A Process Approach to Product Repair from the Perspective of the Individual

Product repair plays an important role in the realisation of a circular economy (CE) and sustainable consumption, yet little is known about what repair entails for individual product owners or users, particularly in a realised CE. This paper proposes a comprehensive approach by conceptualising repair as a multi-stage, cyclical process, shaped by previous experiences and, in turn, impacting future repairs. Moreover, we acknowledge and consider that the repair experience is determined by both internal (to the individual) and external (environmental) factors, which overlap in the individual’s interpretation of the process, primarily as perceived cost vs. benefits. Using a literature review, the role of the individual and key factors influencing the repair experience are discerned and organised according to their relevance within the process. This comprehensive perspective of the repair experience of individuals generated a wide range of insights, including the existence of general vs. specific factors and the prevalence of themes in the repair process. Implications for the upscaling of repair and future research are suggested.


Introduction
The techno-economic practice of repair allows for the prolonging of product lifetimes which, in turn, leads to the postponement of replacement, and the reduction of replacement-associated waste generation and resource usage.Accordingly, repair constitutes an important sustainable consumption strategy, and plays a key role within a circular economy (CE), which should seek alignment of human activities within planetary boundaries [1,2].Repair can also constitute a strategy for providing equitable access to a variety of products.In the case of digital technologies (e.g.Internet, personal computers, and smartphones), repaired or refurbished electronics can be made available at a lower retail cost than new versions [3].However, without thoughtful consumption practices, low-cost access can also lead to higher consumption rates as people can afford to buy more goods than before (socalled rebound effects), which are counterproductive to sustainable development [4,5]; hence for repair to meaningfully contribute to sustainable outcomes, social norms and patterns of consumption need to change.
To facilitate repair and thereby upscale repair activity, policymakers around the world are proposing and introducing initiatives, such as tax reductions for repair services in Sweden [6], the Sustainable Products Initiative [7], and ecodesign requirements in the EU, as well as the 'Right to Repair' bills in the USA.The latter example of initiatives is obliging manufacturers to make spare parts, repair information, and tools available to professional repairers and some also to DIY consumers.The EU Ecodesign Directive, unlike most of the proposed US Right to Repair bills, also contains requirements related to the repairability in the product design, including disassembly [8].The State of New York's bill was the first one in the USA to be passed into law and covers primarily electronics [9,10].These mandates are introduced in the USA and EU with notably different motivations behind them [8].Moreover, business models are increasingly embracing repair across diverse sectors; from the fashion industry [11] to handheld technology [12].At end-of-use stages, extended producer responsibility legislation, e.g. in the EU and some US states, mandates producer finance and organises takeback of products for preparation for reuse (which often involves repair) and recycling.While one criticism of the current systems is that with targets set jointly for recycling and reuse, they currently favour recycling over reuse.However, while some countries like Spain are introducing reuse targets, France has also established a repair fund through EPR legislation, and some producer responsibility organisations are experimenting with more preparation for reuse and spare part harvesting in various actors' constellations, including granting third parties access to the waste stream [13,14].Although the interest in CE repair futures is growing [15][16][17], the impacts and conjoint effects of these initiatives are little understood, not least for how they impact the experience of repair from the perspective of the individual consumer, product user or owner (hereafter 'individual').As the nature of the repair experience often determines whether a broken product will be repaired or discarded, this paper will focus on situations where the individual has decision-power over whether to pursue repair, or not (vs.someone else, such as a warranty provider deciding between repair or replacement).
The lack of understanding of the repair experience of individuals and their role, and activities involved, in getting something repaired is not unique to repair; this lack of understanding is common to most consumption formats (e.g.reuse, refurbishment) across a realised CE [18][19][20][21].In alignment with recent research seeking to remedy this oversight [20,22,23], this paper proposes a framework for studying this topic, taking a process approach from the perspective of the individual.Through its employment, the many roles of the individual and the key factors of the process are outlined.We point out areas for future research on repair, and how this framework can be applied to other sustainable consumption formats.

