Submitted:
14 October 2025
Posted:
15 October 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
- RQ1. What are the main motivations and barriers shaping Millennials’ and Generation Z’s willingness to purchase second-hand fashion in China?
- RQ2. How do these drivers and barriers interact to influence young consumers’ attitudes and behavioural intentions toward second-hand fashion?
- RQ3. How do different business models, such as online platforms, vintage stores, and upcycling brands, shape consumer perceptions and contribute to the broader transition toward sustainable fashion in China?
2. Theoretical Framework and Methodology
2.1. Consumer Motivations and Barriers in SHC Adoption
2.2. Methodology
3. Results
3.1. Qualitative Analysis of SHC Purchase Intention
- Economic Accessibility: Economic factors emerged as the primary driver, with 12 participants (60%) highlighting cost savings, such as lower prices compared to new clothing and the ability to manage budgets effectively.
- Style and Uniqueness: Aesthetic preferences and fashion diversity played a key role in SHC adoption. 11 participants (55%) emphasized that SHC provides access to vintage designs and personalized fashion choices that are rarely available in mainstream markets.
- Eco-Consciousness: Environmental consciousness was also a consideration, mentioned by 11 participants (55%); however, some participants expressed skepticism regarding the actual sustainability impact of second-hand fashion at the same time.
- Shopping Experience: Experiences were mixed. Positive experiences (8 participants) included the excitement of discovering vintage pieces through a “treasure hunt” and the convenience of online platforms. In contrast, negative experiences (15 participants) were primarily related to concerns over hygiene, (“There’s no way to verify if the clothes have been properly cleaned or disinfected”), as well as restrictive return policies and the risk of counterfeit products.
- Cultural and Social Influence: 10 participants (50%) indicated that recommendations from social media influencers, discussions within peer groups, and the rising popularity of vintage fashion trends directly enhanced their interest in SHC.
3.2. Quantitative Validation of Key Determinants
- Social Influence was the most significant predictor (β = 0.174, p = 0.006), with a non-standardized coefficient of 0.181, indicating that for each unit increase in social recommendation strength, purchase intention increases by 0.181 units. This highlights the impact of fashion trends, social media influence, peer recommendations, and word-of-mouth effects.
- Stylistic Identity (β = 0.170, p = 0.004) also played a crucial role, suggesting that the pursuit of unique and vintage fashion directly drives SHC consumption. Consumers seek individuality through SHC, integrating their fashion choices with self-expression and social validation.
- Economic Accessibility (β = 0.140, p = 0.014) and Shopping Experience (β = 0.132, p = 0.033) are fundamental drivers, reflecting price sensitivity and service convenience, respectively. Cost-effectiveness remains a critical factor, while user-friendly shopping platforms and policies (e.g., logistics, return policies) enhance consumer confidence.
- Eco-Consciousness (β = 0.120, p = 0.041) validates the behavioral translation of sustainability awareness into purchasing actions, suggesting that many consumers view SHC as a means of supporting environmental responsibility.
3.3. Synergistic Interactions Among Motivational Factors
- Interaction Between Social Influence and Shopping Experience optimization (r = 0.512): The high correlation between these two variables suggests that enhancing platform services (such as transparent hygiene and sanitation measures, return policies, and improved customer experiences) can create viral spread through word-of-mouth effects.
- Social Empowerment of Stylistic Identity (r = 0.439): The strong association between Stylistic Identity and Social Influence indicates that SHC is not merely a personal aesthetic choice but also a social fashion trend. Fashion individuality is increasingly validated through social media and peer recognition, reinforcing consumer motivation to explore niche fashion styles, thereby further accelerating SHC adoption.
- Value Coexistence of Economic and Environmental Considerations (r = 0.382): The positive relationship between Economic Accessibility and Eco-Consciousness challenges traditional perceptions, as 61.3% of participants believe that SHC consumption simultaneously achieves the dual goals of saving money and green shopping. This reinforces the dual motivation behind sustainable consumption behaviors.
