Metro-Melbourne, Australia’s second-largest city and the capital of Victoria, spans over 9990 Km2, hosting over five million people. It exemplifies a demographically diverse, affluent, and high-resource-consuming city. Metro-Melbourne is renowned for its unpredictable weather, situated by both the bay and the land.77 Metro-Melbourne’s many suburbs are governed by the overall number of 31 city councils who provide multiple services to their local community, and enforce federal, state, and local laws.78 Decision making regarding waste is hierarchical. The interviewees sketched this hierarchy by placing the federal (i.e., commonwealth) government on top that appoint the state governments to device legislative regulations for their state. Federal government is also responsible for decision making about exports (e.g., used textiles) as well as imposing waste bans. The main decisions on planning and operating waste management, however, are made by the state government as an overarching guideline for the local city councils. City councils adopt and interpret these directives in their own terms depending on their community’s demand.
With the launch of “Seamless Clothing Stewardship Scheme”79 in 2023, a significant transition for how unwanted textiles will be handled in Australia is anticipated. However, textiles are currently unregulated80 and not included in the city council’s waste collection streams. Therefore, unwanted textiles in metro-Melbourne are mostly managed by the charities and the commercial private sector that work under the city councils’ permission and approval. The following diagram (see figure 1) indicates how decision making for unwanted textiles trickles down from the federal government to the metro-Melbournian key actors:
City councils manage the majority of household waste in metro-Melbourne through a two to four colour-coded collection bin streams.81 The number, size and allocated colours of the bins may vary in different city councils. However, unless, through a third party, none of the metro-Melbournian councils directly provide reuse or recycling services for unwanted textiles. Following table (2) summarises the input by the interviewees on how unwanted textiles are managed in metro-Melbourne:
Table 2. Interviewees’ insight on how unwanted textiles are managed in metro-Melbourne
Actors
|
Methods of Collection
|
Unwanted Textiles
|
City Councils
|
2-4 collection bin streams
|
Textiles received by the city councils are diverted to the regional landfill, unless, collected through third parties.
|
Private
Organisations
|
Collection hubs and pickup services
|
Private Organisations upon evaluating the state of the unwanted textiles provide different avenues such as reuse, recycling, exports, and landfill.
|
Charities
|
Drop-in at their stores
Occasional pick-ups
|
Charities methods of collection and reuse remain limited despite their long history and strong associations with unwanted textiles in metro-Melbourne. This partly corelates to the high disposal costs of unwearable donations. Charities may export donated textiles through their partners.
|
5.1. Metropolitan Melbourne’s F&T Systems
Metro-Melbourne is nationally and internationally admired for its history of Australian fashion.82 Once the hub of Australian F&T design and manufacturing, metro-Melbourne today relies on offshore, and contract-based F&T industry.83 As the interviewees unpacked, metro-Melbourne abode the F&T brands headquarters, design departments, independent local SMEs and brands with limited domestic production. The urban lifecycle continues upon sales, consumption and disposal or pre-consumption waste making. The CE and sustainable F&T systems is gaining more traction in metro-Melbourne. This is reflected in works of industrial and governmental bodies such as Sustainability Victoria84 and Australian Fashion Council.85
Drawing on the input provided by the interviewees, the “Urban Textile Lifecycle” model (figure 2) illustrates the point where the flows of F&T enter the metro-Melbourne environment (inflows). Once used and discarded, unwanted textiles go through varying pathways. Some are locally reused or recycled (inner-flows), some are exported, and some are sent to the regional landfills (outflows). Currently, recovery (incineration) and biological regeneration are not practiced in metro-Melbourne. As indicated in this diagram (figure 2), textiles in metro-Melbourne have an open-loop and linear lifecycle; often transferred to national or international landfills.
The topology of actors and networks facilitates an argument that not only maps the constructing elements of the urban F&T systems, but also has room to include diverse actors -human and none- that equally act and make other actors to react through their agency, effect and power (e.g., textile agency; human agency; urban environment agency). This as well includes the discussions of connections and associations that shape the relationship between these actors and networks.
5.1.1. Human and Non-human Actors
“Actors” in this case study are understood as enablers, connectors and shapers with the power to impact and mark what they come in connection with. Unwanted textiles were the actors in focus during the interviews. The interviewees (human actors) depending on their involvement in metro-Melbourne’s F&T systems revealed other connecting actors and associations with unwanted textiles that shape the travels of textiles within and throughout this city.
The interviewees insisted on using the term “unwanted” as opposed to “waste” to describe the textiles that are discarded by metro-Melbournian residents or businesses. They argued “unwanted” textiles if not positive, leads to at least a neutral rather than negative associations around textiles that may not be desired by their initial possessor but are a resource with embedded values. Unwanted textiles may be brand new or worn out, used or unused, pre- or post-consumer. Interviewees gave several examples of pre-consumer textiles that become unwanted during manufacturing or sales. This includes the surplus production, unsold stocks, faulty stocks, purchased and returned textiles, outdated stocks, manufacturing off-cuts, contaminated or damaged textiles amongst others. Discussed examples of post-consumer unwanted textiles (domestic or commercial) included unused, semi-used and worn-out textiles. Regardless of being pre- or post-consumer, unwanted textiles’ national or international travels begin as they are flown into different avenues: charity’s second-hand shops, collection hubs, city council bins and landfill. Destinations that may be determined in response to the question of “who would want/use this textile?”.