Repair as a Complex Process
Repair options available to the individual typically consist of commercial repair, which can be conducted by the product's manufacturer or their authorised networks, and independent repairer (i.e., local experts and/or repair shops).Non-commercial options also exist, such as individual Do-It-Yourself (DIY) and group-based Do-It-Together (DIT), such as community repair events [8,24].In the choice between these repair options, and replacement, 1 3 it is not uncommon for the individual to be constrained by their circumstances; they are part of a larger system that dictates the nature, desirability, and accessibility of the options available at the time of a product breakage [25][26][27].
The repair sector is plagued with market, legal, and cultural barriers, such as the high price of repair compared to new products, non-monetary transaction costs (i.e.time and effort required), intellectual property laws, and disadvantageous preferences and social norms, such as prioritising novelty over functionality [8,26,28].Overall, the lifetime of products, such as consumer electronics and appliances, has been decreasing, [24,29,30].Many devices are replaced before they are 'beyond repair' [31][32][33], [26] and engagement in repair is generally declining in industrialised economies [34]; two-thirds of Austrians had not attempted to repair their defaulting mobile phone, primarily due to doubts about the efficiency of mobile phone repair services, saying that 'not much can be repaired anyway' and that a repair would not be financially feasible due to high wages [35, p. 3048].Similarly, a Swedish study found that half of the surveyed population did not attempt to repair electronics in response to a product default [36], while a US study of clothing repair found that 70% of respondents chose to not repair their broken garment [37].These forgone repair opportunities result in unnecessary environmental impact (e.g., from mining resources and production of replacement products and waste from unrepairable products, which in turn have climate and health impacts; see [38]) as well as lost economic opportunity [39] and social value [40].Here, it is important to point out that not all repairs should ideally be conducted in a realised CE, only those that are environmentally and financially feasible.Feasibility considerations include the energy efficiency of replacement products; the superior performance and advancing technology of newly manufactured products may enable reduced environmental impacts versus the energy efficiency of the old device, c.f. [41].
Importantly, the choice to repair-or-not does not constitute a one-time decision, but rather an iterative sequence of decisions and actions [25][26][27], which are reliant upon the participation of the individual.The process of repair that an individual goes through has been conceptualised by Russell et al. [25] (Fig. 1).
This process-perspective hint at the many roles of individuals in repair; e.g.investigator of repair options once the repair need has arisen (2a in Fig. 1) and, depending on what the investigation yields, the decision-maker of whether to repair-or-not (2b in Fig. 1 The repair process (Russell et al. [25]) Fig. 1) [25].As such, achieving an increase in people's repair engagement requires a deeper understanding of repair experience as an extended, repetitive, and iterative process.There is a need for a comprehensive view of the repair-or-not decision [25,42].
The individual's experience of the repair process is made up of the conditions they experience, such as access to so-called necessities (i.e.spare parts, repair information, and tools [8]).The experience is equally made up of internal factors, such as values, which impact how individuals interpret their situation and the choices available to them [36,43].Previous research on repair behaviour and attitudes has emphasised contextual (e.g.cost and accessibility) and product-related (e.g.design and quality) factors [see 36].More recent work has highlighted the importance of factors that are internal to the individual, such as intentions and habits [27,36,44].Accordingly, the study of individuals' repair motivation and behaviour requires the adoption of a multidimensional view, where both factors related to the individual as well as their context are sufficiently accounted for [43].
There is a clear need for consideration and advancement of comprehensive strategies that support the transformation of prevalent socio-cultural norms, improve the perceived benefits of repair engagement (i.e., despite frictions), and facilitate the development of repair habits [26,36].Such a multi-dimensional approach is essential for planning feasible, strategic behavioural interventions that can target social and political acceptance [42].
Using a literature review of the relevant factors to the repair process (Fig. 1), including both enablers and barriers, we outline the factors pertaining to each of the four dimensions of repair: socio-cultural; market and economics; infrastructure and systems; technology and design, and; policy and law.The findings are assessed and organised according to their impact on the repair process, and the roles of individuals and key factors at each stage are identified.From this work, a comprehensive conceptualisation of the repair process, building on existing models, is developed and explored.The 'Methodology' section presents the overarching methodology; the results from which are presented in the 'Results and Analysis' section.A discussion and exploration of the proposed framework is provided in the 'Discussion' section.The findings contribute to an improved understanding of the role of repair beyond the conventional techno-economic, consumeristic framing [3,45].

Methodology
To support short-term evidence-informed insights for policy and management decisionmakers, there is a need for an early assessment and clear insight regarding the nature, scope, and scale of diverse research initiatives exploring the convergence of individuals' experience of repair as it relates to current and on-going CE programming, policies, and initiatives.Accordingly, a 'rapid review' methodology was used to synthesise the current state of recent (within five (5) years, between 2016 and 2021) research publications that are focused on understanding the individual's experience of repair.By limiting the search to the last 5 years, and using so-called snowballing (i.e.including references to influential older work in these more recent publications), we sought to capture the most essential factors in the repair experience.Rapid reviews generally do not require the extensive review time or scope that are conventional to systematic reviews [46][47][48] and they focus on insights that have either already been synthesised and/or that provide an overview of recent/emerging areas of study (as in the case of this study) [46,49].

Search Protocol
A search for peer-reviewed articles from multiple search databases of SCOPUS and Web of Science was conducted.Details regarding scope and review protocol are outlined in Table 1.

