly common
amongst participants who were told “it‟s not
worth it” by repair representatives.
While this demonstrates a desire to repair large
electrical items for some, strong cost barriers
are present. There was a general pessimism
about the feasibility of paying for repair of large
electrical, unless it is possible to fix items at
home.
Risk of subsequent failure is another important
barrier which was regularly cited in the
discussion groups.
Awareness of repair services for large electrical
items was found to be very low for group
participants, but this matches a lack of
provision.
51
Behavioural patterns and drivers for high value,
fashion items (e.g. mobile phones) were found
to vary from those related to function items
(e.g. kettles), in the discussion groups.
Participants described how the former are often
repaired or sold to re-coup some of the value,
whereas the latter are more commonly
regarded as disposable or not possible to repair.
As with larger electrical items, breakage is often
a trigger for disposal (Figure 10), though
fashion trends may influence decisions
regarding higher value items for group
participants.
Non re-use disposal decisions are more likely
among less affluent groups and men for other
electrical items (Table 68). This was supported
by experiences recounted in group discussions,
which also found that other participants might
stall action to dispose of items because of a lack
of awareness of re-use disposal options for
broken items.
Awareness of repair options was particularly low
amongst group participants for functional
household appliances. High street services for
the repair of phones and laptops were more
regularly identified.
Discussions in the groups revealed that selfskilling and in-home repair more common for
high value electrical items, among those with an
interest in repair.
Older, more affluent participants were more
likely to attempt repair of functional appliances,
but there is a limit to how much they are willing
to pay – the cheap cost of replacement
products is a strong barrier to repair for
everyone.
51
52
The following actions were identified to boost re-use disposal:

PROVISION: There is a need to consider the landscape of re-use options and how different service types
impact on one another, to prevent sub-optimal disposal outcomes for re-use or conflicting messages for the
public. These include the influence of retailer take back schemes on re-use of electrical appliances. The
mismatch between supply and demand, leading to some bulky items being „knocked back‟ by re-use
organisations should also be considered.
PROVISION: As was identified in the mapping exercise, working with bulky re-use services to boost their
willingness to manage lower grade or less desirable items would improve re-use rates, as fashion not function
can be a barrier to re-use for less desirable items of furniture. One way of achieving this might be for re-use
organisations to offer less desirable products for free, but this may not be in keeping with their brand identity,
so alternative solutions may need to be developed in collaboration with the sector.

COMMUNICATIONS: The mapping exercise demonstrated that it was harder to find information about private
sector re-use services online, partly because they are less well represented by third party signposting activities.
Broader promotion of different types of services would considerably improve choice for the public.

COMMUNICATIONS: There is a need to align public understanding of what should be donated where to
maximise re-use (and recycling) potential. For example, there is a need to clear up confusion about what to do
with low grade textiles to keep them out of the bin and to make sure that services are not overburdened with
low quality donations. Further research should be conducted with the re-use sector before communication
campaigns are developed, however, to make sure communications messages are aligned with the sector‟s
capacity to handle lower grade items.

COMMUNICATIONS: The experience in the mapping exercise suggests there is a gap in information provided
online about re-use services. A „one stop-shop‟ providing authoritative information about the location and nature
of services would improve access to information, but this would be resource intensive to maintain. There was
appetite for a „one stop shop‟ service, in the form of ZWS‟s re-use hotline, among research participants.
Participants emphasised the importance of such a service to be locally-orientated and free of charge. They were
particularly keen on a service which could help them identify disposal solutions for specific products (particularly
in identifying free collection of bulky items). Nevertheless communications should not seek to boost donations
until sector capacity to handle less desirable items is remedied.

COMMUNICATIONS: Convenience is key to disposal, especially among men and lower social grades.
Emphasising characteristics of re-use services which improve ease of access will appeal to those without strong
altruistic motivations for donating their belongings. These might include the availability of free collection
services, the speed of collection, the breadth of items accepted.

COMMUNICATIONS: Those in their 30‟s and 40‟s report higher rates of disposal than other age groups,
though their disposal decisions do not differ greatly from other age groups. Though younger age groups (early
20‟s) do not dispose of as many items, they are significantly more likely to throw clothing items in the household
bin. This shows there is a generational difference in how people dispose of lower grade textiles, which could be
addressed through targeted communications.

COMMUNICATIONS: Many still refer to the HWRC as the „tip‟ or „the dump‟ so that changing language
associated with the HWRC towards re-use may help to change perceptions of the baseline disposal
option/council role in re-use.

COMMUNICATIONS: There is a need to discourage hoarding of items for long periods prior to disposal, to
increase their desirability for re-use. People could be encouraged to donate or sell items rather than storing
them away, emphasising their diminishing use/monetary value over time.
52
53
The following actions were identified to boost repair:

PROVISION: The mapping exercise demonstrated that there is a need for more extensive research into the
state of the repair sector in Scotland, its role in the landscape of re-use and recycling organisations for different
product types, and what sector-level support may be required. In better understanding the capacity of the
sector, it may be discovered that it is more effective to work with retailers and manufacturers to increase take
back and repair services offered, rather than through independent repair services.

COMMUNICATIONS: The mapping exercise revealed that information about repair services (and private re-use
organisations) is harder to find online, partly because they are less well represented by third party organisations
who signpost re-use services. A reported lack of awareness about where to fix broken items also suggests that
marketing repair services through a repair sector network would benefit consumers.

COMMUNICATIONS: Strong cost barriers are associated with repair. It will be important to communicate the
cost-effectiveness of repair (where it exists) for functional items. Offering guarantees or warranties with
professional repair services would help to improve the perceived cost-effectiveness of repair.

COMMUNICATIONS: The biggest gains may be had by focusing communications on middle age groups
(30/40s), who tend to report that they experience items breaking more than other age groups. The qualitative
research explained that this is partly influenced by life stage.

COMMUNICATIONS: The research found that many items are discarded before they break or wear out as
people fall out of love with their possessions. Using emotional messaging that provokes notions of caring and
attachment may help prevent these „broken relationships‟ and encourage repair if breakage does occur.

COMMUNICATIONS: There is a need to address lack of awareness about what to do with broken or unwanted
electronic items, other than selling them online or via high street shops.

COMMUNICATIONS: Manufacturer warranties and purchased warranty cover are a motivation for repair of
electrical items but they are only relevant to a minority of people at present – working with manufacturers and
retailers to boost uptake of warranties for new (and used) electrical goods may increase repair rates.

PROVISION: There is a gap in service provision for certain items across rural and urban study areas. It will not
be possible to promote uptake of repair services in the absence of provision, so alternative solutions may be
required. For example, signposting people to re-use channels where they can donate broken items. If this is
taken forward, however, it will be necessary to develop capacity in the re-use sector to handle broken items.

PROVISION: In-home repairs make up the majority of repair behaviours for items, except shoes. There is a
need to consider the role of self-skilling and in-home repair to prolong the lifetime of items and any basic
information or advice required to facilitate this, such as diagnostic tools, „how to fix…‟ guides or signposting to
spare parts services. For example, an online video about how to replace a filter on a dishwasher or sew a button
onto a shirt would facilitate basic repairs in the home for those who lack the knowledge necessary to do so.

PROVISION: Consider providing collection banks next to conventional recycling facilities to keep people from
putting smaller electrical items in the household bin, until WEEE regulations are extended.

PROVISION: One possible way of improving the affordability of repair would be to encourage more join up
between the re-use and repair sectors to allow for acceptance of broken items and trade in affordable, secondhand parts. The business case for such action could be tested through a pilot exercise with selected re-use
organisations and professional repair services. It would be particularly helpful to conduct such a pilot for large
and small electrical items, which are not considered cost-effective to repair by many research participants
because of the cost of obtaining spare parts.
53
54
6. Summarising the influence of local provision on engagement
 The research clearly demonstrates that local service provision influences engagement on numerous levels:
provision influences the possibility of engagement and specific service characteristics influence the likelihood that
people will use services available to them.
 This chapter brings together the insights about how service provision influences engagement that have been
identified throughout the report.
 Whilst local provision is inextricably linked to engagement with re-use and repair services, however, the survey
results and qualitative insights demonstrate that commonly held perceptions about re-use and repair also
present barriers and opportunities for engagement. This emphasises the importance of working to change
attitudes and behavioural norms in parallel with activities to improve service provision.
Following the presentation of motivations, barriers and behaviours associated with re-use and repair, this chapter
seeks to summarise and highlight the numerous ways in which local service provision influences engagement.
The research has revealed that numerous aspects of local service provision influence engagement:




Provision of information and access
Number and composition
Location and geographical distribution
Key characteristics of services
These four aspects are discussed below in relation to their influence on purchasing second-hand items, donating or
selling items and on repair.
6.1
Purchasing second-hand
Information about what items are available to purchase second-hand and where to find them is lacking
online. It is more easily accessed by visiting shops directly, which may deter some shoppers but enthral
others. The mapping exercise found that information about services selling second-hand items is not easily found
online, with the exception of online channels such as eBay. Furthermore, while consumers might assume that multifunctional services will sell the same items that they accept as donations, information about the pricing or quality of
items for sale is largely unavailable online. The qualitative research revealed that this mystic is a draw for some
shoppers who enjoy the thrill of rummaging for a bargain, but it might put others off who enjoy a more convenient,
informed shopping.
The number and composition of services selling second-hand items varies across the study areas, which
is broadly reflective of engagement levels. A comparison between reported purchasing behaviours and the
number of services uncovered in each study area revealed that respondents in areas with a large number of services
(i.e. the urban areas) reported purchasing second-hand items more frequently than those with low levels of service
provision (i.e. the rural area).
Awareness of second-hand shops that are located on the high street is greater than those less visible
from street level. This suggests services selling second-hand items that are located away from the high
street could benefit from greater signposting services. Participants in the discussion groups were more able to
identify high street charity shops selling second-hand items, than re-use services selling bulky items that tend to be
located further afield (this pattern excludes online services, such as eBay, that were widely recognised).
A desire for convenience means people tend to prefer shopping for second-hand items near to where
they live, but they are willing to travel further afield to access services selling specialist items or
offering products that are perceived to be of a higher quality than those available closer to home. The
discussion groups and sector interviews revealed that people are happy to travel beyond their local to access specific
services that are not available close by (for example, services selling second-hand bicycles). People are also willing to
travel to shopping areas that are perceived to offer higher quality second-hand products. In these cases the affluence
of an area is a determinant of engagement.
54
55
Once inside a shop selling second-hand items, a number of factors influence the quality of peoples
shopping experiences. Qualitative discussion groups and interview with sector representatives revealed the
following factors that influence shopping experiences:





Layout and appearance of the store (i.e. how well organised the shop is, whether it is clean and well lit)
Professionalism of staff (i.e. how welcoming and helpful they are, the advice they give about products)
Cost of items (i.e. compared with other re-use services and conventional services)
Range of items offered for sale (e.g. the size, style and colour of clothing garments)
Perceived quality of stock (i.e. designer items, nearly new items)
6.2
Re-use disposal
Information about services that accept donated items or facilitate the re-sale of items is not easily
accessible online, which means re-use rates are not be as high as they might be for those that cite
convenience as a barrier to donation or sale of items. The discussion groups demonstrated that people tend to
use keyword searches online or “make a few phone calls” to identify disposal options, but the mapping exercise
showed that a considerable amount of time is required to find information in this way. Many people will not be
prepared to invest such time in finding re-use services when convenience is such a strong motivation behind disposal
decisions.
The number and composition of services in different areas influences disposal patterns. This highlights
the importance of making sure provision exists before promoting the benefit of services to local people.
For example, charity shops were well represented in all three study areas and consequently they were found to be
well used by survey respondents and group participants alike. In contrast fewer services that accept large electrical
items or appliances were identified in the three areas, which matched lower rates of donation of these particular
items.
As is the case with second-hand purchasing, the proximity of services influences the likelihood of
engagement with re-use disposal options where people choose the closest option. For example, group
participants in Strathallan and Strathearn relied heavily on a HWRC for disposing of items, which was located a few
minutes‟ drive away (and many of these participants had access to a car). The opposite was true of participants who
lived in Leith. Many of these participants (who did not have access to a car) felt the HWRC was too far away.
Convenience strongly influences disposal decisions and, as such, a series of re-use service
characteristics which affect the speed, cost and ease of disposal are important determinants of
engagement. Scenarios used in the qualitative discussion groups uncovered the following characteristics:




Availability of free collection service (i.e. in relation to furniture and bulky electrical items)
Willingness to accept all items (i.e. all items irrespective of aesthetic condition, function or fashion status)
Speed of removal and/or sale (i.e. few days for bulky items, longer for others but may risk hoarding)
level of hassle to arrange (i.e. quick and easy to find and arrange collection or drop off)
It is also important to consider the landscape of services provided, however, since this has an influence
on the relative attractiveness of different choices. The introduction of charges for bulky waste collection in
Edinburgh and Perth and Kinross triggered an increase in the number of (attempted) donations to re-use
organisations, for example. Alternatively retailer take back schemes disincentivise re-use of large electrical items for
those who intend to purchase a new replacement because they take the old item away while installing the new one.
6.3
Repair
Access to information about repair services is limited because these services are not currently
represented by third party organisations or promoted in re-use literature. The mapping exercise
demonstrated that repair services are particularly hard to find online. This was reflected in the experiences of
discussion group participants who explained that they would not know where to find local repair services for some
items (especially electrical and furniture).
55
56
As is the case with re-use services, the location of repair services has a bearing on awareness levels.
Those services located on the high street (especially tailors and shoe repairers) tended to be more widely recognised
by discussion group participants than remote services (i.e. without shop front on the high street).
The number of repair services, especially for electrical and furniture items, also has a bearing on
awareness and engagement levels. For those participants who did not have the skills or interest in repairing items
at home, availability of local repair services influenced the perceived feasibility of repair. As the mapping exercise
showed, lack of provision is acute for some items (namely furniture, bulky electrical items and other electrical
appliances).
The prevalence of in-home repairs reported by survey respondents and discussion group participants
suggests that engagement with parts suppliers and sources of information about how to carry out
repairs is important. Participants in the groups commonly explained how they had watched amateur online videos
as a means of self-skilling for in-home repair, or had ordered spare parts for electrical items once they had identified
the relevant product serial number. Although these services/information sources were not included in the scope of the
mapping exercise, the results show that they may be important to consider alongside professional repair services in
communications activities.
Apart from the availability of services influencing the possibility of repair, a number of service characteristics related to
the cost and convenience of repair were found to influence engagement:




Cost of repair (parts and labour) (i.e. against the cost of original purchase and replacement)
Ability to offer repair guarantee (i.e. ability to predict lifetime post-repair and provide guarantee)
Cost of call out charges (i.e. cost of obtaining a quote for repairing bulky items)
Amount of hassle associated with repair (i.e. the time/hassle compared with that of replacement)
56
57
7. Summary of suggested actions to boost re-use and repair
 This research demonstrates that service provision has an important influence on engagement levels for re-use
and repair, but that it is unlikely that uptake can be boosted effectively by improving provision alone - it will also
be necessary to tackle commonly held perceptions about re-use and repair which act as barriers to engagement.
 This chapter brings together all of the suggested actions for ZWS to consider, identified as potential
opportunities to boost engagement by improving service provision and communications. This includes actions
identified as a result of the mapping exercise, as well as those which arose or were reinforced in the quantitative
and qualitative research with members of the public.
 The intention is not for ZWS to address all of these actions exhaustively, rather they are intended to provide a
wide range of ideas for further consideration in the context of existing activities to improve provision and provide
communications on re-use and repair. The impacts of each action should also be considered in relation to the
impacts of other suggested actions, acknowledging the inter-relationships between purchasing, re-use disposal
and repair behaviours. Further work by ZWS is therefore required to understand which of these actions should
be taken forward and how they will impact on existing activities.
 For ease actions are presented in three tables according to the behaviour they relate to: the first (Table 4)
summarises the suggested actions to boost purchasing of second-hand item; the second (Table 5) summarises
actions to encourage engagement with re-use options; and, the last table (Table 6) summarises actions to
encourage more people to repair household items.
Table 4 – Suggested actions to boost purchasing of second-hand items
Boosting purchase
Relevance to
product types
Relevance to
organisational
types
PROVISION
Encouraging the re-use sector to continue professionalising its
offering and the appearance of outlets, without reducing cost-saving
opportunities, is likely to continue improving the desirability of the
shopping experience and demand for second-hand items.
All
All re-use
PROVISION
High Street charity shops currently offer very standard product
profiles, which have been found to deter men and younger groups
from shopping in them. In particular charity shops offer clothing
ranges which are heavily skewed towards adult women. Helping the
sector to develop stock profiles and customer specific stores, which
match the needs of different consumer segments more closely may
broaden their customer base.
Especially
clothes
PROVISION
Though there is a notable trade in high value electrical items online,
there may be appetite for locally orientated services such as the
WEEE recycling centre at Perth College (which was uncovered
during the mapping exercise), where the demand for reconditioned
mobiles and laptops is very high. Replicating this model would
broaden the number of purchasing options, especially for those
without access to the internet.
Especially
electrical
Local re-use
models
Especially
furniture, large
electrical
Bulky re-use
Type
Working to professionalise the appearance of re-use services selling
bulky items, such as furniture and white goods, may improve the
shopping experience of these services as has been the case with
high street charity shops. For example, „re-use rooms‟ or attractive
window displays in store could be used to help inspire shoppers.
PROVISION
High street
charity shops
57
58
Boosting purchase
Relevance to
product types
Relevance to
organisational
types
COMMS
The number and variety of second-hand shops on the high street
could provide a real alternative to conventional outlets selling
household products. The research suggests that communication
activities which promote these services should build upon positive
perceptions of charity shops as sites of „normal‟ and enjoyable
shopping experiences, to benefit other acquisition channels.
All
All re-use
COMMS
Key barriers– perceived cleanliness, reliability and safety of secondhand items – will be difficult to overcome for certain product types
(especially large electrical items and soft furniture). Improving the
appearance of services and offering standardised information about
the expected lifetime of used items as part of a guarantee may help
for those who struggle to afford new, but is unlikely to succeed with
other consumers.
Especially
large
electrical, soft
furniture
COMMS
There is an opportunity to close the value-action gap for hard
furniture items, as the research found an absence of strong barriers
to purchase. Awareness of re-use services for furniture is lower than
for other items, however, which suggests that increasing
signposting to these may boost uptake.
Especially
furniture
Bulky re-use
COMMS
Purchasing second-hand items tends to be locally oriented, although
people will travel further afield for particular types of items. Locallyorientated signposting will therefore be most useful, particularly for
furniture and electrical items where access to private transport or
collection services is important.
Especially
furniture, large
electrical
Bulky re-use
COMMS
Younger age groups (especially those in their 20s) more frequently
report that they are happy to purchase second-hand items than
other age groups, though their experience of purchasing these
items is no higher. Focusing communications on this age group may
help to catalyse their good intentions.
All
All re-use
Type
Bulky re-use
Table 5 – Suggested actions to boost donation, sale and passing on of household items
Type
Relevance to
product types
PROVISION
The mapping exercise found that third-sector organisations and
charities are benefiting from partnerships and networking
opportunities facilitated by local authorities. Opening these
partnerships out to private sector organisations may help to
maximise re-use opportunities.
Especially
large electrical
and furniture
PROVISION
There is a need to consider the landscape of re-use options and
how different service types impact on one another, to prevent suboptimal disposal outcomes for re-use or conflicting messages for the
public. These include the influence of retailer take back schemes on
re-use of electrical appliances. The mismatch between supply and
demand leading to some bulky items being „knocked back‟ by re-use
organisations should also be considered.
Especially
large electrical
and furniture
PROVISION
Working with bulky re-use services to boost their willingness to
manage lower grade or less desirable items would improve re-use
Especially
furniture
Relevance to
organisational
types
Bulky re-use
(private and
third sector)
All (including
manufacturers,
retailers and
local
authorities)
58
Type
rates, as fashion not function can be a barrier to re-use for less
desirable items of furniture. One way of achieving this might be for
re-use organisations to offer less desirable products for free, but
this may not be in keeping with their brand identity, so alternative
solutions ma need to be developed in collaboration with the sector.
Relevance to
product types
59
Relevance to
organisational
types
Bulky re-use
COMMS
The mapping exercise demonstrated that it was harder to find
information about private sector re-use services online, partly
because they are less well represented by third party signposting
activities. Broader promotion of different types of services would
considerably improve choice for the public.
All
Private sector
re-use
COMMS
There is a need to align public understanding of what should be
donated where to maximise re-use (and recycling) potential. For
example, there is a need to clear up confusion about what to do
with low grade textiles to keep them out of the bin and to make
sure that services are not overburdened with low quality donations.
Further research should be conducted with the re-use sector before
communication campaigns are developed, however, to make sure
communications messages are aligned with the sector‟s capacity to
handle lower grade items.
Low grade
items,
especially
clothes
All re-use
COMMS
The experience in the mapping exercise suggests there is a gap in
information provided online about re-use services. A „one stop-shop‟
providing authoritative information about the location and nature of
services would improve access to information, but this would be
resource intensive to maintain. There was appetite for a „one stop
shop‟ service, in the form of ZWS‟s re-use hotline, among research
participants. Participants emphasised the importance of such a
service to be locally-orientated and free of charge. They were
particularly keen on a service which could help them identify
disposal solutions for specific products (particularly in identifying
free collection of bulky items). Nevertheless communications should
not seek to boost donations until sector capacity to handle less
desirable items is remedied.
All
All re-use
COMMS
Convenience is key to disposal, especially among men and lower
social grades. Emphasising characteristics of re-use services which
improve ease of access will appeal to those without strong altruistic
motivations for donating their belongings. These might include the
availability of free collection services, the speed of collection, the
breadth of items accepted.
All
All re-use
Those in their 30‟s and 40‟s report higher rates of disposal than
other age groups, though their disposal decisions do not differ
greatly from other age groups. Though younger age groups (early
20‟s) do not dispose of as many items, they are significantly more
likely to throw clothing items in the household bin. This shows there
is a generational difference in how people dispose of lower grade
textiles, which could be addressed through targeted
communications.
Especially
clothing
All re-use
COMMS
Many still refer to the HWRC as the „tip‟ or „the dump‟ so that
59
60
Type
COMMS
changing language associated with the HWRC towards re-use may
help to change perceptions of the baseline disposal option/council
role in re-use.
COMMS
There is a need to discourage hoarding of items for long periods
prior to disposal, to increase their desirability for re-use. People
could be encouraged donate or sell items rather than storing them
away, emphasising their diminishing use/monetary value over time.
Relevance to
product types
Relevance to
organisational
types
Especially
bulky items
HWRC/local
authorities
Especially
clothes,
furniture
All re-use
Table 6 – Suggested actions to boost repair of household items
Relevance to
product types
Relevance to
organisational
types
Type
Boosting repair
PROVISION
The mapping exercise demonstrated that there is a need for more
extensive research into the state of the repair sector in Scotland, its
role in the landscape of re-use and recycling organisations for
different product types and what sector-level support may be
required. In better understanding the capacity of the sector, it may
be discovered that it is more effective to work with retailers and
manufacturers to increase take back and repair services offered,
rather than through independent repair services.
Especially
electrical
Repair (and
how they
relate to reuse services)
COMMS
The mapping exercise revealed that information about repair services
(and private re-use organisations) is harder to find online, partly
because they are less well represented by third party organisations
who signpost re-use services. A reported lack of awareness about
where to fix broken items amongst research participants also
suggests that marketing repair services through a repair sector
network would be beneficial to consumers.
All
Repair (and
re-use)
COMMS
Strong cost barriers are associated with repair. It will be important to
communicate the cost-effectiveness of repair (where it exists) for
functional items. Offering guarantees or warranties with professional
repair services would help to improve perceived cost-effectiveness of
repair.
Especially
large and
other electrical
All repair
COMMS
The biggest gains may be had by focussing communications on
middle age groups (30/40s), who tend to report that they experience
items breaking more than other age groups. The qualitative research
explained that this is partly influenced by life stage (household items
purchased by participants in the 20s becoming worn out).
All
All repair
COMMS
The research found that many items are discarded before they break
or wear out as people fall out of love with their possessions. Using
emotional messaging that provokes notions of caring and attachment
may help prevent these broken relationships and encourage repair if
breakage does occur.
Especially
clothes
Repair and
re-use
COMMS
There is a need to address lack of awareness about what to do with
broken or unwanted electronic items, other than selling them online
or via high street shops
Especially
electrical
Repair and
re-use
60
61
Relevance to
organisational
types
Type
Boosting repair
Relevance to
product types
COMMS
Manufacturer warranties and purchased warranty cover are a
motivation for repair of electrical items but they are only relevant to
minority of people at present – working with manufacturers and
retailers to boost uptake of warranties for new (and used) electrical
goods may increase repair rates when breakage occurs.
Especially
electrical
All repair
PROVISION
There is a gap in service provision for certain items across rural and
urban study areas. It will not be possible to promote uptake of repair
services in the absence of provision, so alternative solutions may be
required. For example, signposting people to re-use channels where
they can donate broken items. If this is taken forward, however, it
will be necessary to develop capacity in the re-use sector to handle
broken items.
Especially
large electrical
and furniture
All repair
PROVISION
In home repairs make up the majority of repair behaviours for items,
except shoes. There is a need to consider the role of self-skilling and
in home repair to prolong the lifetime of items and any basic
information or advice required to facilitate this, such as diagnostic
tools, „how to fix…‟ guides or signposting to spare parts services. For
example, an online video about how to replace a filter on a
dishwasher or sew a button onto a shirt would facilitate basic repairs
in the home for those who lack the knowledge necessary to do so.
All
All repair
PROVISION
Consider providing collection banks next to conventional recycling
facilities to keep people from putting smaller electrical items in the