Metro-Melbourne manages unwanted textiles with short-lived collaborative practices, involving numerous actors. For instance, city councils collaborate with private recycling initiatives, using labelled plastic bags in residents’ post-boxes. This brings many actors into connection: city councils, recycling initiatives, local government permission letters, post-boxes, kerbsides, labelled plastic bags, weekly schedules, pick-up trucks, weather, and others. Each of these actors have the agency to impact the flows. For example, while rainy weather may damage the collected textiles and destine them to the local landfill, the sunny weather increases the chance of reuse and recycling. In case the residents or local businesses dispose of their unwanted textiles into city council’s bins, these bins also become an actor within the urban F&T networks.
Language and terminology were mentioned by the interviewees to be critical to communicate desired associations. City council 1, for instance, highlighted the misleading use of word “recycling” where “reuse” is suitable; resulting in wrong disposal decisions. Australian Recycling Enterprise noted that using multiple languages in diverse neighbourhoods improves resident participation in disposal practices. Interviewees stressed fostering positive associations is crucial for CE enactment. They attempt to appropriate the common language around unwanted textiles by introducing the word “hubs” to refer to metal collection boxes instead of conventional terms like “bins”, “containers” or “banks”. Additionally, Media, press, TV programs, flyers, snippets, and mobile applications, among others, serve as assemblies of diverse actors (e.g., language and technology) to shape the desirable (cradle-to-cradle) or undesirable (cradle-to-grave) flows of unwanted textiles in metro-Melbourne.
Convenience and the sense of safety, facilitated by lighting, technology and urban design, act as enablers of desirable flows and extend the flows of unwanted textiles to “hubs” located in high foot-traffic parking lots, train stations and parks. The interviewees mapped many other actors upon whose work urban F&T systems operate and material flows are shaped: cultural diversity, local cultures, local policies, means of logistics, weekends, holiday seasons, public knowledge around textiles and/or its lack of, etc.
5.1.2. The Seven Urban F&T Networks
Drawing on the insight provided by the interviewees seven constructing F&T networks in metro-Melbourne are identified: Production, Consumption, End-of-Consumption, Domestic Reuse, Domestic Recycling, Exports and Landfill. Throughout the body of this study, editorial tools of underlined and Italic words (e.g., Production networks) are used to distinguish the urban F&T networks from global networks. Metro-Melbournian actors upon varying arrangements and sets of connections take different roles in shaping these networks. Each network is informed through various values, purposes, and associations. They overlap and are stemmed at the heart of each other; extending from various networks and expanding to others.
These networks are mapped through using an adaptation of the CE Butterfly diagram (see figure 3). By adjusting the CE Butterfly diagram to the borders of the city, rather than a loosely defined and seemingly global context, this study investigates pathways of transition towards a CE in a tangible context. In this respect, each of the seven networks in metro-Melbourne’s F&T systems are outlined, and colour-coded. Through interviewee’s insight, the following table (3) provides details of each network’s size, flow-making role, state of change and role in enabling the CE 10R framework.
Table 3. Networks of Urban F&T Systems in Metro-Melbourne
Networks
|
Features
|
Production
|
- One of the longest and widest networks
- Shaping inflows of F&T into metro-Melbourne
- Extended from global networks of production
- Embedding local producing actors
- Can enact 3Rs: Refuse, Rethink, Reduce
|
Consumption
|
- Wide and long in size
- Shaped by local and global trends of consumption
- Shaping inner-flows
- Can enact 4Rs: Refuse, Rethink, Reduce, Reuse
|
End-of-Consumption
|
- Small and not well-developed
- Ever-changing and volatile
- Shaping inner-flows and outflows
- If further developed, can enact 9Rs: Refuse, Rethink, Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Refurbish, Remanufacture, Repurpose and Recycle on small scales
|
Domestic Reuse
|
- Growing in size but currently small
- Shaping inner-flows
- Enacts 5Rs: Reuse, Repair, Refurbish, Remanufacture, Repurpose
|
Domestic Recycling
|
- Smallest networks
- Slow growth and translation
- Shaping inner-flows and outflows
- Enact 1R: (mostly mechanical) Recycling
|
Exports
|
- One of the longest networks
- Shaping outflows
- Enact 2 Rs: Reuse and Recycling on limited scale
|
Landfill
|
- Longest network
- Expands to local and international landfills
- Shapes outflows
- Enact no R from the 10R framework
|
Following the colour theme presented in the above table (3), the below diagram (figure 3) maps and locates each of the identified seven F&T networks within metro-Melbourne. The Urban Textile Lifecycle is placed at the centre of this diagram and inspired by the CE Butterfly diagram,86 the biological and technical cycles are illustrated on either side. Representing the status que, this diagram reveals the considerable distance metro-Melbourne has yet to cover in enhancing circularity. Each of the networks in (figure 3) are unpacked as follows.