Scope of Research and Review Strategy
SCOPUS and Web of Science databases are frequently used in review studies across sciences and humanities research [47,50,51].The systematic screening of identified manuscripts, and resulting articles for further analysis, was based upon inclusion/exclusion criteria as outlined in Table 2.
The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) was employed in this study to structure and organise data collection [52,53].This is captured in a flowchart in Fig. 2.
We applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria as indicated in Table 2 and analysed the articles based on the key terms and the research scope.After duplicates were removed from the original 149 returned articles, the 131 remaining articles were screened, and both abstract and full-text reviews, corroborating the following results: 87 articles were excluded due to their focus on non-consumer industries, sectors, and/ or products; a further 25 were excluded due to their publication outside of the 5-year review period (e.g.published pre-2016).An additional 33 manuscripts were reviewed and analysed as a result of a citation analysis (also known as snow-ball analysis).
A grounded research approach was used to inductively identify insights regarding how the scientific and research communities have approached the research of individuals' experience of repair.The papers were scanned for factors of repair (i.e.barriers and enablers), implications of factors, as well as descriptions of stages of the repair process and its content (i.e.activities).

Methodology for Analysis
The analysis of papers was completed using the five dimensions of socio-cultural, market and economics, infrastructure and systems, technology and design, and policy and  law (see, e.g.[17,25]), presented in Table 3. Factors affecting individuals' experience of repair were organised according to each stage of the expanded system of repairability (Fig. 4).
To account for the multidimensionality of the repair experience, we drew inspiration from prospect theory, which explores how individuals weigh perceived gains and losses, and typically tend to place a disproportionate importance on potential losses (i.e.risk aversion).This means that the individual's perception of the outcome(s) governs what the expected utility is, hence the motivation behind undertaking the behaviour or not [85].Also, integrative consumer models [43,86], models of repair behaviour [27,36] and research on factors of pro-environmental behaviour e.g., [87,88] were considered.As such, as illustrated in Fig. 3, we define the individual's experience of repair as consisting of internal, interpretation, and external factors.Internal factors consist of: attitudinal, such as values and norms; inner capabilities, such as knowledge, skills, and awareness; and previous experience.These internal factors impact the second set of factors-the person's (subjective) interpretation, which is made up of perceived gain/sacrifice, including trust and risk, and perceived ability.In turn, the interpretation dictates how the next set of factors-the external-are experienced.These are made up of non-maternal and material conditions.Simplified, non-material conditions, such as social norms, make up internal factors.Material conditions consist of the objects of interpretation, such as a product or repair activity, and other external conditions, as well as antecedents of internal factors, such as visiting a repair cafe and obtaining new skills (Fig. 3).
In the 'Results and Analysis' section, the barriers and enablers identified in the literature review are organised into these three categories, allowing us to distinguish the key factors of the experience (Table 4).The insights gained are discussed in the 'Discussion' section.

Factors of the Repair Experience and Repair Process Stages
In Table 3, the factors of the repair experience are presented according to which repair dimension they pertain to.

The Repair Process Cycle
From the factors and dimensions summarised in Table 3 and earlier literature contributions (Fig. 1), two things are clear.First, the individual product user's experience of repair constitutes a cycle as it is connected to previous repair experiences through, e.g.habits and previous exposure, and, as such, the current experience also impacts future repairs.Second, from the perspective of the product user, repair can be represented as an eight-stage process (Fig. 4).Importantly, the specific nature of each stage varies, especially depending on how the repair is conducted (i.e. through DIY or in a community repair setting [27,89] vs. by a professional repairer) and the type of repair (i.e.quick fix vs. repair project [90]).With this in mind, the repair process cycle (Fig. 4) is meant to provide an overarching framework through which all repair experiences can be organised within, with the purpose of enabling a comprehensive and systematic assessment and understanding of the factors at play.
The outward arrows at each stage in Fig. 4 indicate that the individual might choose to not move forward to the next stage and instead (1) replace, (2) use the device 'as-is', Fig. 4 The repair process cycle, adapted from Russell et al. [25] and Lefebvre [27] Table 3 Relevant factors, organised by dimension, identified as having an influence upon the individual's repair experience

