Sustainable Laundry Practices and Microplastic Pollution: Behavioral Insights and Strategies for Reducing Environmental Impact

When assessing the environmental impact of textiles during their use phase, consumer behaviour and garment care regimes are crucial. Using an unlabeled (Paper I) and labelled (Paper II) discrete choice experiments (DCE), this thesis examines consumer laundering behaviours. The first paper examines the trade-offs people make based on the type of fibre (polyester, cotton, or wool), the occasion of use (exercise, casual, or formal), sweat level (light, moderate, heavy), number of times worn (once, twice, three times) and behavioural factors like cleanliness, disgust, and environmental consciousness. The second paper studies consumers’ willingness to adopt a microfibre filter based on its efficiency, replacement interval and price. Two surveys were conducted to gather data. In the first study participants were split up into three treatment groups. Group 1 was given a short text about the environmental effects of laundry, Group 2 was informed about the value of hygiene, and Group 3 was a control group. The findings from the first study indicated no significant differences between the treatment groups; therefore, participants in the second survey were not assigned to separate treatment groups. The data was analyzed using a multinomial logit model (MNL) and a random parameter logit (RPL) model, which examined heterogeneity as well as consumer preferences and decision-making. The findings of the first paper indicate that there is a great deal of variation in the ways that fibre type, occasion, and behavioural factors affect laundry decisions. Exercise clothes were more likely to be laundered than casual or formal attire, while wool clothing was less likely to be washed than cotton and polyester. Sweat intensity and the number of wears significantly increased the likelihood of laundering, but these effects were moderated by sustainability considerations in some cases. Consumer behaviour is complicated and variable by environmental awareness, disgust, and cleanliness considerations, even if practical criteria like wear frequency and sweat level heavily influence laundry decisions. The results of the second paper indicate that higher filter costs reduce consumers’ willingness to adopt, whereas increased efficiency enhances it. Replacement intervals had mixed effects; for some individuals, longer intervals discouraged adoption likely due to the associated additional costs. However, many consumers still preferred the filter option with the highest efficiency, suggesting that performance outweighed concerns about maintenance frequency. The study also revealed that individuals with greater knowledge of and concern about microfibre and microplastic pollution were significantly more inclined to adopt a filter compared to those who lacked awareness or concern about the issue. These findings demonstrate the necessity of focused regulations and consumer education campaigns to encourage eco-friendly laundry practices that strike a compromise between practicality and environmental stewardship. By offering practical insights into the relationship between sustainability, behaviour, and textile care, this work contributes to domains of resource economics and consumer behaviour.