3.4. Demographic Variations in SHC Adoption
4. Discussion
4.1. Economic Accessibility and Pragmatic Environmentalism
4.2. The Dominance of Social Influence and Stylistic Identity
4.3. Synergies in Platform Optimization
4.4. Demographic Differences and Strategic Segmentation
4.5. Limitations
5. Conclusions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| SHC | Second-hand clothing |
References
- Fletcher, K.; Grose, L. Fashion & sustainability: Design for change; Hachette UK: 2012.
- Zamani, B.; Sandin, G.; Peters, G.M. Life cycle assessment of clothing libraries: can collaborative consumption reduce the environmental impact of fast fashion? Journal of Cleaner Production 2017, 162. [CrossRef]
- Yang, S.; Song, Y.; Tong, S. Sustainable Retailing in the Fashion Industry: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2017, Vol. 9, Page 1266 2017, 9. [CrossRef]
- Pierce, J.; Paulos, E. Second-hand interactions: Investigating reacquisition and dispossession practices around domestic objects; 2011; pp. 2385-2394.
- ThredUp. ThredUp 2024 Resale Report. Available online: https://cf-assets-tup.thredup.com/resale_report/2024/ThredUp_2024_Resale%20Report.pdf (accessed on February 10, 2025).
- Xu, Z.; Sun, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Chen, W.; Zhang, T.; Huang, Y.; Zhang, D. Insights into the pyrolysis behavior and adsorption properties of activated carbon from waste cotton textiles by FeCl3-activation. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 2019, 582. [CrossRef]
- Cervellon, M.C.; Carey, L.; Harms, T. Something old, something used: Determinants of women’s purchase of vintage fashion vs second-hand fashion. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 2012, 40. [CrossRef]
- Jia, X.; Zhang, Y.; Tan, R.R.; Li, Z.; Wang, S.; Wang, F.; Fang, K. Multi-objective energy planning for China’s dual carbon goals. Sustainable Production and Consumption 2022, 34. [CrossRef]
- Hwang, J.; Griffiths, M.A. Share more, drive less: Millennials value perception and behavioral intent in using collaborative consumption services. Journal of Consumer Marketing 2017, 34. [CrossRef]
- Smith, P. Global apparel market: projected value worldwide from 2017 until 2022, by country; Statista: 2023.
- Yao, Y.; Xu, H.; Song, H.-Y. Exploring the Key Factors Affecting Customer Satisfaction in China’s Sustainable Second-Hand Clothing Market: A Mixed Methods Approach. Sustainability 2025, 17. [CrossRef]
- Dimock, M. Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins. Pew Research Center 2019, 17, 1-7.
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behaviour. organizational behaviour and human decision processes, 50, 179-211. De Young 1991, 50, 509-526.
- Stankevich, A. Explaining the consumer decision-making process: Critical literature review. Journal of international business research and marketing 2017, 2.
- Hur, E. Rebirth fashion: Secondhand clothing consumption values and perceived risks. Journal of Cleaner Production 2020, 273. [CrossRef]
- Sumo, P.; Arhin, I.; Danquah, R.; Nelson, S.K.; Achaa, L.; Nweze, C.; Liling, C.; Ji, X. An assessment of Africa’s second-hand clothing value chain: a systematic review and research opportunities. Textile Research Journal 2023, 93, 1-20. [CrossRef]
- Sorensen, K.; Johnson Jorgensen, J. Millennial Perceptions of Fast Fashion and Second-Hand Clothing: An Exploration of Clothing Preferences Using Q Methodology. Social Sciences 2019, Vol. 8, Page 244 2019, 8. [CrossRef]
- Ferraro, C.; Sands, S.; Brace-Govan, J. The role of fashionability in second-hand shopping motivations. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 2016, 32. [CrossRef]
- Bly, S.; Gwozdz, W.; Reisch, L.A. Exit from the high street: an exploratory study of sustainable fashion consumption pioneers. International Journal of Consumer Studies 2015, 39. [CrossRef]
- Guiot, D.; Roux, D. A Second-Hand Shoppers’ Motivation Scale: Antecedents, Consequences, and Implications for Retailers. Journal of Retailing 2010, 86, 383-399. [CrossRef]
- Lundblad, L.; Davies, I.A. The values and motivations behind sustainable fashion consumption. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 2016, 15. [CrossRef]
- Ciechelska, A.; Kusterka-Jefmańska, M.; Zaremba-Warnke, S. Consumers’ motives for engaging in second-hand clothing circulation in terms of sustainable consumption. Economics and Environment 2024, 88, 632. [CrossRef]
- Zuo, P. Zhuan Zhuan: Pioneering Sustainability in Second-Hand E-Commerce: Business & Management Book Chapter | IGI Global Scientific Publishing; 2025.