Repair dimension
Factors of influence Socio-cultural • Cultural messaging and social meaning of newness and 'up-to-dateness' with technological development vs. longevity [54], depending on product type [26,55,56] -Product in need of repair is viewed as obsolete, while potential replacements satisfy urge for new [35] -Technological development and marketing push towards replacement (need to 'keep up') [57,58] • Social pressure towards newness and shaming of people who keep using older technology [35] -Positive self-image from new [59] -Poverty connotations with old and mended [35], [60][61][62] -Despite the poverty connotation with repair, affluent people are found to engage in high levels of repair [44,61] -'New' as a requisite for social belonging [27,35,59] • Potential financial and emotional benefits of repair are not widely known [63,64] • Lacking time and skillset can prevent DIY [27,60], while those with time and skills might be hindered by negative connotations with the activity [65] • Previous repair experiences and exposure impacts future repairs [36], [27], [37], [66], [65], [35], [67][68][69].• Repair habits are crucial for repair behaviour, which is impacted by attitudes, emotions, and the level and nature of previous repair experiences [36] • Repair motivation is primarily related to the product, the individual, and the individual's relationship to the products [27,37,45,60,66,69] -Product attachment might not lead to repair [35,64] -Some repair out of environmental concerns [36,60,69] • Products are assigned different types of values by the individual (i.e.financial, social, emotional, functional, conditional, and knowledge-based) [70] and contextual factors heighten certain values [32] • Personality traits, such as innovativeness, stewardship, and frugality, promote repair [27,60,71] • In the contemporary 'Instant Society', it is perceived as difficult to wait for a repair, premiering replacement [27, p. 82] • Personal and contextual definitions of 'broken' [33,35] • People tend to want to maximise the utility derived from the product, which manifests in a reluctance to discard [72,73] Market and economics • Repair is against the business models of most manufacturers (i.e.repair cannibalise on sales of new) and the traditional pursuit of economic growth at large [8,74] -Short product cycles and marketing efforts discourage repair [30,55] • Economic considerations consist of, e.g. the price of the current device, a replacement, price of the repair (i.e.price of necessities and/or service) [26] • Cost-effectiveness of repair is difficult for individuals to determine [36], but studies show that, over time, repair reduces the total cost of ownership [63,75] -Use of estimations leads to low willingness to repair [76], (OFT 2011 in [24]) -Cost of repair is too high relative to replacement prices [30,56,77,78] -Low economic attachment to products [79] • Warranty (hence the absence of repair cost) increases willingness to repair [28] • Individuals can be told by service providers that repair is economically unfeasible [27] • Behavioural aspects of repair consist of time and effort [26], hindered by time constraints [44,60,80] • Insufficient awareness, knowledge, confidence, and support to engage in repair [26], [27], [65], [67], [81][82][83], [69], [44] • Risk and uncertainty are disincentivising and relate to repair efficiency, data theft, and fair service charge [27,35,36,81] • At the local level, the provision of repair services (supply) may be insufficient to meet local demand, resulting in unsatisfied demand conditions [24,26] or (3) simply do without it [25].In either case, the disposal of the malfunctioning product is a likely outcome; however, it is not uncommon for individuals to feel a sense of unease towards the outright discarding of their possessions [72].Regardless, such discomfort may not sway individuals to pursue repair; instead, the non-functioning product might be 'stored' indefinitely, especially if it is a handheld electronic device [35].
In the following sections, we organise the factors of influence (Table 3) into the repair process stage at which they are most relevant (Fig. 4).However, and naturally, many of these factors carry importance at other stages as well, e.g. the motivation of the individual, and the quality of the products [27].In the "The Roles of Individual and the Key Factors in the Repair Process" section, the roles of individuals and key factors at each stage are outlined.

