CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 154Sustainable Supply Chain ManagementSustainable Design and DevelopmentInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Repair motivation and barriers model: Investigating user perspectives related to product repair towards a circular economy

Open access
Terzioğlu, Nazlı·2021·Journal of Cleaner Production
DOI 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125644
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper explores user perspectives about product repair to prolong product lifespan towards the circular economy. Product longevity can be effectively achieved by repair and reuse, where no virgin materials are required. Nevertheless, the decision of whether to repair something is initiated by users. Their motivations and choices are vital to postpone product replacement. Therefore, users’ motivations and barriers related to product repair were explored in this research with cultural probes, research through design, and workshops. Fogg’s behaviour model was utilised to get a deeper understanding of the subject. The results were further developed and tested through the workshops with users. Including reversibility, endurance, and aesthetic value nineteen factors were identified that suggest opportunities to understand and change users’ repair behaviour. A relationship among these factors was observed that led to the theoretical construction of the repair motivation and barriers model. This paper makes an original contribution to knowledge with the development of the repair motivation and barriers model based on the identified nineteen factors that affect users’ repair behaviour.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125644

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Barriers to repair are often rooted in product design and quality issues, such as difficulties in disassembly, use of inferior materials, and non-standardized components.

    “Barriers to repair are often rooted in product design and quality issues, such as difficulties in disassembly, the use of inferior materials, and non-standardized components [30].”

    From Designing for Repair and Extended Lifespan: Consumer Expectations and Economic Constraints (2026) · cites this paper as [30]

    The Introduction (page not provided) identifies disassembly problems and low-quality materials as product-design barriers. Section 4.1, Technical aspects (page not provided), also reports that low-quality materials discouraged repair. The passages do not identify non-standardized components as a barrier; difficulty obtaining spare parts is a related but different point. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Terzioglu identifies quality uncertainty as a structural barrier to repair uptake, and Marikyan emphasizes trust in repair outcomes as a primary driver of repair-oriented behavior.

    “This is consistent with Terzio˘ glu [30], who identifies quality uncertainty as a structural barrier to repair uptake, and with Marikyan [24], who emphasizes trust in repair outcomes as a primary driver of repair-oriented behavior.”

    From Designing for Repair and Extended Lifespan: Consumer Expectations and Economic Constraints (2026) · cites this paper as [30]

    Section 4.1 (Technical aspects) reports that participants worried about how long repairs would last, and Section 5 (Discussion) identifies endurance as a barrier. This supports concern about repair quality, but the paper does not characterize that uncertainty as a structural barrier. The separate claim about Marikyan is not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Consumers express positive attitudes towards repair and sustainability but are deterred by concerns about repair quality, durability, cost, and effort.

    “Consistent with previous studies, consumers express positive attitudes towards repair and sustainability but are deterred by concerns about repair quality, durability, cost, and effort [11,24,30].”

    From Designing for Repair and Extended Lifespan: Consumer Expectations and Economic Constraints (2026) · cites this paper as [30]

  • The consistency of the findings across the behavioral, economic, and functional dimensions and their alignment with independently published repair behavior studies provides convergent external validation that partially mitigates the limitations of single-method, single-time-point designs.

    “Furthermore, the consistency of the findings across the behavioral, economic, and functional dimensions-and their alignment with independently published repair behavior studies [10,11,23,24,30]-provides a form of convergent external validation that partially mitigates the limitations inherent in single-method, single-time-point designs.”