household bin, until WEEE regulations are extended.
Especially
other electrical
Reuse/recycling
PROVISION
One possible way of improving the affordability of repair would be to
encourage more join up between the re-use and repair sectors to
allow for acceptance of broken items and trade in affordable,
second-hand parts. The business case for such action could be
tested through a pilot exercise with selected re-use organisations
and professional repair services. It would be particularly helpful to
conduct such a pilot for large and small electrical items, which are
not considered cost-effective to repair by many research participants
because of the cost of obtaining spare parts.
Especially
electrical
Re-use and
repair
61
62
8. Annex
8.1
Summary of re-use and repair sector interviewees
An overview of sector representatives who were interviewed as part of the mapping exercise is presented in Table 7.
While insights generated through the interview process were very informative and supported many of the views
presented by participants in the discussion groups, it should be noted that the small sample size restricts the extent
that generalisations can be made about the re-use and repair sector as a whole.
Table 7 – Summary of re-use and repair sector interviewees61
Location
Service type
Organisational type
Main product types served
Leith
Acquisition/donation
Third sector
Bulky furniture and white goods
Leith
Donation
HWRC
All
Leith
Repair
Private
Electrical
Leith
Other
Third sector
N/a - Information/communications
Southside/Newington
Charity
Standard charity shop profile62
Southside/Newington
Charity
Standard charity shop profile
Southside/Newington
Third Sector
Bicycles
Southside/Newington
Repair
Private
Shoes
Other - Edinburgh
Donation
Local authority
Strathallan/Strathearn
Charity
Strathallan/Strathearn
Charity
Other - Perth & Kinross
Third sector
Electrical
N/a
HWRC
All
Third sector
Bicycles
Charity
Bulky furniture and white goods
N/a
Local authority
8.2
Qualitative discussion groups – participant profiles
There were between eight and ten participants in each of the six qualitative discussion groups. Table 8 provides an
overview of the participant profiles in each of these groups.
Table 8 – Profile of discussion group participants
Location
Socio-economic grade
Age range
Urban more affluent – Southside/Newington
ABC1
45 years +
61
62
Note: Contact details have been removed to protect the anonymity of interviewees.
„Standard charity shop profile‟ includes: clothes, shoes, other textiles, books, DVDs, sports equipment (excluding safety equipment), accessories.
62
Location
Socio-economic grade
Age range
Urban more affluent – Southside/Newington
ABC1
18-44 years
Urban less affluent – Leith
C2DE
45 years +
Urban less affluent – Leith
C2DE
18-44 years
Rural – Strathallan/Strathearn
ABC1
Mix 18-65+ years
Rural – Strathallan/Strathearn
C2DE
Mix 18-65+ years
8.3
63
Service provision in each study area, by product type
Due to the difficulties associated with finding information about the nature of different services provided, a number of
assumptions were made during the mapping exercise. Furthermore services located near to the boundary of wards
were included in the count of services available to local residents inside the study area. The results presented below
should, therefore, be viewed as indicative of the proportion of services available in each study area.
Assumptions made in the mapping exercise are as follows:
 Where information about product types accepted or donated to high street charity shops was unavailable, it was
assumed these services handle a „standard‟ range of items (namely: clothing, other textiles, shoes, books, DVDs,
bric-a-brac);
 Some information about product types handled by some services is absent because it was not possible to tell what
items they applied to from online information (e.g. collection banks);
 HWRCs that offer facilities for donation for re-use were included in the search;
 Data derived from street level observations were based on researcher notes taken, outside the service or store
(therefore not all information about those services may have been recorded).
Table 9 – Total number of services identified, by product type summarises the number of services available in each
study area, by product type. Please note that column totals exceed service type totals in some cases because many
services handle more than one product type.
In the tables below, the „Other‟ category includes jewellery, watches, music and music equipment, mobile phones,
fashion accessories, paintings, and computer games. The „Other sports equipment‟ category commonly relates to
tennis rackets, golf clubs, exercise mats but excludes helmets and other safety equipment. „Baby equipment‟ includes
clothing, books and toys, but excludes safety equipment, such as car seats.
Table 9 – Total number of services identified, by product type
Location
Acquisition
Donation or re-sale
Repair
Clothes
76
118
10
Other textiles
58
99
8
Shoes
75
117
10
Furniture
38
40
0
Large electrical
18
18
4
Small electrical
25
28
9
Bicycles
11
16
4
Other sports equipment
36
27
1
Bric-a-brac
70
81
0
63
64
Location
Acquisition
Donation or re-sale
Repair
IT equipment
21
16
22
Baby equipment
40
33
0
Books
80
94
0
DVDs
74
89
0
Other
101
121
16
Table 10 - Acquisition services in each study area, by product type
Location
Total
Urban, affluent
Urban, less
affluent
Rural only
Beyond rural
area
Clothes
76
25
19
8
24
Other textiles
58
12
15
8
23
Shoes
75
25
18
8
24
Furniture
38
2
18
6
12
Large electrical
18
1
11
0
6
Small electrical
25
4
15
0
6
Bicycles
11
1
7
0
3
Other sports
equipment
36
4
15
6
11
Bric-a-brac
70
22
15
9
24
IT equipment
21
2
11
1
7
Baby equipment
40
12
13
3
12
Books
80
26
20
8
26
DVDs
74
27
15
9
23
Other
94
29
30
11
31
Table 11 - Re-sale or donation services in each study area, by product type
Location
Total
Urban, affluent
Urban, less
affluent
Rural only
Beyond rural
area
Clothes
118
31
29
16
42
Other textiles
99
17
25
16
41
Shoes
117
31
28
16
42
Furniture
40
2
19
6
13
Large electrical
18
1
11
0
6
Small electrical
28
4
17
0
7
64
Location
Total
Urban, affluent
Urban, less
affluent
Rural only
Beyond rural
area
Bicycles
16
2
8
0
6
Other sports
equipment
27
3
7
6
11
Bric-a-brac
81
22
26
8
25
IT equipment
16
2
5
1
8
Baby equipment
33
11
8
3
11
Books
94
23
22
9
40
DVDs
89
27
20
8
34
Other
121
37
31
9
44
65
Table 12 - Repair services in each study area, by product type
Location
Total
Urban, affluent
Urban, less
affluent
Rural only
Beyond rural
area
Clothes
10
4
3
1
2
Other textiles
8
4
3
1
0
Shoes
10
3
3
1
3
Furniture
0
0
0
0
0
Large electrical
4
0
2
0
2
Small electrical
9
4
5
0
0
Bicycles
4
2
2
0
0
Other sports
equipment
1
0
1
0
0
Bric-a-brac
0
0
0
0
0
IT equipment
22
6
13
1
2
Baby equipment
0
0
0
0
0
Books
0
0
0
0
0
DVDs
0
0
0
0
0
Other
16
10
6
0
0
8.4
Quantitative questionnaire – Respondent profile
This section provides an overview of the socio-demographic characteristics of the sample and the stated values of the
sample according to a series of selected values-based questions. In order to correctly interpret it is necessary to know
the basic makeup of the sample across the three study areas (as presented in Table 13).
Where significance testing has been applied to the results, numbers have been entered in bold to indicate statistical
significance at the 95% confidence level, corresponding to p-values below 0.05. These significance tests are based on
65
66
the difference between observed and expected values as formalised in the chi-square test. The '†' symbol follows each
table title where this test has been applied.
Table 13 – Proportion of respondents by ward
Number of
respondents
(n=1659)
Leith Ward
Southside/ Newington
Strathallan/ Strathearn
555
552
553
Percentage in
ward
33
33
33
Table 14 – Age by ward†
Percentage in
Leith Ward
(n=553)
Percentage in
Southside/
Newington
(n=551)
Percentage in
Strathallan/
Strathearn
(n=553)
Percentage of
total
(n=1657)
18-24
10
32
7
16
25-34
28
18
13
20
35-44
20
13
18
17
45-54
14
11
18
14
55-64
11
8
16
12
65+
17
17
27
21
Percentage in
Leith Ward
(n=554)
Percentage in
Southside/
Newington
(n=552)
Percentage in
Strathallan/
Strathearn
(n=553)
Percentage of
total
(n=1659)
Male
49
48
48
48
Female
51
52
52
52
Percentage in
Leith Ward
(n=555)
Percentage in
Southside/
Newington
(n=552)
Percentage in
Strathallan/
Strathearn
(n=553)
Percentage of
total
(n=1660)
ABC1
52
67
53
57
C2DE
48
33
47
43
Table 15 – Gender by ward†
Table 16 – Social class by ward†
66
67
Table 17 – Access to a car by ward†
Percentage in
Leith Ward
(n=555)
Percentage in
Southside/
Newington
(n=552)
Percentage in
Strathallan/
Strathearn
(n=552)
Percentage of
total
(n=1659)
Yes
60
56
82
66
No
38
43
18
33
Not stated
2
1
0
1
Table 18 – Importance of supporting charitable causes†
Percentage
of total
(n=1659)
Percentage
male
(n=800)
Percentage
female (n=859)
Percentage
ABC1
(n=709)
Percentage
C2DE
(n=950)
5 - Very Important
54
43
64
59
47
4
28
35
22
27
30
3
14
17
12
12
18
2
2
3
1
2
3
1 - Not at all important
1
2
0
0
2
Don't know
0
0
0
0
0
Table 19 – Importance of being seen to be successful by peers†
Percentage
of total
(n=1659)
Percentage
male
(n=800)
Percentage
female (n=859)
Percentage
ABC1
(n=708)
Percentage
C2DE
(n=951)
5 - Very Important
13
14
13
15
12
4
24
26
23
25
23
3
23
24
22
23
22
2
17
17
18
16
19
21
19
23
21
21
Don't know
1
1
2
1
2
Table 20 – Importance of having the most up to date products†
Percentage
of total
(n=1657)
Percentage
male
(n=898)
Percentage
female (n=859)
Percentage
ABC1
(n=709)
Percentage
C2DE
(n=951)
5 - Very Important
12
13
11
13
10
4
16
20
13
16
18
3
27
26
27
28
25
2
20
20
20
20
19
25
21
29
23
28
67
68
Don't know
Percentage
of total
(n=1657)
Percentage
male
(n=898)
Percentage
female (n=859)
Percentage
ABC1
(n=709)
Percentage
C2DE
(n=951)
0
0
1
0
1
Table 21 - Importance of doing your bit to help the environment†
Percentage
of total
(n=1658)
Percentage
male
(n=799)
Percentage
female (n=859)
Percentage
ABC1
(n=709)
Percentage
C2DE
(n=951)
5 - Very Important
42
35
49
48
35
4
37
40
34
37
36
3
17
20
14
13
23
2
3
3
2
2
4
1
2
1
1
2
Don't know
0
0
0
0
0
8.5
Quantitative questionnaire – Survey results
This section presents the topline results of the survey, in the order in which the main question themes were presented
in the questionnaire - donation or sale, acquisition and repair. The corresponding survey question is displayed beneath
each table of results. Please note that the results have been weighted by age, gender and housing tenure within each
ward.
8.5.1
Donation or sale
Table 22 – Awareness and availability of disposal options
a) Percentage aware
of (n=1659)
b) Percentage
available in your
area (n=1659)
Taking items to a charity shop
99
98
Putting items in a charity collection sack delivered to your house
92
89
Putting items into a charity donation bank
88
83
Arranging for items to be collected by a charity or re-use organisation
81
72
Taking items to second-hand shops (not for charity)
83
71
Selling items on the internet or in classified ads (e.g. EBay, Gumtree,
Ad Trader, Loot etc.)
84
78
Selling items at car boot sales
89
79
Giving items away via networks such as Freecycle or similar
57
50
Passing items on to family or friends
91
86
Swapping, or "swishing" parties or events
28
19
Other/ not stated
1
1
68
69
Q1 (a) Which of the following options are you aware of as alternatives to throwing away or recycling unwanted items?
(Select all that apply); (b) Which of these options, to the best of your knowledge, are available in your area? (Select
all that apply).
Table 23 – Products disposed of in last 12 months
Percentage disposing of material (n=1659)
Clothes and shoes
84
Other textiles (e.g. carpets, mats, rugs, bedding, curtains etc.)
31
Furniture
22
Large electrical appliances such as fridge, cooker, washing machine
19
Other electrical items (e.g. small kitchen appliances, TVs, hairdryers,
radios, cameras, DVD players etc.)
21
None/Don't know
13
Q2. Which, if any, of the following unwanted items have you disposed of in any way in the last 12 months? This might
include throwing it away, selling it or passing it on to family, friends or donating it to a charity / second-hand shop.
(Select all that apply).
Table 24 – Disposal route, by product type
a) Percentage
clothes and
shoes
(n=1389)
b)
Percentage
other
textiles
(n=510)
c)
Percentage
furniture
(n=369)
d)
Percentage
large
electrical
appliances
(n=317)
e)
Percentage
other
electrical
items
(n=356)
Threw it away in my normal bin
21
9
2
0
7
Threw it away in my recycling bin/ box
8
8
1
2
8
1
2
13
23
4
4
8
22
37
39
0
0
0
10
1
65
54
13
5
13
Put in charity sack collected from my house
23
17
1
1
1
Arranged for a charity or re-use
organisation to collect it
3
5
22
8
3
Put it into a charity donation bank
12
13
2
0
1
Took it to a second-hand shop
2
2
1
0
0
Sold it on the internet or in classified ads
(e.g. EBay, Gumtree, Ad Trader, Loot etc)
4
2
7
3
10
4
2
2
1
8
Gave it away via networks such as
Freecycle or similar
0
1
3
2
2
16
18
27
11
11
Took it to a swapping, or "swishing" party /
event
0
0
0
0
0
Arranged for the council to collect it (bulky
waste only)
Took it to the local Civic Amenity Site /
household waste recycling centre (the tip)
It was taken away when the new product
was delivered
69
70
Other/ not stated
a) Percentage
clothes and
shoes
(n=1389)
b)
Percentage
other
textiles
(n=510)
c)
Percentage
furniture
(n=369)
d)
Percentage
large
electrical
appliances
(n=317)
e)
Percentage
other
electrical
items
(n=356)
2
5
4
6
8
Q3. Thinking about the last time you disposed of each of these items, what did you do with it? (Select all that apply).
Table 25 – Barriers to passing on, by product type
It was the easiest thing to do with this item
It was too much effort / too time
consuming to donate, sell or give away this
item
It was not in a good enough condition to be
used by someone else
It was too unfashionable or old
I didn't like the thought of someone else
using this item
I didn't know how / where to donate, sell
or give away this item
There wasn't anywhere to donate, sell or
give away this item that was convenient to
me
I don't support / trust the charities that
have shops, deliver collection bags or offer
arranged collections in my area
The charity / second hand shops / re-use
organisations in my area seem
unwelcoming / unfriendly
I didn't know if the charities / second hand
shops / re-use organisations would take this
item
It didn't occur to me to donate, sell or give
away this item
There was nowhere to store the item at
home so I wanted to get rid of it quickly
Other/ not stated
a) Percentage
clothes and
shoes
(n=423)
b)
Percentage
other
textiles
(n=119)
c)
Percentage
furniture
(n=133)
d)
Percentage
large
electrical
appliances
(n=222)
e)
Percentage
other
electrical
items
(n=206)
53
53
55
53
61
2
1
1
1
0
67
54
49
58
46
20
13
17
10
8
7
6
1
1
2
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
1
4
3
4
4
1
5
6
4
2
3
8
4
4
5