- Tarai, S.; Shailaja, K. Consumer perception towards the sale of second-hand clothes in the localities of Odisha, State of India. Journal of Textile Engineering & Fashion Technology 2020, 6, 159-162.
- González, A.M.; Bovone, L. Identities Through Fashion: A Multidisciplinary Approach; Bloomsbury Publishing: 2013.
- Xu, Y.; Chen, Y.; Burman, R.; Zhao, H. Second-hand clothing consumption: a cross-cultural comparison between A merican and C hinese young consumers. International journal of consumer studies 2014, 38, 670-677.
- Wang, X.; Liang, H.e.; Wang, Z. The Emerging Fashion Market: A Study of Influencing Factors of Shanghai’s Second-Hand Luxury Consumers’ Purchasing Behavior with Grounded Theory. Sustainability 2024, Vol. 16, Page 10201 2024, 16. [CrossRef]
- Hsiang, T.C.; Lien, C.C.; Sun, X.; Shen, C.; Shen, H. Consumer Evaluation of Xianyu E-commerce. Information Systems and Economics 2024, 5. [CrossRef]
- Finnane, A. Between Beijing and Shanghai: fashion in the party state. Paris: Capital of Fashion 2019, 116-139.
- Creswell, J.W.; Creswell, J.D. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches; Sage publications: 2017.
- Pathak, V.; Jena, B.; Kalra, S. Qualitative research. Perspectives in Clinical Research 2013, 4. [CrossRef]
- Flick, U. 4.6 triangulation in qualitative research. A companion to qualitative research 2004, 178-183.
- Charmaz, K. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis; sage: 2006.
- Borusiak, B.; Szymkowiak, A.; Horska, E.; Raszka, N.; Żelichowska, E. Towards Building Sustainable Consumption: A Study of Second-Hand Buying Intentions. Sustainability 2020, Vol. 12, Page 875 2020, 12. [CrossRef]
- Ciechelska, A.; Kusterka-Jefmańska, M.; Zaremba-Warnke, S. Consumers’ motives for engaging in second-hand clothing circulation in terms of sustainable consumption. Economics and Environment 2024, 88. [CrossRef]
- Koay, K.Y.; Cheah, C.W.; Lom, H.S. Does perceived risk influence the intention to purchase second-hand clothing? A multigroup analysis of SHC consumers versus non-SHC consumers. Journal of Product & Brand Management 2023, 32, 530-543.
- Rendel, E. Is Second-Hand the New Black? Understanding the Factors Influencing People’s Intention to Purchase Second-Hand Clothing through Peer-to-Peer Sharing Platforms. University of Twente, 2021.