    From Designing for Repair and Extended Lifespan: Consumer Expectations and Economic Constraints (2026) · cites this paper as [30]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. Balka, E., Wagner, I., 2006. Making Things Work: Dimensions of Configurability as Appropriation Work. In: Hinds, P., Martin, D. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 229e238. https://doi.org/10.1145/1180875.1180912. · DOI
  2. Chapman, J., 2009. Design for (emotional) durability. Des. Issues 25 (4), 29e35.
  3. Coffey, A., Atkinson, P., 1996. Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Sage Publications.
  4. Walker, S., Giard, J. (Eds.), The Handbook of Design for Sustainability. Blooms- bury, London, pp. 137e155.
  5. Cooper, T., Salvia, G., 2018. Fix it: Barriers to Repair and Opportunities for Change. In: Crocker, R., Chiveralls, K. (Eds.), Subverting Consumerism: Reuse in an Accelerated World. Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 147e165, 9781138189096.
  6. Dewberry, E.L., Sheldrick, L., Moreno, M., Sinclair, M., Makatsoris, C., 2017. Devel- oping scenarios for product longevity and sufficiency. In: Bakker, A., Mugge, R. (Eds.), PLATE: Product Lifetimes and the Environment, pp. 108e113. https:// doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-820-4-108. · DOI
  7. Diddi, S., Yan, R.N., 2019. Consumer perceptions related to clothing repair and community mending events: a circular economy perspective. Sustainability 11 (19), 5306. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195306. · DOI
  8. Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013. Towards the circular economy Vol. 2: oppor- tunities for the consumer goods sector. https://www. ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications/towards-the-circular-economy- vol-2-opportunities-for-the-consumer-goods-sector.
  9. Fogg, B.J., Hreha, J., 2010. Behavior Wizard: A Method for Matching Target Behaviors with Solutions. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Persua- sive Technology, pp. 117e131. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13226-1_13. · DOI
  10. Frayling, C., 1993. Research in art and design. Royal College of Art and Design Papers 1 (1), 1e5. http://researchonline.rca.ac.uk/384/3/frayling_research_in_art_and_ design_1993.pdf.
  11. Gallagher, S., 2013. Phenomenology. In: Soegaard, M., Dam, R.F. (Eds.), The Ency- clopedia of Human-Computer Interaction. https://www.interaction-design.org/ literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed/ phenomenology.
  12. Gaver, B., Dunne, T., Pacenti, E., 1999. Design: cultural probes. Interactions 6 (1), 21e29. https://doi.org/10.1145/291224.291235. · DOI
  13. Gwilt, A., 2014. What prevents people repairing clothes?: an investigation into community-based approaches to sustainable product service systems for clothing repair. Making Futures Journal 3.
  14. Hielscher, S., Jaeger-Erben, M., 2020. Resisting Obsolescence? the Role of a 'culture of Repair' for Product Longevity. In: F Nissen, N., Jaeger-Erben, M. (Eds.), Pro- ceedings of the PLATE Product Lifetimes and the Environment 2019. TU Berlin University Press. ISBN 978-3-7983-3124-2 (print), ISBN 978-3-7983-3125-9 (online).
  15. Hycner, R.H., 1999. Some Guidelines for the Phenomenological Analysis of Interview Data. In: Bryman, A., Burgess, R.G. (Eds.), vol. 3. Sage, London, pp. 143e164. Qualitative research.
  16. Storni, C., Keelin, L.K., Muireann, M., Peter, L., Bohemia, E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the DRS 2018: Catalyst, vol. 5. Design Research Society, London, pp. 2032e2045, 9781912294206.
  17. Lofthouse, V., Prendeville, S., 2018. Human-centred design of products and services for the circular economyea review. Des. J. 21 (4), 451e476.
  18. Maestri, L., Wakkary, R., 2011. Understanding Repair as a Creative Process of Everyday Design. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition. ACM, New York, pp. 81e90.
  19. McLaren, A., McLauchlan, S., 2015. Crafting sustainable repairs: practice-based ap- proaches to extending the life of clothes. In: Cooper, T., Braithwaite, N., Moreno, M., Salvia, G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Product Lifetimes and the Environment Conference, pp. 221e228. http://www.plateconference.org/ conference-2015/.
  20. Middleton, J., 2012. Long live the thing! Temporal ubiquity in a smart vintage wardrobe. Ubiquity J. Pervasive Media 1 (1), 7e22.
  21. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., 1984. Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: toward a shared craft. Educ. Res. 13 (5), 20e30.
  22. Miller, W.L., Crabtree, B.F., 1992. Primary Care Research: A Multimethod Typology and Qualitative Road Map. In: Crabtree, B.F., Miller, W.L. (Eds.), Doing Qualita- tive Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 3e28.
  23. Orr, J.E., 1996. Talking about Machines: an Ethnography of a Modern Job. Cornell University Press, New York.
  24. Park, M., 2020. Closed for Repair: Identifying Design Affordances for Product Disassembly. In: Jaeger-Erben, N.F. Nissen M. (Ed.), Proceedings of the PLATE Product Lifetimes and the Environment 2019. TU Berlin University Press. ISBN 978-3-7983-3124-2 (print), ISBN 978-3-7983-3125-9 (online).
  25. Piscicelli, L., Ludden, G.D., 2016. The potential of Design for Behaviour Change to foster the transition to a circular economy. Proceedings of DRS 1305e1321, 2016, Brighton.
  26. Sokolowski, R., 2000. Introduction to Phenomenology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  27. Stahel, Walter R., 2007. Sustainable development and strategic thinking. Chinese Journal of Population Resources and Environment 5 (4), 3e19.
  28. Suchman, L.A., 1987. Plans and Situated Actions: the Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  29. Terzio glu, N., Lockton, D., Brass, C., 2015. Understanding user motivations and drawbacks related to product repair. Sustainable Innovation 2015, 9-10 November 2015, Epsom, UK. Retrieved from. https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/294256488_Understanding_User_Motivations_and_Drawbacks_ Related_to_Product_Repair.
  30. Vezzoli, C., Manzini, E., 2008. Design for Environmental Sustainability. Springer, London.
  31. Wallace, J., McCarthy, J., Wright, P.C., Olivier, P., 2013. Making Design Probes Work. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3441e3450. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466473. · DOI
  32. Welch, D., Keller, M., Mandich, G., 2017. Imagined futures of everyday life in the circular economy. interactions 24 (2), 46e51.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Terzioğlu, N.
Affiliations
Linköping University (SE)
Corresponding author
Terzioğlu, Nazlı
ORCID
Terzioğlu, Nazlı
Venue
Journal of Cleaner Production
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-03
Volume
289
Pages
125644
ISSN
0959-6526 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125644
OpenAlex
W3114057642
Cited by
154
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 8
FWCI
13.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Cleaner Production (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Sustainable Supply Chain Management
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Sustainable Design and Development
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
product repair, circular economy, user behavior, product durability, reversibility, endurance, aesthetic value, cultural probes, research through design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review