Q4. For some of these items, you said you threw them away or had them recycled. What of the following options
were the main reasons for doing this, rather than donating them to charity, selling them or giving them away? (select
all that apply).
70
71
Table 26 – Motivations for donation or sale
a)
Percentage
clothes and
shoes
(n=1244)
b)
Percentage
other
textiles
(n=424)
c)
Percentage
furniture
(n=253)
d)
Percentage
large
electrical
appliances
(n=88)
e)
Percentage
other
electrical
items
(n=140)
I believed the item(s) had further use
86
78
61
58
66
The item(s) was still fashionable/ modern
20
13
6
4
16
To support the charity / organisation
61
55
35
25
21
To make a bit of money
6
5
9
17
25
To help out family and friends
15
18
31
34
20
To help out those more in need than me
34
30
24
19
11
1
1
1
0
1
8
7
6
6
4
9
10
7
7
2
20
20
16
13
19
10
10
6
7
8
10
9
8
15
9
It's the right thing to do
23
19
16
15
7
I'd feel guilty if I didn't / if I threw the item
in the bin
17
17
9
12
12
To support those less fortunate than myself
32
28
23
20
10
Don't know
0
0
1
1
1
I'd acquired things for free before, and
thought I should give something back
It's good for the environment / future
generations
It's good for the economy
It was the easiest / most convenient thing
to do
It helps to reduce the amount of rubbish
disposal (landfill / incineration)
It saves space in my waste bin / in my
home
Q5. You said you donated, sold or gave away some of your unwanted items. What were the main reasons for doing
that? (Select all that apply).
8.5.2
Acquisition
Table 27 – Happiness to purchase and purchasing experience
a) Percentage happy
to buy (n=1659)
b) Percentage who
have bought
(n=1659)
Clothes and shoes
47
35
29
7
Furniture
41
16
24
3
Other electrical items (e.g. small kitchen appliances, TVs, hairdryers,
28
9
Bicycles and other sports equipment
29
5
71
72
a) Percentage happy
to buy (n=1659)
b) Percentage who
have bought
(n=1659)
Bric-a-Brac
46
25
None
30
42
Q6 (a): Which, if any, of these items would you be happy to buy second-hand? (Select all that apply); (b) and which,
if any, of these items have you bought second-hand in the last 12 months? (Select all that apply).
Table 28 – Purchasing behaviour, by channel type
Percentage by
location (n=964)
Charity shop
84
Re-use organisation
4
Second hand shop (non-charity)
15
Internet (e.g. EBay, Gumtree etc.) or via other classified ads
31
I got them for free via networks, such as Freecycle
1
Car boot sale
1
Not stated
1
Q6 (c): You indicated that you had bought some items second-hand. Where did you buy them? (Select all that apply).
Table 29 – Motivations for second-hand purchase (including most important)
a) Motivations for
purchase,
percentage (n=964)
It was cheaper than buying new
71
b) Most important
reason for
purchase,
percentage
(n=819)
30
It offered good value
70
23
It was the easiest / most convenient way of getting what I needed
13
2
If I can get things second hand, I prefer it
10
1
I just saw something I liked
I couldn't find anything I wanted in shops selling new things / it's
It had more character / was more original than anything I could buy
new
I like being able to support a good cause through my purchasing
62
24
2
1
9
3
23
11
6
0
It's better for the environment to buy 2nd hand
It seems like a waste to buy things new, when there are perfectly
good things that people don't want
Enjoy searching for items
5
0
17
5
1
0
Other
0
0
Don't know
1
0
72
73
Q7 (a): You said that you had purchased some items second-hand in the last 12 months. What were the main reasons
for purchasing second-hand as opposed to buying new? (Select all that apply); (b) which is the most important
reason?
Table 30 – Barriers to second-hand purchase (including most important)
a) Barriers to
purchase,
percentage
(n=1349)
b) Most important
barrier, percentage
(n=935)
I'm concerned about quality / reliability
46
24
I'm concerned about cleanliness / hygiene
45
30
48
34
I would not know where to buy these items second hand
2
1
I want the best for myself/my family, don't want to buy second
hand
8
5
I like to have the most up-to-date / fashionable items
12
8
Using second-hand items is for people that can't afford to buy new
4
2
I can choose exactly what I want if I buy new
29
22
12
7
3
2
0
0
1
1
2
1
I don't like the idea of shopping for second hand goods online
3
1
It wouldn't occur to me to buy these items second hand
19
8
No need for those items
4
0
Do not go to second hand places
0
0
Need a guarantee
0
0
Do not know who has owned it/Might be someone who had died
0.1
0.1
Other
0.2
0.1
Don't know
10.2
0.7
Second hand products are not good value / cheap enough compared
to new
There are no second hand / charity shops close / convenient enough
to me
I find the second hand / charity shops in my area unappealing /
unwelcoming
I can never find items I like in the second hand / charity shops in
my area
Q8 (a): You said that there were some items that you would not buy second-hand. What are the main reasons for
this? (b): What is the most important reason?
8.5.3
Repair
Table 31 – Damage/ breakage, by product type
Percentage by
material (n=1659)
Clothes
14
Shoes
10
73
74
Percentage by
material (n=1659)
Furniture
8
Electrical items / appliances (including fridge, cooker, washing machine, small kitchen
appliances, TVs, hairdryers, radios, cameras, DVD players etc.)
23
Bicycles or other sports equipment
3
None/not stated
56
Q9. Firstly, have any of the following items that you own been broken or damaged in the last 12 months? (select all
that apply).
Table 32 – Repair behaviours, by product type
a)
Percentage
clothing
(n=229)
b)
Percentage
shoes
(n=171)
c) Percentage
electronic/
electrical items
or appliances
(n=390)
d)
Percentage
furniture
(n=127)
e) Percentage
bicycles or
other sports
equipment
(n=55)
Disposed of it (including recycling,
donation etc.)
50
35
48
59
18
I repaired it myself
38
4
10
19
31
My friends or family repaired the item
6
2
7
9
5
0
1
6
1
2
0
0
4
0
0
0
2
4
1
1
I paid someone else to repair the item
3
51
7
7
22
I had it repaired under a separate
insurance cover/policy I have
0
1
0
0
0
Other/ not stated
2
9
16
4
20
The manufacturer / retailer repaired it
(under manufacturer's warranty)
(under extended warranty)
(charged)
Q10. Thinking about the last time each of those items had been broken or damaged, what did you do? (Single code).
Table 33 – Motivation for repair, by product type
a)
Percentage
clothing
(n=108)
b)
Percentage
shoes
(n=102)
c) Percentage
furniture
(n=48)
d)
Percentage
electronic/
electrical
items or
appliances
(n=141)
e) Percentage
bicycles or
other sports
equipment
(n=55)
I enjoy fixing things
41
5
35
15
33
I take pride in fixing broken items
15
0
9
1
11
It was cheaper than replacing it
68
56
61
51
47
37
8
16
9
29
17
2
8
11
5
It required little effort / was
convenient to have it repaired
It would have been more hassle to
replace than repair the item
74
75
a)
Percentage
clothing
(n=108)
b)
Percentage
shoes
(n=102)
c) Percentage
furniture
(n=48)
d)
Percentage
electronic/
electrical
items or
appliances
(n=141)
e) Percentage
bicycles or
other sports
equipment
(n=55)
It was only a minor repair job
50
18
36
32
39
I loved the item / couldn't bear not to
have it any more
20
34
21
1
1
It was under warranty / insured
0
0
0
21
1
0
19
9
18
16
0
0
7
4
5
To help the environment
2
0
2
1
0
I like to support the local repair shop /
service
0
2
0
0
6
Other/ not stated
7
11
14
6
3
I knew I could trust the repairer to do
a good job
A friend / family member suggested
that it could be repaired
Q12. What were the main reasons for getting the item repaired? (Select all that apply).
Table 34 – Barriers to repair, by product type
I didn't have the skills to repair the
item myself
I didn't know who else could repair the
item
It was too much effort / time
consuming to get the item repaired
There was nowhere convenient to get
the item repaired
The shops in my area that might be
able to repair the item are
unwelcoming / unappealing
I couldn't guarantee how long it would
last after it was repaired
I didn't trust the repairers to do a
proper job
It's easier to buy new
I didn't want to wait while the item
was repaired
I felt it was too expensive to repair the
item
It would not have been cost effective
to repair the item (compared to the
cost of a replacement)
It didn't occur to me to get the item
repaired
The item could be recycled
a)
Percentage
clothing
(n=122)
b)
Percentage
shoes
(n=68)
c) Percentage
electronic/
electrical items
or appliances
(n=225)
d)
Percentage
furniture
(n=84)
e) Percentage
Bicycles or
other sports
equipment
(n=18)
20
9
15
14
8
2
0
3
5
0
14
5
8
9
8
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
20
26
11
7
5
1
2
0
0
8
17
23
8
8
13
27
29
19
4
3
11
4
10
0
4
4
3
2
0
75
76
a)
Percentage
clothing
(n=122)
b)
Percentage
shoes
(n=68)
c) Percentage
electronic/
electrical items
or appliances
(n=225)
d)
Percentage
furniture
(n=84)
e) Percentage
Bicycles or
other sports
equipment
(n=18)
I thought the item was beyond repair
49
51
42
54
52
It was old and I wanted to get the
updated version
12
4
11
7
5
Other/ not stated
13
15
5
11
40
Q13. Which of the following were the main reasons that discouraged you from repairing this item? (Select all that
apply).
8.6
Analysis of results by socio-demographic characteristics
This section presents the results of analysis of the topline results against key socio-demographic characteristics and
selected values-based questions. Please note that small differences in totals or overall percentages may be found in
the tables which follow due to rounding or weighting. As elsewhere, the results have been weighted by age, gender
and housing tenure within each ward.
Where significance testing has been applied to the results, numbers have been entered in bold to indicate statistical
significance at the 95% confidence level, corresponding to p-values below 0.05. These significance tests are based on
the difference between observed and expected values as formalised in the chi-square test. The '†' symbol follows each
table title where this test has been applied.
Table 35 - Purchase by product type, by gender†
Happy to buy
Product type
%
male
(n=800)
%
female
(n=860)
%
Overall
(n=1660)
Clothes and shoes
42
52
47
Other textiles (e.g. carpets, mats, rugs, bedding,
curtains etc.)
27
32
29
Furniture
40
41
40
24
25
24
30
26
28
30
29
29
Bric-a-brac
40
51
46
None
35
25
30
Clothes and shoes
28
41
35
curtains etc.)
5
9
7
Furniture
14
17
16
2
4
3
12
6
9
washing machine
Other electrical items (e.g. small kitchen
appliances, TVs, hairdryers, radios, cameras, DVD
players etc.)
Have bought
washing machine
players etc.)
76
Product type
%
male
(n=800)
%
female
(n=860)
%
Overall
(n=1660)
7
4
5
Bric-a-brac
17
32
25
None
47
37
42
77
Q6 (a). Which, if any, of these items would you be happy to buy second-hand; (b) And which, if any, of these items
have you bought second-hand in the last 12 months? (Select all that apply).
Table 36 - Purchase by channel, by gender†
Channel
%
male
(n=426)
%
female
(n=538)
%
Overall
(n=964)
Charity shop
76
90
84
Re-use organisation
3
4
3
Second-hand shop (non-charity)
13
16
15
Internet (e.g. eBay, gum tree etc.) or via other classified ads
42
23
31
I got them for free via networks such as Freecycle
1
1
1
Car boot sale
1
1
1
Not stated
1
1
1
Q6 (c). You indicated that you had bought some items second-hand. Where did you buy them?
Table 37 – Purchase by product type, by age†
Happy
to buy
Product type
%
18-24
(n=272)
%
25-34
(n=328)
%
35-44
(n=281)
%
45-54
(n=239)
%
55-64
(n=197)
%
65+
(n=342)
%
Overall
(n=1659)
Clothes and shoes
59
50
51
46
43
34
47
Other textiles (e.g. carpets,
mats, rugs, bedding, curtains
etc.)
35
36
29
31
26
20
29
Furniture
41
47
44
47
39
27
40
36
30
20
26
21
14
24
52
33
24
26
20
14
28
42
34
33
31
22
14
29
Bric-a-brac
42
45
45
47
56
42
46
None
23
31
25
25
30
40
30
Large electrical appliances such
as fridge, cooker, washing
machine
Other electrical items (e.g. small
kitchen appliances, TVs,
hairdryers, radios, cameras, DVD
players etc.)
Bicycles and other sports
equipment
77
78
Have
bought
Product type
%
18-24
(n=272)
%
25-34
(n=328)
%
35-44
(n=281)
%
45-54
(n=239)
%
55-64
(n=197)
%
65+
(n=342)
%
Overall
(n=1659)
Clothes and shoes
45
38
37
34
31
24
35
etc.)
7
8
6
9
11
4
7
Furniture
13
18
17
20
19
8
15
4
4
2
4
2
2
3
25
9
7
6
2
1
8
10
6
6
5
3
1
5
Bric-a-brac
16
19
23
30
34
30
25
None
34
44
37
40
42
52
42
machine
Other electrical items (e.g. small
kitchen appliances, TVs,
hairdryers, radios, cameras, DVD
players etc.)
Bicycles and other sports
equipment
Table 38 – Purchase by channel, by age†
Channel
%
18-24
(n=181)
%
25-34
(n=183)
%
35-44
(n=177)
%
45-54
(n=143)
%
55-64
(n=115)
%
65+
(n=166)
%
Overall
(n=965)
Charity shop
76
79
80
87
93
93
84
Re-use organisation
7
3
3
2
2
4
3
18
12
9
18
21
11
14
52
48
32
28
12
6
31
1
3
0
1
0
0
1
Car boot sale
3
2
0
1
0
0
1
Not stated
1
0
1
2
0
2
1
Second-hand shop (noncharity)
Internet (e.g. eBay, gum tree
etc.) or via other classified
ads
I got them for free via
networks such as Freecycle
Table 39 - Purchase by product type, by social class†
Happy to buy
Product type
%
ABC1
(n=951)
%
C2DE
(n=708)
%
Overall
(n=1659)
Clothes and shoes
46
48
47
curtains etc.)
28
31
29
78
Product type
%
ABC1
(n=951)
%
C2DE
(n=708)
%
Overall
(n=1659)
Furniture
40
42
40
23
26
24
27
30
28
31
27
29
Bric-a-brac
48
43
46
None
28
32
30
Clothes and shoes
33
37
35
curtains etc.)
6
8
7
Furniture
16
15
15
3
3
3
8
9
8
7
3
5
Bric-a-brac
28
21
25
None
40
44
42
washing machine
players etc.)
Have bought
washing machine
players etc.)
79
Table 40 - Purchase by product type, by ward†
%
Leith Ward
(n=554)
%
Southside/
Newington
(n=552)
%
Strathallan/
Strathearn
(n=553)
%
Overall
(n=1659)
Clothes and shoes
50
54
37
47
Other textiles (e.g. carpets, mats, rugs,
bedding, curtains etc.)
29
34
25
29
Furniture
43
39
39
41
23
30
21
24
26
39
19
28
29
36
23
29
Product type
Happy to buy
Large electrical appliances such as fridge,
cooker, washing machine
appliances, TVs, hairdryers, radios,
cameras, DVD players etc.)
79
80
%
Leith Ward
(n=554)
%
Southside/
Newington
(n=552)
%
Strathallan/
Strathearn
(n=553)
%
Overall
(n=1659)
Bric-a-brac
43
57
37
46
None
32
19
38
30
Clothes and shoes
36
41
27
35
5
8
8
7
Furniture
18
14
14
15
3
3
4
3
6
15
5
9
2
9
5
5
Bric-a-brac
19
34
22
25
None
45
29
52
42
Product type
Have bought
Table 41 – Purchase by product type, „supporting charitable causes‟ and „doing my bit to help the environment‟
considered 'very important' †
Happy to buy
Product type
%
Supporting
charitable
causes „Very
important‟
(n=894)
%
Doing my bit to
help the
environment
„Very important‟
(n=698)
%
Overall
(n=1659)
Clothes and shoes
51
48
47
33
33
29
Furniture
47
47
41
29
28
24
32
31
28
34
34
29
Bric-a-brac
50
48
46
None
24
27
30
Clothes and shoes
39
37
35
8
9
7
appliances, TVs, hairdryers, radios, cameras,
DVD players etc.)
Have bought
80
Product type
%
Supporting
charitable
causes „Very
important‟
(n=894)
%
Doing my bit to
help the
environment
(n=698)
%
Overall
(n=1659)
Furniture
18
18
15
3
4
3
8
8
8
5
6
5
Bric-a-brac
28
27
25
None
36
40