| Variable | Number | % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 163 | 53.27% |
| Female | 143 | 46.73% | |
| Age | 18-25 | 101 | 33.01% |
| 26-30 | 107 | 34.97% | |
| 31-40 | 50 | 16.34% | |
| 40+ | 48 | 15.69% | |
| Education Background | High school or below | 76 | 24.84% |
| Associate/Bachelor’s degree | 174 | 56.86% | |
| Master’s degree or above | 56 | 18.3% | |
| Employment status | Students | 143 | 46.73% |
| Employees | 106 | 34.64% | |
| Freelancers/Entrepreneurs | 43 | 14.05% | |
| Others | 14 | 4.58% |
| Theme | Sub-theme | Participants (N=20) | Key Illustrative Quotes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Economic Accessibility | Affordability; Budget management; |
12 | “It’s cheaper than new clothing” “I have a limited budget for a new one, a used one is like new” |
| Stylistic Identity | Uniqueness; Vintage style; |
11 | “SHC lets me access styles difficult to find on the market.” |
| Eco-Conscious | Resale and reuse; Avoiding overproduction, |
11 | “Buying SHC helps reduce waste” “I value its environmental benefits” |
| Shopping Experience | Positive: Treasure hunting; Vintage store atmosphere; Convenient online shopping; |
8 | “Buying vintage clothing is like treasure hunting” “I enjoy the experience of browsing vintage stores” |
| Negative: Hygiene concerns; Return or exchange policy; Seller trust issues and authenticity; |
15 | “Lack of transparency in cleaning or disinfection” “I worry about accidentally purchasing counterfeit items, as they are often non-refundable” |
|
| Social Influence | Peer impact; Influencer impact; Social media trends; Online vintage community; |
10 | “I follow style influencers wearing vintage clothing” “My friends recommended the second-hand clothing platform Xianyu” |
| Pearson Correlation | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economic Accessibility | Style Identity | Eco-Consciousness | Shopping Experience | Social Influence | Purchase Intention | |
| Economic Accessibility | 1 | |||||
| Stylistic Identity | 0.316** | 1 | ||||
| Eco-Conscious | 0.382** | 0.333** | 1 | |||
| Shopping Experience | 0.355** | 0.393** | 0.376** | 1 | ||
| Social Influence | 0.329** | 0.439** | 0.416** | 0.512** | 1 | |
| Purchase Intention | 0.344** | 0.383** | 0.352** | 0.383** | 0.412** | 1 |
| * p<0.05 ** p<0.01 | ||||||
| Linear Regression Analysis Results (n=294) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
t | p | Collinearity Diagnostics | |||
| B | Std. Error | Beta | VIF | Tolerance | |||
| Constant | 1.054 | 0.239 | - | 4.411 | 0.000** | - | - |
| Economic Accessibility | 0.128 | 0.052 | 0.140 | 2.474 | 0.014* | 1.284 | 0.779 |
| Stylistic Identity | 0.160 | 0.055 | 0.170 | 2.923 | 0.004** | 1.351 | 0.740 |
| Eco-Conscious | 0.114 | 0.055 | 0.120 | 2.050 | 0.041* | 1.365 | 0.733 |
| Shopping Experience | 0.132 | 0.061 | 0.132 | 2.145 | 0.033* | 1.505 | 0.664 |
| Social Influence | 0.181 | 0.066 | 0.174 | 2.757 | 0.006** | 1.584 | 0.631 |
| R² | 0.278 | ||||||
| Adjusted R² | 0.265 | ||||||
| F | F (5,288)=22.143,p=0.000 | ||||||
| D-W Value | 2.100 | ||||||
| * p<0.05 ** p<0.01 | |||||||
| ANOVA Results | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender? (Mean ± Standard Deviation) | F | p | ||
| Male(n=157) | Female(n=137) | |||
| Economic Accessibility | 2.93±1.15 | 3.96±0.88 | 72.204 | 0.002** |
| Stylistic Identity | 2.30±0.91 | 4.31±0.56 | 505.852 | 0.000** |
| Eco-Conscious | 3.02±1.21 | 3.81±0.87 | 40.236 | 0.003** |
| Shopping Experience | 2.96±1.30 | 3.82±0.83 | 44.936 | 0.000** |
| Social Influence | 3.07±1.25 | 3.99±0.74 | 57.548 | 0.000** |
| Purchase Intention | 3.09±1.33 | 3.92±0.79 | 41.204 | 0.000** |
| * p<0.05 ** p<0.01 | ||||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).