Interviewees highlighted a significant shift in Production networks since the 1980s, transitioning from a chief employing local industry to offshore and contract-based models. Today, F&T inflows into metro-Melbourne hail from various countries like China, Bangladesh, and Cambodia. Interviewees like Local SME and Local Manufacturer disclosed that substantial textile volumes are shipped, or air freighted to metro-Melbourne, and redistributed locally, regionally or interstate. Although Australian actors aim to reshape Production networks, the current F&T industry, despite renewed government support,87 struggles to perceive textile products as valuable resources or commodities.
Metro-Melbourne’s Consumption networks are shaped by local and global trends, encompassing cultures, sub-cultures, and diverse purchasing channels- offline and online. F&T products, available in physical stores or virtual marketplaces, involve both Australian and international companies. While there is a notable shift towards conscious and ethical consumption, discount retail giants like Kmart, Target, and BigW, economic pressures, throw-away culture, social media influences, and insufficient reasonable repair and reuse mechanisms hinder and pose a significant challenge towards a complete transition to circular Consumption networks.
End-of-Consumption networks initiate within and expand from the Consumption networks and indicate a point when the consumer (e.g., individual wearer, a brand, etc.) decides to part from their now unwanted textiles. This is followed by decisions on how and where the unwanted textiles should be disposed of; accordingly, inner-flows or outflows are shaped. From End-of-Consumption networks, the unwanted textiles are flown towards varying networks of Domestic Reuse, Domestic Recycling, Exports or Landfill. The continuum of the flows are shaped upon any further decisions made by or the impactful agency of the next actors in line. Some of the limitations that ought to be addressed for circular expansion of End-of-Consumption networks within metro-Melbourne are the limited number of collection points, short-lived collaboration between the city actors, lack of regulations, heavy reliance on the work of one actor (i.e., charities) rather than the collective of city actors and lack of public awareness on best practices.
Once unwanted textiles leave End-of-Consumption networks towards actors that reuse or facilitate reutilisation in metro-Melbourne, Domestic Reuse networks begin. These networks are making a comeback despite a significant shrinkage over the past three decades due to fast fashion and globalisation. These networks are practiced through hand-me-down culture, recent independent online and offline reuse initiatives (e.g., freecycling, swapping or resale), and are strongly associated with local charities for over 100 years. However, the sheer volume of new F&T consumption currently surpasses residents’ reuse efforts. Interviewees highlighted accessibility and financial suitability of discount department stores negatively impacts metro-Melbournians to engage in reuse. The interviewees asserted Domestic Reuse networks are shaped in varying forms and are heavily influenced by different suburbs’ common culture and sub-cultures. Interviewees provided examples comparing second-hand shoppers in inner-city suburbs, valuing unique vintage pieces, economic and environmental gains, to outer suburbs where reuse may be motivated by economic benefits or hectic family lives.
End-of-Consumption networks could alternatively expand into Domestic Recycling networks. Despite their key role is restorative systems, these networks are the smallest F&T network within metro-Melbourne. Domestic Recycling networks do not only enact restorative cycles, but also change the perception and associations attributed to unwanted textiles. As interviewees expressed, associating a material to be “recyclable” is a threshold that redirects that material from the realm of waste to resource and commodity; and as such aligns the actors to shape material flows that support circular practices. Domestic Recycling networks in metro-Melbourne expand to global networks of recycling, yet their reach and expansion remain limited. On a global scale, textile recycling technologies are underdeveloped, and recycling rates stand for a low percentage.88 None of the interviewees were involved in an on-going textile recycling project but two (Charity 1 and Australian Recycling Enterprise) gave examples of their one-off experimental projects on mechanical recycling that were carried out both in the state of Victoria and overseas. Since the time of the interviews further mechanical recycling89 (see Upparel 2022) and chemical recycling90 (see Blocktexx 2022) of textiles have been initiated within the Australian landscape.
Networks of Exports expand to global reuse, recycling, and Waste (landfill) networks. The interviewees (four Charities and Australian Recycling Enterprise) expressed, due to high costs of sorting, warehousing, and storing in Australia, they mostly export the collected unwanted textiles to South-East Asian countries to be sorted for reuse and recycling. Some of the other mentioned destinations include United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Germany, and India. While interviewees claimed full control and transparency over their exported unwanted textiles, investigations91 (e.g., ABC Foreign Correspondent 2021) illustrate the trace of Australian unwanted textiles in locations such as Accra in Ghana.
Metro-Melbourne’s Landfill networks are in fact initiated at the heart of Production and Consumption networks; where limited recovery mechanism is designed for unwanted textiles. They expand beyond urban boundaries of this city through End-of-Consumption networks and creep into Australian and international landfills. Examples of textiles discarded to these networks include brand-new products by Local Manufacturer and contaminated, low-quality post-consumer textiles reported by five interviewees from charity organisations. Lack of regulation on unwanted textiles with no textile landfill ban have meant tones of textiles are annually offloaded to the Australian landfills. However, recent media coverage, public exposer and Seamless Clothing Stewardship92 mean reconstruction is upon these networks. This will lead to the shrinkage of Landfill networks and expansion of Domestic Reuse and Recycling.