42
appliances, TVs, hairdryers, radios, cameras,
DVD players etc.)
81
Table 42 – Purchase by product type, 'being seen to be successful by my peers' and „having the most up-to-date
products' considered „very important‟†
Happy to buy
Product type
%
Being seen to be
successful by my
peers 'Very
important‟
(n=224)
%
Having the most
up-to-date
products „Very
important‟
(n=197)
%
Overall
(n=1659)
Clothes and shoes
38
37
47
25
22
30
Furniture
38
34
40
27
24
24
30
31
28
31
33
29
Bric-a-brac
41
28
46
None
35
42
30
Clothes and shoes
26
27
35
4
1
7
Furniture
15
12
16
4
1
3
10
10
9
Have bought
81
82
Product type
%
Being seen to be
successful by my
peers 'Very
important‟
(n=224)
%
Having the most
up-to-date
products „Very
important‟
(n=197)
%
Overall
(n=1659)
8
9
5
Bric-a-brac
20
7
25
None
46
50
42
Table 43 – Purchase by channel, by 'being seen to be successful by my peers' and „having the most up-to-date
products' considered „very important‟†
Channel
%
Being seen to be
successful by my peers
'Very important‟ (n=120)
%
Having the most up-todate products „Very
important‟ (n=98)
%
Overall
(n=964)
Charity shop
72
65
84
Re-use organisation
13
3
4
Second-hand shop (non-charity)
16
19
15
51
60
31
2
1
1
Car boot sale
1
0
1
Not stated
1
0
1
Internet (e.g. eBay, gum tree etc.) or
via other classified ads
I got them for free via networks such
as Freecycle
Table 44 – Most important primary and secondary barriers to second-hand purchase, by ward†
%
Leith Ward
(n=451)
%
Southside/
Newington
(n=418)
%
Strathallan/
Strathearn
(n=479)
%
Overall
(n=1349)
60
44
35
46
54
51
32
45
60
45
40
48
I can choose exactly what I want
if I buy new
27
37
24
29
12
21
5
12
It wouldn't occur to me to buy
these items second-hand
12
11
32
19
Barrier
Primary barriers
Secondary barriers
I'm concerned about quality/
reliability
I'm concerned about
cleanliness/ hygiene
82
83
Q8 (a). You said that there were some items that you would not buy second-hand. What are the main reasons for
doing this? (Select all that apply).
Table 45 - Most important primary and secondary barriers to second-hand purchase, by social class†
%
ABC1
(n=788)
%
C2DE
(n=560)
%
Overall
(n=1349)
49
42
46
48
42
45
52
43
48
I can choose exactly what I want if I
buy new
34
22
29
14
10
12
It wouldn't occur to me to buy these
items second-hand
17
21
19
Barrier
Primary barriers
Secondary barriers
I'm concerned about quality /
reliability
I'm concerned about cleanliness /
hygiene
Q8 (a). You said that there were some items that you would not buy second-hand. What are the main reasons for
doing this? (Select all that apply).
Table 46 - Disposal options for those with access to a car – Clothes and shoes, textiles and furniture†
Disposal behaviour
%
Clothes
and
shoes,
with
access
to car
(n=940)
%
Clothes
and
shoes,
overall
(n=1359)
%
Other
textiles
with
access
to car
(n=380)
%
Other
textiles,
overall
(n=477)
%
Furniture
with
access to
car
(n=279)
%
Furniture,
overall
(n=350)
15
7
9
1
2
7
8
8
8
1
1
8
1
2
2
12
13
2
5
8
8
23
22
8
0
1
0
1
1
1
66
54
54
12
13
54
26
19
17
1
1
19
Arranged for a charity or re-use organisation to
collect it
4
4
5
22
22
4
15
15
13
2
2
15
2
2
2
1
1
2
Sold it on the internet or in classified ads (e.g.
EBay, Gumtree, Ad Trader, Loot etc)
3
3
2
7
7
3
2
3
2
2
2
3
Gave it away via networks such as Freecycle or
similar
0
1
1
3
3
1
17
20
18
29
27
20
Arranged for the council to collect it (bulky waste
only)
Took it to the local Civic Amenity Site / household
waste recycling centre (the tip)
It was taken away when the new product was
delivered
83
84
Disposal behaviour
%
Clothes
and
shoes,
with
access
to car
(n=940)
%
Clothes
and
shoes,
overall
(n=1359)
%
Other
textiles
with
access
to car
(n=380)
%
Other
textiles,
overall
(n=477)
%
Furniture
with
access to
car
(n=279)
%
Furniture,
overall
(n=350)
Took it to a swapping, or "swishing" party / event
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
7
9
1
2
7
Table 47 - Disposal options for those with access to a car – 'Electrical items'†
Disposal behaviour
%
Large electrical
with access to
car
(n=242)
%
Large
electrical,
overall
(n=295)
%
Other
electrical with
access to car
(n=248)
%
Other
electrical,
overall
(n=328)
0
0
5
8
3
3
10
8
22
23
3
4
41
37
46
39
8
10
0
1
4
5
14
13
1
1
1
1
Arranged for a charity or re-use organisation to
collect it
7
8
3
3
-
-
1
1
0
0
-
-
Sold it on the internet or in classified ads (e.g.
EBay, Gumtree, Ad Trader, Loot etc)
3
3
5
10
0
1
2
8
Gave it away via networks such as Freecycle or
similar
2
2
3
2
10
10
11
11
Took it to a swapping, or "swishing" party / event
0
0
-
-
Arranged for the council to collect it (bulky waste
only)
Took it to the local Civic Amenity Site / household
waste recycling centre (the tip)
It was taken away when the new product was
delivered
Table 48 - Disposal in last 12 months, by age band†
Disposal option
%
18-24
(n=272)
%
25-34
(n=328)
%
35-44
(n=282)
%
45-54
(n=239)
%
55-64
(n=197)
%
65+
(n=341)
%
Overall
(n=1659)
Clothes and shoes
79
85
87
87
85
80
84
84
Disposal option
%
18-24
(n=272)
%
25-34
(n=328)
%
35-44
(n=282)
%
45-54
(n=239)
%
55-64
(n=197)
%
65+
(n=341)
%
Overall
(n=1659)
etc.)
15
30
42
37
34
29
31
Furniture
7
24
34
27
23
19
22
9
15
26
29
21
18
19
20
20
29
20
21
19
21
16
12
10
9
12
15
13
machine
Other electrical items (e.g.
small kitchen appliances, TVs,
hairdryers, radios, cameras,
DVD players etc.)
None/ Don't know
85
include throwing it away, selling it or passing it on to family, friends or donating it to a charity/ second-hand shop.
Table 49- Disposal in last 12 months, by gender†
Disposal option
%
male
(n=800)
%
female
(n=860)
%
Overall
(n=1660)
Clothes and shoes
77
91
84
20
41
31
Furniture
19
25
22
19
19
19
22
21
22
18
8
13
Large electrical appliances such as fridge, cooker, washing
machine
None/ Don't know
Table 50 - Disposal in last 12 months, by social class†
Disposal option
%
ABC1
(n=951)
%
C2DE
(n=708)
%
Overall
(n=1659)
Clothes and shoes
86
80
84
36
24
31
Furniture
24
19
22
21
17
19
24
18
22
10
16
13
machine
None/ Don't know
85
86
Table 51 - Disposal in last 12 months, by „supporting charitable causes‟ and „doing my bit to help the environment‟
considered 'very important‟ †
Disposal option
%
Supporting
charitable
causes „Very
important‟
(n=894)
%
Doing my bit to
help the
environment „Very
important‟
(n=698)
%
Overall
(n=1659)
Clothes and shoes
90
89
84
37
41
31
Furniture
27
29
22
23
25
19
24
26
22
7
7
13
machine
None/ Don't know
Table 52 - Experience of damage/ breakage in last 12 months, by social class †
Disposal option
%
ABC1
(n=951)
%
C2DE
(n=708)
%
Overall
(n=1659)
Clothes
16
11
14
Shoes
12
9
10
Furniture
8
7
8
Electrical items/ appliances (including fridge, cooker, washing
machine, small kitchen appliances, TVs, hairdryers, radios,
25
22
24
Bicycles or other sports equipment
4
2
3
None/ not stated
52
61
56
Q9. Firstly, have any of the following items that you own been broken or damaged in the last 12 months? (Select all
that apply).
Table 53 - Experience of damage/ breakage in last 12 months, by age band †
Disposal option
%
18-24
(n=272)
%
25-34
(n=328)
%
35-44
(n=282)
%
45-54
(n=239)
%
55-64
(n=197)
%
65+
(n=341)
%
Overall
(n=1659)
Clothes
16
16
18
13
10
10
14
86
87
Disposal option
%
18-24
(n=272)
%
25-34
(n=328)
%
35-44
(n=282)
%
45-54
(n=239)
%
55-64
(n=197)
%
65+
(n=341)
%
Overall
(n=1659)
Shoes
13
10
14
11
7
7
10
Furniture
7
10
11
8
4
4
8
15
21
25
33
30
21
24
6
2
8
4
0
1
3
54
55
50
52
56
65
56
Electrical items/ appliances
(including fridge, cooker,
washing machine, small kitchen
appliances, TVs, hairdryers,
radios, cameras, DVD players
etc.)
Bicycles or other sports
equipment
None/ not stated
Q9. Firstly, have any of the following items that you own been broken or damaged in the last 12 months? (Select all
that apply).
Table 54- Repair and disposal behaviours by product, by social class†
Product
Repair63
Disposal
%
ABC1
%
C2DE
%
Overall
%
ABC1
%
C2DE
%
Overall
Clothing (n=229)
40
69
50
57
29
47
Shoes (n=172)
27
39
31
66
48
59
Electronic/ electrical items or appliances (n=390)
46
50
48
36
37
36
Furniture (n=127)
47
76
58
48
22
38
Bicycles or other sports equipment (n=55)
20
14
18
63
57
62
Q10. Thinking about the last time each of those items had been broken or damaged, what did you do?
Table 55 - Repair and disposal behaviours by product, by gender†
Product
Disposal
Repair
%
Male
%
Female
%
Overall
%
Male
%
Female
%
Overall
Clothing (n=229)
59
43
50
36
56
47
Shoes (n=172)
37
28
32
52
65
60
Electronic/ electrical items or appliances (n=390)
45
51
48
39
33
36
Furniture (n=127)
54
64
59
43
31
37
Bicycles or other sports equipment (n=55)
14
25
17
62
67
63
63
Combination of up to seven possible repair response options
87
88
Table 56 - Selected repair behaviours by product, by „supporting charitable causes‟, „doing my bit to help the
environment‟, 'being seen to be successful by my peers' and „having the most up-to-date products' considered „very
important'†
Product
Repair
%
Supporting
charitable
causes „Very
important‟
%
Doing my bit
to help the
environment
„Very
important‟
%
Being seen to
be successful
by my peers
'Very
important‟
%
Having the
most up-todate
products
„Very
important‟
%
Overall
Clothing (n=229)
57
59
57
12
47
Shoes (n=172)
66
65
71
73
60
Electronic/ electrical items or appliances
(n=390)
41
39
44
42
36
Furniture (n=127)
44
47
39
40
37
Table 57 - Selected disposal behaviours by product, by „supporting charitable causes‟, „doing my bit to help the
environment‟, 'being seen to be successful by my peers' and „having the most up-to-date products' considered „very
important'†
Product
Disposal
%
Supporting
charitable
causes „Very
important‟
%
Doing my bit
to help the
environment
„Very
important‟
%
Being seen to
be successful
by my peers
'Very
important‟
%
Having the
most up-todate
products
„Very
important‟
%
Overall
Clothing (n=229)
41
40
43
84
51
Shoes (n=172)
27
29
21
27
32
Electronic/ electrical items or appliances
(n=390)
44
48
44
49
48
Furniture (n=127)
54
50
61
60
59
Table 58 - Top five disposal routes for clothes and shoes, by ward†
Disposal route
%
Leith Ward (n=457)
%
Southside/
Newington (n=476)
%
Strathallan/
Strathearn (n=456)
%
Overall
(n=1389)
62
64
68
65
Put in charity sack collected from my
house
24
18
26
23
23
27
14
21
88
Disposal route
%
Leith Ward (n=457)
%
Southside/
Newington (n=476)
%
Strathallan/
Strathearn (n=456)
%
Overall
(n=1389)
14
16
16
16
8
15
13
12
89
Q3. Thinking about the last time you disposed of each of these items, what did you do with it?
Table 59- Top five disposal routes for other textiles, by ward†
Disposal route
%
Leith Ward (n=143)
%
Southside/
Newington (n=183)
%
Strathallan/
Strathearn (n=185)
%
Overall
(n=511)
46
59
55
54
15
20
18
18
house
13
17
21
17
11
16
11
13
9
10
8
9
Table 60 - Top five disposal routes for furniture, by ward†
Disposal route
%
Leith Ward (n=123)
%
Southside/
Newington (n=116)
%
Strathallan/
Strathearn (n=130)
%
Overall
(n=369)
24
25
33
27
21
16
29
22
28
28
10
22
16
15
8
13
12
12
13
13
Took it to the local Civic Amenity Site/
household waste recycling centre (the
tip)
Arranged for the council to collect it
(bulky waste only)
Table 61 - Top five disposal routes for large electrical appliances, by ward †
%
Leith Ward (n=84)
%
Southside/
Newington (n=99)
%
Strathallan/
Strathearn (n=134)
%
Overall
(n=317)
25
34
46
37
25
26
19
23
10
8
13
11
It was taken away when the new
product was delivered
16
7
8
10
Disposal route
tip)
Arranged for the council to collect it
(bulky waste only)
89
90
Disposal route
%
Leith Ward (n=84)
%
Southside/
Newington (n=99)
%
Strathallan/
Strathearn (n=134)
%
Overall
(n=317)
12
11
3
8
Q3. Thinking about the last time you disposed of each of these items, what did you do with it ?
Table 62 - Top five disposal routes for other electrical items, by ward †
Disposal route
%
Leith Ward (n=94)
%
Southside/
Newington (n=121)
%
Strathallan/
Strathearn (n=141)
%
Overall
(n=356)
tip)
25
26
60
39
27
12
6
13
11
11
11
11
Sold it on the internet or in classified
ads (e.g. eBay, Gumtree, Ad Trader,
Loot etc)
3
25
2
10
2
8
11
8
Table 63 - Top five disposal routes for clothes and shoes, by gender, social class and „supporting charitable causes‟
and „doing my bit to help the environment‟ considered 'very important‟ †
%
male
(n=611)
%
female
(n=777)
%
ABC1
(n=820)
%
C2DE
(n=569)
%
Supporting
charitable
causes „Very
important‟
(n=808)
%
Doing my bit
to help the
environment
„Very
important‟
(n=623)
%
Overall
(n=1389)
56
72
70
57
75
70
65
21
24
22
23
24
22
23
26
18
17
28
17
15
21
15
16
16
15
15
16
16
Put it into a charity donation
bank
12
13
14
9
13
15
12
Disposal route
Put in charity sack collected
from my house
Threw it away in my normal
bin
Table 64 - Top five disposal routes for clothes and shoes, by age band†
Disposal route
%
18-24
(n=213)
%
25-34
(n=278)
%
35-44
(n=246)
%
45-54
(n=208)
%
55-64
(n=168)
%
65+
(n=275)
%
Overall
(n=1388)
56
60
65
68
75
68
65
from my house
15
23
24
24
26
25
23
90
91
Disposal route
%
18-24
(n=213)
%
25-34
(n=278)
%
35-44
(n=246)
%
45-54
(n=208)
%
55-64
(n=168)
%
65+
(n=275)
%
Overall
(n=1388)
bin
42
22
20
14
17
14
21
28
19
19
13
8
7
16
bank
13
11
15
14
11
10
12
Table 65 - Top five disposal routes for other textiles, by gender, social class and „supporting charitable causes‟ and
„doing my bit to help the environment‟ considered 'very important‟ †
%
male
(n=162)
%
female
(n=348)
%
ABC1
(n=338)
%
C2DE
(n=172)
%
Supporting
charitable
causes „Very
important‟
(n=329)
%
Doing my bit to
help the
environment
(n=285)
%
Overall
(n=510)
48
56
59
44
59
52
54
15
19
17
20
18
22
18
16
18
16
20
17
13
17
9
15
15
10
13
13
13
8
9
8
10
9
9
9
Disposal route
from my house
bank
bin
Table 66 - Top five disposal routes for furniture, by gender, social class and „supporting charitable causes‟ and „doing
my bit to help the environment‟ considered 'very important‟ †
Disposal route
Took it to the local Civic
Amenity Site/ household
waste recycling centre (the
tip)
Arranged for a charity or reuse organisation to collect it
Arranged for the council to
collect it (bulky waste only)
%
male
(n=154)
%
female
(n=215)
%
ABC1
(n=232)
%
C2DE
(n=136)
%
Supporting
charitable
causes „Very
important‟
(n=242)
%
Doing my bit to
help the
environment
(n=200)
%
Overall
(n=369)
24
30
25
30
26
29
27
30
17
21
24
22
25
22
18
24
23
20
25
20
22
11
14
12
15
8
9
13
14
11
14
10
14
12
13
91
92
Table 67 - Top five disposal routes for large electrical appliances, by gender, social class and „supporting charitable
causes‟ and „doing my bit to help the environment‟ considered 'very important‟ †
Disposal route
tip)
Arranged for the council to
collect it (bulky waste only)
It was taken away when the
new product was delivered
Arranged for a charity or reuse organisation to collect it
%
male
(n=149)
%
female
(n=167)
%
ABC1
(n=199)
%
C2DE
(n=118)
%
Supporting
charitable
causes „Very
important‟
(n=209)
%
Doing my bit to
help the
environment
(n=172)
%
Overall
(n=316)
47
28
42
28
35
37
37
23
23
19
30
23
19
23
8
13
8
15
12
15
11
10
10
11
9
9
9
10
1
14
9
6
7
6
8
Table 68 - Top five disposal routes for other electrical items, by gender, social class and „supporting charitable causes‟