Predisposition
Before repair is even considered, the individual's predisposition, consisting of interlinked, initial determinants, sets up the decision to repair-or-not [27].An individual's repair intention, coupled with established habits, has been shown to constitute a stronger determinant of the repair outcome than contextual factors [36], which speaks to the importance of an individual's propensity to engage in repair [27].Moreover, predisposition not only impacts the repair decision, but also the repair outcome since established habits and repair experience tends to influence the purchase of the product (i.e.more/less repairable) which increases the chances of the repair being feasible [24,26,28].In addition, pre-existing repair habits and skills also increase the chances that the product will have been well-maintained, such as cleaned, which potentially reduces the need for repair in the first place [25,31].
The value ascribed to products can be functional, emotional, epistemological, social, and conditional.Depending on the person and situation, some values are more pertinent than others [70].Novelty-seeking and short product lifetime can impede repair, whereas social-valuing of longevity, on the other hand, may encourage a focus on functionality that is aligned with repair [26,35,54].Novelty-seeking preferences are more prevalent • Next to no obligation for manufacturers to make necessities available and alternative sources can be risky and time-consuming to access [8,84] for handheld electronic devices (e.g.smartphones) than larger appliances, such as washing machines [26,55].This is because smartphones (and similar products) often fill social, aesthetic, or conspicuous purposes, and older models may be unwanted due to outdated technology and/or aesthetics [35].In contrast, washing machines have a primarily functional purpose, making them valuable as long as that function is performed [26].An individual's preference for newness (vs.longevity) may make them regard a product in need of repair as being 'obsolete' [35], while the competing option of a new replacement version is often reinforced by the desire to be 'up to date' [54, p. 77], [55].'Psychological' or 'perceived' obsolescence occurs when the individual considers the product dissatisfying and unwanted-a process that signifies a throw-away culture [26,33].Marketing efforts, technological development, and short product cycles emphasise a time-based need to 'keep-up', contributing to the importance of novelty and fostering replacement behaviour over repair as the norm within more consumeristic societies [30,55,57,58].Social contexts were found to attribute higher meaning to novelty than longevity and there was a lack of encouragement to repair (i.e.low social support) [26,27].
Having the newest product model is often conducive to perceiving oneself as successful, leading to a positive impact on self-image and social identity [59].In a consumer culture, there is a significant social pressure that pushes people to discard broken devices in favour of getting the latest model [35,55,59].Such pressure can take the form of being ridiculed 'for not having a camera phone' or for owning a 'stone age phone' [35, p. 3087]; it is associated with poverty and also older age groups [35,61,65] and due to this negative stigma, people can feel ashamed of using mended products [60].All these considerations can create a context where the higher financial investment to replace a product can still be deemed worthwhile [32,70].
Also, personal values matter; frugality (i.e.not wanting to waste money or resources) [27] and stewardship (i.e.seeing the value inherent in the device) [71] are aligned with repair, in addition to environmental concerns [60,69].Personality traits connected with a predisposition to repair consist primarily of innovativeness (i.e.drive to find a solution to the problem, new usages, and to develop skills and knowledge) [27,60,71].For individuals less accustomed to repair, openness to adopt new behaviours has been observed to be important, as individuals with this characteristic are more likely to seek out new information and modify behaviour in the middle of a decision-making process [66].Importantly, the factors found in the literature related to repair can also be influenced by other factors; e.g.knowledge and familiarity of repair can be influenced by childhood exposure to repair in the home and/or in school, and socio-economic background and/ or context, including household income, and proximity to repair activities, have been found influential for repair engagement [91].It is important to note that this is not an exhaustive list of potential characteristics and contexts influencing a person's interest in repair.Moreover, it is notable that while the majority of the studies in this review examined repair behaviour in Western developed country contexts, this is likely not so different in other contexts [92].
Motivators to repair encompass values, interests, and emotions.In the case of repair, three categories of motivations are relevant [69]: the product (e.g.maintaining functionality, aesthetic, affect connected to the product, and symbolic value, and saving money), the individual (e.g.intrinsic motivation to consume sustainably, care for humanity and the people in the supply chain, pleasure derived from the repair, rejection of the 'throwaway' culture, be financially responsible and control one's environment), and the individual's relationship to the object (e.g.attachment, sense of irreplaceability, and part of the individual's identity) [27,37,60,66].When individuals have stronger product attachment, this may lead to more repair engagement [27,69], particularly for goods brought to community repair events [45].However, the current consumer culture offers little room for emotional connection to products [65].As such, attachment might not arise and even if it does, it does not necessarily lead to repair [35,64].
As for emotions and attitudes, the nature and extent of previous repair experiences have an important impact on the individual's willingness to repair [27,36,60,71].Perceived barriers have been found to have a negative impact on how often the individual engages in repair [37].People who perceive product care positively are more likely to engage in it [37,69].Generally, the hiring of a professional repairer tends to be associated with negative emotions and is described as time-consuming, inconvenient, expensive, and frustrating [27,36].In contrast, Lopez Davila [36] found that DIY repairs were connotated with more enjoyment, presumably due to the creative aspect.However, some people find DIY repairs boring [27], suggesting that less complex, time-and labour-consuming DIY repairs are preferable [60].An EU study found that, contrary to Lopez Davila's [36] findings, younger individuals reported the most interest in repair.However, this group also lacked necessary skills, and the desire to obtain said skillset [54], illustrating an intention-behaviour gap.Although individuals in older generations often possess clothes-mending skills, it tends to be associated with 'isolated domestic chores and times of economic hardships', and hence was avoided [71, p. 225].
Habits of repair are key for the repair outcome [36].'Habits' in consumer behaviour research is traditionally defined as the behaviour having become a standard operating procedure, or routine [43].Conditions that facilitate such habit formation include easy access to the tools and the resources needed to acquire necessary knowledge and skills [60,69].Moreover, exposure to repair in childhood, such as in school, or in social circles, such as repair cafes, has a positive impact on repair propensity [27,67], presumably because it may normalise the idea of repair, and may induce it as a habit.Overall, practices and habits around product use and repair, such as product retention patterns and the level and nature of previous repair experience, matter [35,60,66,71].