and „doing my bit to help the environment‟ considered 'very important‟ †
%
male
(n=177)
%
female
(n=180)
%
ABC1
(n=228)
%
C2DE
(n=128)
%
Supporting
charitable
causes „Very
important‟
(n=212)
%
Doing my bit to
help the
environment
(n=184)
%
Overall
(n=357)
tip)
38
41
42
35
40
41
39
15
12
16
9
16
16
13
10
12
11
10
13
12
11
15
5
7
17
5
6
10
8
7
9
5
9
9
8
Disposal route
Sold it on the internet or in
classified ads (e.g. eBay,
Gumtree, Ad Trader, Loot
etc)
Threw it away in my
recycling bin/ box
8.7
Quantitative questionnaire
Q1. Many items that are no longer wanted / needed, for whatever reason, are thrown away or
recycled. There are often, however, other options.
a) Which of the following options are you aware of as alternatives to throwing away or
recycling unwanted items? MULTI CODE IN 1st COLUMN
b) And which of these options, to the best of your knowledge, are available in your area?
MULTICODE IN 2nd COLUMN
92
Q1a
Aware of
A
Taking items to a charity shop
B
Putting items in a charity collection sack delivered to your house
C
Putting items into a charity donation bank
D
Arranging for items to be collected by a charity or re-use organisation
E
H
Taking items to second-hand shops (not for
charity)
Selling items on the internet or in classified ads
(e.g. Ebay, Gumtree, Ad Trader, Loot etc)
Selling items at car boot sales
I
Giving items away via networks such as Freecycle or similar
J
Passing items on to family or friends
K
Swapping, or “swishing” parties or events
G
93
Q1b
Available in
your area
Other (specify)
Q2. Which, if any, of the following unwanted items have you disposed of in any way in the
last 12 months? This might include throwing it away, selling it or passing it on to family,
friends or donating it to a charity / second-hand shop. MULTICODE OK.
A
B
C
D
E
G
Clothes and shoes
Furniture
Other electrical items (e.g. small kitchen appliances, TVs, hairdryers, radios,
None/Don‟t know
ONLY ASK RESPONDENTS WHO SELECTED ANY AT Q2. OTHERS SKIP TO Q6a.
93
94
Q3. Thinking about the last time you disposed of each of these items, what did you do
with it?
ASK FOR EACH ITEM DISPOSED OF AT Q2. READ OUT „OTHER‟
a)
b)
Clothes
Other
and
textiles
shoes
c)
Furniture
d)
e)
Large
Other
electrical
electrical
appliance
items
s
A
B
Arranged for the council to collect it (bulky
C
waste only)
D
household waste recycling centre (“the
Took it to the local Civic Amenity Site /
tip”)
It was taken away when the new product
E
was delivered
F
G
house
H
I
J
Sold it on the internet or in classified ads
K
(e.g. Ebay, Gumtree, Ad Trader, Loot etc)
L
Gave it away via networks such as
M
freecycle or similar
N
O
Took it to a swapping, or “swishing” party
/ event
Other (specify)
ASK ALL CODING A-E AT Q3. OTHERS SKIP TO Q5.
94
95
Q4. For some of these items, you said you threw them away or had them recycled. What
of the following options were the main reasons for doing this, rather than donating them
to charity, selling them or giving them away? Please select all that apply from the following
list for each item that you threw away or had recycled] MULTICODE. READ OUT „OTHER‟
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Clothes
Other
Furnitur
Large
Other
and
textiles
e
electrical
electrical
appliance
items
shoes
s
A
It was the easiest thing to do with this
item
B
It was too much effort / too time
consuming to donate, sell or give away
this item
C
It was not in a good enough condition
to be used by someone else
D
It was too unfashionable or old
E
I didn‟t like the thought of someone
else using this item
F
I didn‟t know how / where to donate,
sell or give away this item
G
There wasn‟t anywhere to donate, sell
or give away this item that was
convenient to me
H
I don‟t support / trust the charities that
have shops, deliver collection bags or
offer arranged collections in my area
I
The charity / second hand shops / reuse organisations in my area seem
unwelcoming / unfriendly
J
I didn‟t know if the charities / second
hand shops / re-use organisations
would take this item
K
It didn‟t occur to me to donate, sell or
give away this item
L
There was nowhere to store the item
at home so I wanted to get rid of it
quickly
Other (specify)
Don‟t know
ONLY ASK RESPONDENTS WHO SELECTED ANY AT Q2. OTHERS SKIP TO Q6a.
ASK FOR ALL ITEMS DONATED, SOLD, OR GIVEN AWAY AT Q3 (F-O).
95
96
Q5. You said you donated, sold or gave away some of your unwanted items. What were
the main reasons for doing that? [Please select all that apply from the following list for each
item that you either donated sold or gave away]. MULTICODE. READ OUT „OTHER‟
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Clothes
Other
Furnitur
Large
Other
and
textiles
e
electrical
electrical
appliance
items
shoes
s
A
B
I believed the item(s) had further use
The item(s) was still fashionable/
modern
C
To support the charity / organisation
D
To make a bit of money
E
To help out family and friends
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
To help out those more in need than
me
I‟d acquired things for free before, and
thought I should give something back
It‟s good for the environment / future
generations
It‟s good for the economy
It was the easiest / most convenient
thing to do
It helps to reduce the amount of
rubbish disposal (landfill / incineration)
It saves space in my waste bin / in my
home
It‟s the right thing to do
I‟d feel guilty if I didn‟t / if I threw the
item in the bin
To support those less fortunate than
myself
Other (specify)
Don‟t know
96
97
ASK ALL RESPONDENTS.
Q6a. Which, if any, of these items would you be happy to buy second hand? MULTICODE IN
1st COLUMN
Q6b. And which, if any, of these items have you bought second hand in the last 12 months?
MULTICODE IN 2nd COLUMN
Q6a
Q6b
Happy to
Have
buy
bought
A) Clothes and shoes
B) Other textiles (e.g. carpets, mats, rugs, bedding, curtains etc.)
C) Furniture
D) Large electrical appliances such as fridge, cooker, washing machine
E) Other electrical items (e.g. small kitchen appliances, TVs, hairdryers,
F) Cycles and other sports equipment
G) Bric-a-Brac
ASK ALL SELECTING ANYTHING AT 6B.
Q6c You indicated that you had bought some items second hand. Where did you buy them?
MULTICODE
A) Charity shop
B) Re-use organisation
C) Second hand shop (non-charity)
D) Internet (e.g. ebay, gum tree etc.) or via other classified ads
E) I got them for free via networks such as freecycle
97
98
ASK ALL SELECTING ANYTHING AT 6B.
Q7A You said that you had purchased some items second hand in the last 12 months.
What were the main reasons for purchasing second hand as opposed to buying new?
MULTICODE IN 1st COLUMN.. READ OUT „OTHER‟
Q7B Which was the most important reason? (Ask if more than 1 reason given at Q7A)
SINGLE CODE IN 2nd COLUMN
All that apply
Most important
A) It was cheaper than buying new
B) It offered good value
C) It was the easiest / most convenient way of getting what I
needed
D) If I can get things second hand, I prefer it
E) I just saw something I liked
F) I couldn‟t find anything I wanted in shops selling new things / it‟s
G) It had more character / was more original than anything I could
buy new
H) I like being able to support a good cause through my purchasing
I)
J)
It‟s better for the environment to buy 2nd hand
K) It seems like a waste to buy things new, when there are perfectly
good things that people don‟t want
Other (please specify) WRITE IN
Don‟t know
98
99
ASK ALL EXCEPT THOSE WHO WOULD BUY ALL ITEMS AT Q6A SECOND-HAND (I.E. AT LEAST ONE ITEM
NOT CODED AT Q6A).
Q8A You said that there were some items that you would not buy second hand. What
are the main reasons for this? MULTICODE IN 1st COLUMN. READ OUT „OTHER‟
Q8B Which was the most important reason? SINGLE CODE IN 2nd COLUMN
Q8a
Q8b
All that apply
Most important
A) I‟m concerned about quality / reliability
B) I‟m concerned about cleanliness / hygiene
C) I‟m concerned about safety
D) I would not know where to buy these items second hand
E) I want the best for myself/my family, don‟t want to buy second
hand
F) I like to have the most up-to-date / fashionable items
G) Using second-hand items is for people that can‟t afford to buy
new
H) I can choose exactly what I want if I buy new
I)
J)
It‟s less effort to buy new
Second hand products are not good value / cheap enough
compared to new
K) There are no second hand / charity shops close / convenient
enough to me
L) I find the second hand / charity shops in my area unappealing /
unwelcoming
M) I can never find items I like in the second hand / charity shops in my
area
N) I don‟t like the idea of shopping for second hand goods online
O) It wouldn‟t occur to me to buy these items second hand
Other (please specify) WRITE IN
Don‟t know
99
100
Q9. Firstly, have any of the following items that you own been broken or damaged in
the last 12 months? MULTICODE. SELECT ALL THAT APPLY.
A) Clothes
B) Shoes
C) Furniture
D) Electrical items / appliances (including fridge, cooker, washing machine, small
kitchen appliances, TVs, hairdryers, radios, cameras, DVD players etc.)
E) Cycles or other sports equipment
None
ASK ALL EXCEPT THOSE SAYING ‘NONE’ AT Q9 (WHO GO TO Q14).
Q10 Thinking about the last time each of those items had been broken or damaged,
what did you do? SINGLE CODE FOR EACH ITEM. READ OUT „OTHER‟
Electronic /
Cycles or
electrical
other
items or
Clothing
Shoes
appliances
sports
Furniture
equipment
A) Disposed of it (including
recycling, donation etc.)
B) I repaired it myself
C) My friends or family repaired the
item
D) The manufacturer / retailer
repaired it (under manufacturer‟s
warranty)
E) The manufacturer / retailer
repaired it (under extended
warranty)
F) The manufacturer / retailer
repaired it (charged)
G) I paid someone else to repair the
item
H) I had it repaired under a separate
insurance cover/policy I have
Nothing
Other (specify) WRITE IN
100
10
1
ASK ALL CODING B (‘I REPAIRED IT MYSELF’) AT Q10.
Q11 You said you repaired this item yourself, what did you do to repair it? (Ask for each item
which was repaired by respondent).
OPEN. WRITE IN RESPONSES
A) Clothing
B) Shoes
C) Electronic / electrical
items or appliances
D) Furniture
E) Cycles or other sports
equipment
ASK ALL WHO HAD ANYTHING REPAIRED AT Q10 (CODES B-H).
Q12. What were the main reasons for getting the item repaired?
ASK ABOUT EACH ITEM REPAIRED AT Q10 (CODES B-H). MULTICODE. ONLY ACCEPT STATEMENT A
AND/OR STATEMENT B IF THEY „REPAIRED THEMSELVES‟ AT Q10 (CODED B).
Cycles or
Clothing
Shoes
Furniture
Electronic /
other
electrical
sports
items or
equipment
appliances
A) I enjoy fixing things
B) I take pride in fixing broken
items
C) It was cheaper than replacing it
D) It required little effort / was
convenient to have it repaired
E) It would have been more hassle
to replace than repair the item
F) It was only a minor repair job
G) I loved the item / couldn‟t bear
not to have it any more
H) It was under warranty / insured
I)
I knew I could trust the repairer
to do a good job
J)
A friend / family member
suggested that it could be
repaired
K) To help the environment
L) I like to support the local repair
shop / service
Other (specify)
101
102
Don‟t know
ASK ALL WHO DID NOT GET THEIR BROKEN ITEM REPAIRED AT Q10 (CODED A/NOTHING/OTHER).
Q13. Which of the following were the main reasons that discouraged you from repairing this
item? MULTICODE. ASK FOR EACH ITEM NOT REPAIRED AT Q10. READ OUT „OTHER‟
Electronic /
Clothing
Shoes
electrical
items or
appliances
Cycles or
Furniture
other
sports
equipment
A) I didn‟t have the skills to repair the
item myself
B) I didn‟t know who else could repair
the item
C) It was too much effort / time
consuming to get the item repaired
D) There was nowhere convenient to get
the item repaired
E) The shops in my area that might be
able to repair the item are
unwelcoming / unappealing
F) I couldn‟t guarantee how long it
would last after it was repaired
G) I didn‟t trust the repairers to do a
proper job
H) It‟s easier to buy new
I)
I didn‟t want to wait while the item
was repaired
J)
I felt it was too expensive to repair
the item
K) It would not have been cost effective
to repair the item (compared to the
cost of a replacement)
L) It didn‟t occur to me to get the item
repaired
M) The item could be recycled
N) I thought the item was beyond repair
M) It was old and I wanted to get the
updated version
Other (specify)
Don‟t know
102
10
3
ASK ALL.
Q14. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is very important and 1 is not at all important, how important would
you say the following things are to you personally? SINGLE CODE EACH STATEMENT. ROTATE
ORDER OF STARTING POINT SO THAT ½ OF INTERVIEWS START AT POINT A AND ½ START
AT POINT C. TICK BOX TO RECORD STARTING POINT.
5
very
important
4
3
2
1
Not at all
important
Don‟t
know
A) Supporting charitable causes
B) Being seen to be successful by my
peers
C) Having the most up-to-date
products
D) Doing my bit to help the
environment
ASK ALL.
Q15. WRAP, the Waste & Resources Action Programme and Zero Waste Scotland, are the
organisations responsible for this research. Would you be willing to be re-contacted by them
or one of their research suppliers for any further research? Please be assured this is strictly
for research purposes, and your details will not be passed on to any third party.
Yes
No
DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS: ASK IF YES AT Q15.
TITLE (MR/MRS/MISS/MS) & NAME:
ADDRESS:
FULL POST CODE:
TEL NO (INCL. CODE):
MOBILE NO:
D1. GENDER
Male
Female
D2. What is your age?
16-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
103
104
65+
Refuse
D3. What is the occupation of the head of the household?
………………………………………………………………………..
ASSIGN RESPONDENT TO A SOCIO-ECONOMIC GRADE.
A
B
C1
C2
D
E
D4. Are you currently…? SINGLE CODE.
Working full time
Working part time
Stay at home parent
On maternity leave
Retired
Unemployed/seeking work
Other
D5. What sort of house do you currently live in? SINGLE CODE.
Block of flats
Flat in a converted house
Terraced house
Semi-detached house
Bungalow
Other
Refuse
D6. Which of these best describes your ethnic group? SINGLE CODE.
White
Mixed
Asian or Asian British
Black or Black British
Chinese/Other
White British
White Irish
Any other white background
White & Black Caribbean
White & Black African
White & Asian
Any other mixed background
Indian
Pakistani
Bangladeshi
Any other Asian background
Black Caribbean
Black African
Any other Black background
Chinese
Other (please specify)
…………………………………..
Prefer not to say
104
10
5
D7. Which of the following best describes your living arrangement? SINGLE CODE.
Own outright
Owner occupied
Rented – social
Rented- private
Other
Refuse
D8. How many people are there currently living in your household? SINGLE CODE.
1
2
3
4
5+
Refuse
D9. How many children under the age of 16 currently live in your household? SINGLE CODE.
0
1
2
3+
D10. Do you have access to a car? SINGLE CODE.
Yes
No
105
106
8.8
Discussion group topic guide
Overview









5 mins
Aims
To understand awareness and use of re-use and repair channels in the local area. Specifically:
 Acquisition (purchase)
 Disposal (donation and sale)
 Repair
To explore the influence of local service provision on motivations, barriers and behaviours.
Coverage
There are a wide range of product categories and channels of interest to this study. It would not be
possible to cover all of these in great detail during the sessions. Therefore, the facilitator will try to
cover following categories, as much as possible, within the time available:
 Furniture (e.g. sofa, bed, wardrobe)
 Bulky WEEE (e.g. washing machine, fridge, TV)
 Small WEEE (e.g. radio, hairdryer)
 Clothing (e.g. jacket, t-shirt, trousers)
Channels to be covered during the discussion about local awareness and use include (see associated
prompting aids):
 Local authority re-use (e.g. HWRC, bulky waste collection, bring banks)
 Charity and third sector re-use (e.g. FROs, charity shops, charity collections)
 Private sector re-use (e.g. pawn shops, car boot sales, classified ads)
 Online re-use with local focus (e.g. Gumtree, Freecycle)
 Repair services (e.g. spare part/repair shops, online repair services)
Specific exclusions

Informal exchange between friends and family
Introduction
Purpose of section
106


10
7



Introduce yourself and Brook Lyndhurst

Purpose of groups:
o This is one of several sessions being conducted on behalf of Zero Waste Scotland.
o We are here this evening to talk about what happens to products from around the
home when you decide you no longer want them or when they are broken. We are
also interested in how you go about acquiring different household items.
o ZWS are interested to hear your views and experiences so they can improve
services in and around the area where you live.

Explain the need for honesty

Explain the need for a healthy debate
o
Emphasis there are no answer is „right‟ or „wrong‟ answers
o Explain that we want to hear about everyone‟s experiences

Confidential, but recorded as a back up
o Get permission to record

Ask that people don‟t speak over each other and allow one another the time to speak
o Explain that the recorder can‟t pick up what‟s happening if everyone talks at once
Introduction and ground rules.
Toilets, fire drills, mobile phones

Before we get started I‟d like to ask everyone to turn to their neighbour and introduce themselves.
I‟d like you to find out your neighbours name and whereabouts in Edinburgh/Perthshire they live.
Once you have spent a minute or so doing that, I‟d like you to introduce your partner to the rest of
the group.
Warm up.
Facilitator to note down names
and switch on the recorders.
[Reinforce to the group that all participants live in/around the same area]
107
108
15 mins
5 mins
Section 1 – Re-use and repair behaviours
All
Tonight we are going to be talking about certain types of household items. The ones we are
particularly interested in are: clothing, small electrical items, large electrical items and furniture.
Some illustrations of these types of products are displayed on these posters, to give you an idea of
the kinds of things I mean.
Brainstorm products (from
furniture, electrical (large and
small), clothing) participants have
purchased second-hand, repaired
or disposed of in the recent past.
Part (a) acquisition
Find out what channels of
disposal/repair/acquisition were
used.
First of all, I am interested to find out about your experiences of purchasing these types of items
used or second-hand. I am going to ask you to turn to the person next to you again. This time I‟d
like you to tell them briefly about one of these items you have bought that was used or secondhand and where you got it from.
 If you have not done this, please can you tell your partner about the most recent item of
this kind that you have bought new?
5 mins
Feedback in pairs [use the flip chart to record responses by product type (e.g. electrical (small or
large), clothing, furniture) and channel type (i.e. charity, third sector, public sector, private sector,
online)]
Part (b) repair
Ok now I‟d like you to think about last time one of these types of items stopped working, broke or
became too worn to use. I am interested to hear what happened to that item. Would someone who
has had this experience in the last year or two like to tell us about it:
 What was the product?
 What did you decide to do with it?
5 mins
For those without acquisition
experience, as for experiences of
buying new items.
Record responses on a flip chart
by product and channel type.
Group responses into either (a)
acquisition (new or used) (b)
repair (c) disposal (none re-use or
re-use).
[Repeat this for a few participants (not all expected to have repair experience) and record responses
on the flip chart as above]
Part (b) disposal
Ok, and lastly, I am interested to hear about your recent experiences of getting rid of these kinds of
household items that weren‟t broken. Would someone who has done this like to tell us:
 What the product was?
 What you did with it?
[Repeat for the group, probing different product types and record responses on the flip chart as
above]
108
10
9
[Display flipchart sheets around the room for reference].
20 mins
10 mins
Section 2 – Exploring acquisition experiences









All
I‟d like to move on now to talk about buying used or second hand household items in some more
detail. To start with I‟d like to read out a quote from a recent survey we have conducted for ZWS in
Edinburgh/Perthshire:
„Over 80% of respondents have purchased a second hand item from a charity shop in the last 12
months‟64