The Event
The event stage consists of two cause-effect aspects: first, the product is rendered broken and in need of repair, such as a (sudden) breakage or wear and tear, and second, the individual assesses the damage and considers whether to explore repair options.These two parts are intertwined since the event in the external environment cannot be separated from the individual's interpretation of the same (Fig. 1).
Wieser and Tröger [35] and Dewberry et al. [33] discovered a wide range of definitions of 'brokenness' that affect this stage: The product doesn't work as it used to; it no longer can do what it was bought for; the main function doesn't work anymore; it stops working or doesn't work well; or it is no longer convenient to use.Devices are often 'replaced for other reasons than being broken "beyond" repair' [32, p. 66].A study found that the most common reason for disposing of a device was due to it being broken, but in many cases the item only needed a slight repair.This was particularly true for discarded smaller products, which were in better condition, versus larger household appliances [56].The lack of interest of individuals to perform proper maintenance and care, which could prevent the need to repair, constitutes a contemporary issue; the default might require maintenance (e.g.cleaning) rather than repair [31,33].
Psychological obsolescence can lead to a premature discarding of the product without there necessarily being any issues with its functionality [26,33].Summarising the literature on this issue, Jaeger-Erben et al. [26] find it to encompass 'all cases where human thinking and acting is seen as the cause of a shortened usage and lifespan'; the product is worn out in the mind of the individual, or it is no longer considered to be desirable, due to, e.g.changing fashion and exposure from marketing efforts.A sub-category, symbolic obsolescence, occurs when newness is associated with social meaning and status [26].Marketing efforts have been known to inflate the value of new, see, e.g.[32], and influence the perception of older versions as being 'broken' or unwanted [57,58].Products can also become obsolete for technical or functional reasons (i.e. the function is inferior to newer models), making it undesirable, or even impossible, to prolong the product's lifetime [26].However, working against psychological obsolescence tendencies and in favour of a repair outcome is the observed reluctance that people have towards the discarding of objects [72], and thereby foregoing unused utility still embedded in the malfunctioning product [73].As discussed above, (perceived) value is context specific; the decision on what to do is rarely between repairing or not, but more realistically between repairing and buying new, see, e.g.[26], making promotions and trade-in schemes to get a new model potentially impactful [32].
When an event occurs, awareness and knowledge that repair is even an option is fundamental for an individual to choose repair over replacement, as it is unlikely that an individual with low or no awareness and experience of repair will engage in the activity (i.e.adopt a new behaviour or seek out new information at the start of a decision-making process) [36,66,71].Moreover, assessing the damage and the need for repair (e.g. if a DIY is suitable or if professional help is necessary) [26,60] requires some knowledge and skills.However, the requirement to possess general repair competence and the skills needed to properly maintain devices can present a barrier [27,31,60,69], leaving many individuals uncertain in the face of product breakdowns.Some get help from friends and family [27,28] or local repair cafes [40]-speaking to the importance of an individual's 'social repair capital', which consists of the level of access to physical tools and spaces, as well as knowledge and information, through one's social network.
Expectations of the repair outcome determine repair intentions [36] and reflect the degree to which an individual believes that functionality and aesthetics (i.e. if the repair will be visible) can be restored and how desirable the anticipated result is [26,60].To correctly anticipate the outcome and have realistic expectations, the individual must have adequate knowledge of the damage or loss of function that has occurred as a result of the event, and understand to what extent it can be addressed.Subjective personal preferences, such as the level of acceptability of decreased functionality or lack of novelty, will then determine the desirability of the expected repair outcome, and interpretation of product 'brokenness', despite the objective possibility of repair.
The event stage triggers an important step in the repair process cycle, at which the individual makes the decision to either explore repair options or discard and even replace the device [25].Due to low confidence in financially feasible and quality repair, some individuals do not even move forward to look into actual repair options [36,37]; they worry it 'would be a potential waste of time and money' [36, p. 36].Among other things, individuals fear data theft, low-quality repairs, and being over-charged [35]; see, e.g.[36].Hence, due to prejudice about the remaining process, non-repair might be the outcome.

The Investigation
The investigation occurs after the individual has decided to look into potential repair options, and entails the gathering of information.At this stage, basic familiarity (i.e.predisposition) and ease of accessing information about, e.g.where to get a repair manual or how to locate a suitable repairer, is helpful [26,60].
At this stage, there are non-monetary transaction costs in terms of time (e.g.waiting) and effort (e.g.locating a skilled and reliable repairer and figuring out how to do without the product while it is being repaired) [24,26,27].Here, the need for instant gratification presents a barrier [27, p. 82].The investigation of repair options can also be influenced by the existing barriers to repair.For example, the hiring of a third-party (non-manufacturer-authorised) repairer, the performing of repair, and the accessing of repair necessities can all be prohibited by policies and laws, such as intellectual property or contract laws [8].Manufacturers can also use misleading language, e.g.saying that warranty voidance results from the opening up of products or the use of an unauthorised repairer or spare part, when the legal warranty is not voided from this, rather any resulting damage would not be covered by the warranty [8,24].
The quality of the product is crucial for making the repair feasible, since low-quality products may break again and, foremost, because it makes replacement comparatively low cost [28].Moreover, individuals looking to repair older models are often told that it is too old, and spares are no longer available.As a consequence, individuals might be encouraged by the repairer to replace [27,36].The repair services market can often be in tension with the business models of most manufacturers, who rely on the profit from the sale of replacement products see [8]; '…extending the lifetime of consumption goods challenges one of the fundamental pillars of thinking in economics, namely that higher production and consumption of goods and services are beneficial as the engines of economic growth and societal well-being.' [75, p. 436].

The Decision
At the decision stage, the individual is at the second important decision point regarding whether to pursue repair-or-not.Here, the individual is assessing the acceptability of the repair option, e.g. with regard to the waiting time and the estimated repair cost, and other aspects that determine the perceived value of repair vs. replacement [25].This is the main repair-or-not decision.
The product might still be under warranty, in which case individuals are found to be often more willing to repair [28].However, in that situation, the final decision to repair or replace is made by the warranty provider, with limited influence from the individual [8], hence outside the scope of this paper.
Non-monetary transaction costs (e.g.time and effort) can affect the decision [24,26,27].As such, the speed of repair can be a determining factor, which is impacted by the infrastructure of repair, such as access to spares, and was found to disfavour repair over replacement [26,36].Access to a temporarily loaned device can facilitate repair [82].Importantly, Russell et al. [44] found that individuals may consider repair to be difficult to engage in even in cases of close geographical proximity to repair service providers, indicating a potential disconnect between perceived and actual accessibility.Overall, the time and effort needed for repair engagement are considered to be high [26,27].Time constraints pose a significant barrier to repair [26,80], especially for individuals in formal labour markets (such as in industrialised countries) where the opportunity cost of time gets high [80].As such, repair behaviour entails a trade-off with personal commitment to repair, which may be in conflict with other priorities such as career or child rearing [27].However, (the sometimes competing option of) replacement also entails cost in terms of time and effort (i.e., getting used to a newer model) [33].When the option to repair entails a higher non-monetary transaction cost, many individuals will opt for product replacement.However, in the case where the replacement entailed the same level of effort as repair, many people still chose to replace [54, p. 66], indicating the influence of predisposition in terms of habits and values (see the 'Predisposition' section).
Economic considerations essentially consist of the cost of repair vs. replacement, influenced by the price or perceived economic value of the current device, replacements, and price of the repair (i.e.price of necessities and/or service).Economic obsolescence occurs when financial factors make the repair unfeasible or unattractive, such as when repair is too costly compared to replacement [26].This can be exacerbated by low levels of economic attachment to products (i.e. the item is not considered economically valuable) [79].The price difference between repair and replacement must often be significant to avoid discarding [30,78]; a common reason repairable devices are discarded is due to the relatively low cost of replacement compared to the cost of repair [56] which decreases willingness to repair [77].This discrepancy is due to the low cost of the manufacturing of new, often taking place in developing countries with automation and lower wages and other externalities not reflected in the sale price.Moreover, as the wages are higher in the EU and USA, the repair service price becomes relatively more expensive [39].The price of a spare part is often quite close to the cost of a new replacement product [27].Nevertheless, over time, engagement in repair can reduce the total cost of ownership of products as the product lifespan is extended, meaning that the replacement cost is made to cover a longer time frame [63], allowing households to save money [75].
Unfortunately, cost-effectiveness estimates can be difficult, especially if the product damage or fault is yet to be diagnosed, and/or the remaining lifetime of the product is uncertain [36, 55] [36].This issue is compounded by an inherent consumer confidence that a new device would work well, or even better, than their current one; '…repair may be a bit cheaper but then it may not last long.You cannot guarantee a [repair] in the same way you can guarantee a new phone' an individual product user stated [36, p. 36], hinting at an often unsubstantiated higher-trust in manufactured goods than repaired ones.
Many people apply a 'rule of thumb' to consider the cost-effectiveness of repair, such that repair is only economically advantageous when the secondhand resale value of the product exceeds the cost of repair (OFT 2011 in [24]).Overall, individuals tend to apply different subjective discount rates to their belongings [76] and are only willing to pay a mere fraction of the price of new to have a repair conducted [24]; for example, Americans are willing to pay around 20% of the price of a new for repair of small electronics [78].However, comparing the price of new with the cost of repair is misguided since, as mentioned above, repair can reduce the cost of ownership over time.Economic factors are seemingly more important for individuals with lower repair propensity [71].
In the absence of a repair cost (e.g.warranty or low-cost DIY) to inform the repair-ornot decision, other considerations not related to the fault may take precedence, such as the current state of the product's aesthetic (e.g.degree of wear and tear) and function (i.e.performance) of the product [28,54].
For DIYs, depending on the type of item, lack of knowledge, experience, and support leads to perceived safety risks that make people nervous to conduct DIYs.Discouraged by both product manufacturers and family and friends, many will envision the 'worst-case scenario' (injury or even death) [27].Such discouragement, combined with the lack of repair habits or exposure, leads to diminished confidence and repair engagement [60].
Product users' perceived risks and uncertainties adhere to the repair efficiency (i.e. if the repair will successfully resolve the issue), data theft (i.e.having private information stolen from the device), and the correct charging for the service (i.e.fair pricing) [27,35,36,81].Information asymmetry between the individual and a professional repairer, who knows more about the products and the actual cost of the service, can create feelings of vulnerability and uncertainty in the individual.Moreover, lacking market transparency, where prices can vary between repair service providers, confuses and discourages individuals [27], (OFT 2011 in [24]).The perception of risk is amplified if the quality of the repair work cannot be immediately examined or understood by the individual, as well as from negative previous experiences [55,76].Transparency of the repair service is important and may be presented via price breakdowns and/or service guarantees on repairs [36].Trust is often better facilitated by the repairer having a physical store and offering personal contact (e.g.versus mailing in the broken device) [81].Even better, trust can be facilitated much more easily when the individual personally knows a trusted repairer [24]; however, this is not common [93].
In the midst of all of these considerations and options, by the end of the decision stage, a decision to either repair the product or not will be made.