What are your reactions to that; does this sound like a little or a lot?
With experience
Ok, I am interested to know more about some of the experiences you listed earlier on. In particular,
I‟d be keen to hear more about why you purchased your item and how you went about doing it.
Would someone like to start us off by telling us why they decided to get the item?
Probe:
Deliberate or opportunistic purchase
What criteria were used to select the item
Whether a new item was considered and subsequently dismissed
How the channel was selected- awareness (previously known about or discovered when
searching)
 How the channel was selected- characteristics of service
 Where the channel was located




More detailed exploration of why
and how participants purchase
second hand items (furniture,
electrical (large and small),
clothing), for a range of different
channels.
Unpicking peoples‟ experiences in
more detail, including likes and
dislikes.
Explore how appealing these
experiences are to others who
have not acquired used items.
Drivers and motivations for
buying new versus second hand.
Awareness of local re-use
acquisition options.
[Repeat for a few participants, selecting a wide a range of product categories (from clothing, WEEE,
furniture) as possible]
Thinking back to your experiences, can anyone tell me what they liked and disliked about it?
 Did others have similar or different experiences?
Probe:
64
Survey of residents in Leith, Newington/Southside, Strathallan/Strathearn, undertaken in April/May 2012 (n=964).
109
110
10 mins




What the experience was like
Any problems
Ask for/offered a warranty
Level of satisfaction/perceived effort
Without experience
And what about those of you who haven‟t bought items used or second hand for a while. What do
you make of some of the experiences you have heard about?
 Had you heard of some of the places described before?
 Have you ever browed for items in these places?
Thinking back to some of the experiences you told us about, when you bought new items. Did you
consider buying a used or second hand item at the time? [try to cover a few examples which span
across furniture, electrical (large and small), clothing)]
 Why/why not?
 What kinds of other options did you explore?
 Would you consider second hand options in the future for this type of item?
Probe:
 Whether they‟d be willing to buy second hand
 What has prevented them in the past (i.e. practical, perception, awareness barriers to
channel and/or product)
All
Finally on this section, are there any other places you can go to buy these kinds of items around
where you live, that we have not mentioned already? [ covering furniture, electrical (large and
small), clothing)]


25 mins
5 mins
Has everyone heard of these?
Use prompt list if necessary
Section 3 –Awareness and searching strategies for local re-use/repair channels
All
Now I‟d like us to think about how you would go about finding a new home for a household item or
getting it repaired in the area where you live. For this exercise I am going to ask you to split into
two groups, and for each group to consider an imaginary scenario [rotate the scenarios between
groups, ensuring coverage of one large item and one small item in each case].
Explore awareness of local
options for re-use disposal/repair
of clothing items, electrical items
(large and small) and furniture.
Understand searching strategies
110
11
1
Scenario 1: Your washing machine has broken down. You do not have a warranty for it, but you
have not had it for long. What would you decide to do with it?
Scenario 2: You are moving house soon and you have a wardrobe that is too tall to fit inside your
new house. What would you decide to do with it?
Scenario 3: Your coat doesn‟t fit you anymore, so you can no longer wear it. What would you decide
to do with it?
Scenario 4: Your microwave has broken. What would you decide to do with it?
[Split the participants into two groups]
for local options (e.g. online, word
of mouth) and effort participants
are prepared to go to in finding
solutions (how much
time/distance travelled).
Identify preferred solutions and
motivations and barriers
associated with different options.
Understand any information gaps
that hamper the groups‟ ability to
reach consensus.
In your groups, I would like you to spend five minutes discussing a series of questions, which myself
and Orlando will talk through with you:
 What options would you consider?
 What options do you know of nearby for doing this?
 How you would go about searching for different solutions?
 What kinds of things would be interested in knowing?
 How long you would be prepared to spend doing this?
 Overall, what do you (the group) decide is the best option available for doing this locally?
Orlando and I will help record the discussion of each group on a flip chart. Once we‟ve spent five
minutes or so doing this, I‟d like each group to nominate someone to summarise what you
discussed with the whole group.
10 mins
Breakout [Allow groups 10 minutes to do this, facilitating and recording key components of the
discussion on the flip chart then ask a nominee summarise/facilitator to summarise]
Probe:






A range of different re-use and repair channels (allow unprompted discussion first)
Awareness of different channels amongst group
Proximity/convenience of channels
Preferred options, including practical and perception-related motivations and barriers
Influence of warranties (if applicable)
Amount of effort people are prepared to go for preferred option
[Once the groups have reached a decision, reform whole group to present and reflect on both
111
112
10 mins
groups discussions]. Probe:
 Explore reactions to other group‟s choice
 Cross check group level awareness of different options
 Cross check effort and searching strategies
 What information/channel knowledge was lacking in the groups
Ok and finally on this section, have we missed any options for getting rid, or fixing, these kinds of
items around here? [use prompt list if necessary]
 What about ZWS‟s re-use hotline; has anyone heard of this?
 If not, is it something that would interest you?
10 mins
5 mins
Section 4 – Focus on repair experiences
With experience
Now, I‟d like us to think back to the items that you have personally got repaired recently. Some of
you said that you had done this for certain items [refer to flipchart]. I am interested to know a bit
more about your experiences.
For those who have done this, why did it seem like a good option to get those things repaired?
 What do others think?
Probe motivations and barriers:
 Practical (e.g. cheaper than new, easier/harder than replacing)
 Perception (e.g. dislike waste, desire for new/lifetime extension, product attachment,
satisfaction, apathy)
 Channel (e.g. quality or proximity of service, access to expert advice, price)
participants choose to repair
products, rather than dispose of
their items (for furniture,
electrical (small/large) and
clothing).
dislikes.
have not repaired items.
Would someone like to tell us a bit more about what they liked and disliked about their experience?
 Did others have similar or different experiences?




Probe:
What the experience was like
Any problems
Ask for/offered a warranty
[Encourage a few participants to share their experiences to cover a few different product types,
112
11
3
from furniture, electrical (small/large) and clothing)]
5 mins
Without experience
For those who mentioned that they disposed of broken items rather than repairing them, what do
you make of these experiences?
 Did you consider repair? Why/Why not?
 Is this something you could consider in the future?
 Probe barriers - awareness, perceptions and practical.
10 mins
Section 5 – Focus on re-use disposal experiences
5 mins
With experience
Finally, I‟d like to focus on giving household items to a new home, whether by donating them to a
charitable organisation or selling them on. Some of you said that you had done that for certain
items [refer to flipchart]. I am interested to know a bit more about why you decided to do that.
For those who have done this, why did it seem like a good option to get rid of those things?
 What about others‟ experiences?
Probe motivations barriers:
 Practical (e.g. convenience, money/lack of time/transport)
 Perception (e.g. desire to help others/charity, dislike waste, expected lifetime, apathy about
channel and/or product)
 Channel (e.g. location, customer service, collection offered)
And how did you find your experiences?



Probe:
Likes/dislikes
Any problems
participants choose to use a reuse disposal channel, rather than
dispose of them by some other
means (for furniture, electrical
(small/large) and clothing).
Understand why participants
decided to dispose of broken
items, rather than repair them.
dislikes.
have not repaired items.
113
114
5 mins
Without experience
For those who decided to dispose of their items some other way, what do you make of these
experiences?
 Did you consider selling or donating your item? Why/Why not?
 Is this something you could consider in the future? If not, why not?
 Probe barriers - awareness, perceptions and practical.
5 mins
Wrapping up





Thank participants for their contribution
Ask whether anyone has any other comments
Reiterate what is being done with the results of the discussion
Invite participants to claim their incentives
Close
114
8.9
11
5
Sector interview guide
Overview








Aims of research
 Gain a better understanding of the nature of services offered locally:
o Re-use (disposal)
o Re-use (acquisition)
o Repair
 Identify customer types and motivations and barriers to use
 Explore opportunities for improving service provision and broadening customer base

Coverage
There are a wide range of product categories and channels of interest to this study. It would not be
possible to cover all of these comprehensively; rather a selection of different re-use/repair channel
representatives from the following services will be selected for interview in each study area:





Local authority re-use (e.g. HWRC, bulky waste collection, bring banks)
Charity and third sector re-use (e.g. FROs, charity shops, charity collections)
Private sector re-use (e.g. pawn shops, car boot sales, classified ads)
Online re-use (e.g. Gumtree, Freecycle)
Repair services (e.g. spare part/repair shops, online repair services)
In accordance with the scope of the project, the interviews will cover the following product types
(where applicable):








Household textiles (e.g. curtain, bedding, table cloth)
Furniture (e.g. tables and chairs, bed, sofa)
Large electrical (e.g. washing machine, fridge, TV)
Other electrical (e.g. radio, hairdryer)
Bric-a-brac (e.g. cutlery, vases, picture frames)
Clothing and shoes
Bicycles and sports equipment
115
116
2 mins
Introduction





Introduce yourself and Brook Lyndhurst

Purpose of the interview:
o The interview is one of several being conducted on behalf of Zero Waste Scotland in
Edinburgh and Perth and Kinross.
o To better understand the nature of re-use and/or repair provision in the local area
and the challenges and opportunities for businesses in the sector.
o ZWS are interested to hear a range of views and experiences so they can help to
improve re-use and repair services in Scotland.

Explain the need for honesty
o Emphasis there are no answer is „right‟ or „wrong‟ answers



The interview will last 30 minutes
Purpose of section
Introduction and ground rules.
Mobile phones
Confidential, but recorded as a back up
o Get permission to record
Facilitator to switch on the
recorder.
116
3 mins
11
7
Section 1 – Warm up and background
To begin with, it would be really helpful if you could tell me a little bit about what you do and your
business/organisation. In particular, I‟d be interested to hear about:
 Your role
 The service you offer
 Who your customers are
Warm up.
Allow interviewee to describe their
role and the service they offer in
their own words.
o
10 mins
Section 2 – Understanding more about the service offered (if not already covered
spontaneously above)
If acquisition and/or disposal channel:
I would be keen to know more about the type of service you offer. First of all, can you tell me
which product categories you [insert sell/buy/offer/take]?
Prompt:








Clothing and shoes
Explore what products are
offered/repaired/received and
services are presented to
customers.
Understand product requirements
for acquisition of used items.
Identify additional services
offered and uptake.
Do you find that some items/product types are purchased far more commonly than others?
 Why do you think that is?
Can you tell me how your products are presented in store/online?
 What information is provided?
 How is the information presented?
 [Probe: product age, condition, safety, previous owners, specification (as appropriate)]
How do you determine the price (if applicable)?
Do you offer any additional services, such as collection or guarantees?
 Is there are charge associated with these?
 What has the uptake of these services been like?
117
118
Do you do any advertising or promotion to attract customers?
 [Probe: memberships, local ads, promotions, etc.]
 If yes, how useful has that been?
Can you tell me where you source your products from?
 Do you have any difficulties sourcing certain products? Or have a surplus of others?
 Are there any issues with the stock you buy/receive?
 [Probe: safety, condition, quality, quantity]
If repair channel:
I would be keen to know more about the type of services you offer. Can you tell me which product
categories you [repair/sell parts for]?
Prompt:








Clothing and shoes
Do you find that some items are repaired far more commonly than others?
 Why do you think that is?
Can you tell me how your services are presented in-store/online?
 What information is provided?
 How is this information presented?
 [Probe: waiting times, different options, quality/certification, etc.]
How do you determine the price of your services/items (if applicable)?
Do you


Do you

offer any additional services, such as in home services or guarantees?
Is there are charge associated with these?
What has the uptake of these services been like?
do any advertising or promotion to attract customers?
[Probe: memberships, local ads, promotions, etc.]
118

10 mins
11
9
If yes, how useful have you found that to be?
Section 3 – Reflecting on drivers and barriers to re-use/repair
Now I‟d like to find out a bit more about your customers. Can you tell me about the types of
customers you have?
 [Prompt: life stage, gender, affluence]
 Why do you think that you attract certain types of people more than others?
Do you



Understand customer profile,
including distance travelled.
Explore customer experiences and
motivations/barriers to more
widespread use.
tend to attract regular customers, one off customers or passing trade?
Why do you think that is?
How do your customers find out about you?
Do you know who far they are willing to travel?
What do you think are the main reasons for your customers shopping with you/using your service?
 Does it vary by product type?
 What are their priorities when they visit (i.e. price, service and convenience)?
Have you ever received any feedback on the service you offer?
 Positive comments/feedback?
 Negative reactions or suggestions for improvement?
 [Probe: accessibility, convenience, quality of service, range of products/services, etc).
What about people that don‟t use services like yours, what do you think the barriers are for these
people?
 Do you think it varies by product type?
5 mins
Section 4 –Exploring opportunities for broadening uptake and improving service
provision
What do you think would help to encourage a wider range of people to use services like yours?
 Is there anything that can be done to encourage your existing customers to shop more with
you?
 Are there any improvements/approaches you have tried with your own business that you
have found to be effective? Why do you think that is?
Final reflections on barriers and
opportunities by product type,
customer type and sector as a
whole.
119
120
What about the different products that you sell/repair. Is there anything that would encourage
people to buy second-hand/get these different items repaired?
 [Probe by product type]
And finally, I wondered if you had any thoughts or ideas for how Zero Waste Scotland might work to
boost uptake of repair/re-use services across Scotland as a whole?
Wrapping up




Thank participants for their contribution
Ask whether anyone has any other comments
Reiterate what is being done with the results of the discussion
Close
120

Full report - Brook Lyndhurst

Transcription

Similar documents

This Manual is provided FREE OF CHARGE from CBTricks.com

Introducing Kresto Tool Box products

View our Safety Solutions PDF - Acklands

File - Monmouth Art

Helping Your Family Save Money | Kids.gov

This Manual is provided FREE OF CHARGE from CBTricks.com

Rust Repair - Fixing a Fender

southern repair facility

Discouraging Problem Wildlife

western repair facility