Arrangement
If repair is selected, then arrangements must be made to make the repair happen, such as transportation and perhaps purchasing of necessities, which varies depending on the repair (commercial vs. home-DIY) and the type of a device (handheld electronics vs. large appliance).
Necessities, such as special tools, manuals, and quality spare parts must be accessible in a timely manner [8,28].Lacking access to necessities constitutes a main barrier [8,60,69].Moreover, timely access to high-quality necessities can help shorten the duration of the arrangement stage and mitigate frustrations and uncertainty [60].
Russell et al. [44] identified a varying, although overall high, willingness to travel to get something repaired.Having access to transportation that may be necessary to engage in repair can also present a challenge, particularly in the case of bulky, heavy, and/or fragile products [27].Unexpected and complicating events might occur that were not anticipated during the investigation stage, such as the spare part being out of stock, or the broken appliance not fitting into the car.

Preliminary Diagnostics
At the preliminary diagnostics stage, the specific default responsible for the event occurring is identified by the individual or the professional repairer, through visual inspection or diagnostic equipment, such as software.The result might be an unexpected default that requires additional and iterative investigation efforts to, e.g.search for spares, or even a different decision (Fig. 4) if the needed repair turns out to be more complicated than anticipated.
The more time-consuming and complicated this stage becomes, the higher the costs (monetary and non-monetary) that are incurred.Product design that enables disassembly and diagnostics can make or break repair efforts, as can having access to diagnostics equipment, and manuals and schematics of the product [8,60].For DIY, peer support can come in the form of knowledgeable friends, volunteers at a repair cafe or guidance from repair forums [28,68], see [27,60,67] (see discussion above about 'social repair capital').

Repair
Next in the process, the repair is conducted and the identified issue is remedied.This entails, e.g.further disassembly and potentially also replacement of parts or entire components.As in the previous stage, the product design, and whether it accommodates repair, is key.Further disassembly and diagnostics might yet again reveal that the default is different from what was anticipated, which can create the need for another set of necessities, which might not be readily available (bringing the process back to investigation or even decision).Overall, the level of access to necessities can facilitate vs. hinder the efforts.As mentioned previously, successful repairs have a favourable impact on the predisposition (the beginning of the repair process cycle, Fig. 1) and future repair outcomes.

Satisfaction
Post-repair, the individual's 'satisfaction' is determined by whether there is a gap between their expectations of the repair experience vs. the actual experience, with regard to the entire process (e.g.time, effort, cost) and the repaired product (i.e.aesthetics and/or function).This can impact future repair Predisposition [26,27,60].Moreover, a successful repair experience increases the chances that the individual will attempt another repair in the future [35] and also increases the individual's willingness to buy [71], and pay more, for repairable products [68].

The Roles of the Individual and the Key Factors in the Repair Process
The literature findings point to many different roles played by the individual, some only by DIY (e.g.'repair technician') and some only by those handing over the repair to someone else (e.g.assessor of the competence of the repairer), summarised in Fig. 5.It is interesting to note that the implications of some of the roles, such as organiser at the arrangement stage, were considered already in the previous decision stage (although not executed until the latter stage), while some roles occur at the same stage as the related factors are considered, such as assessor of the product damage.
The key factors of each stage of the repair process cycle are outlined below, in accordance with our definition of the experience of repair (Fig. 3; internal, interpretation, and external factors-denoted in brackets in Table 4).
Table 4 shows that the interpretation centres on certain aspects of the experience in which the weighting of cost vs.benefits is more prominent, such as the ease vs. difficulty and the worthwhileness of the repair [85].These 'key' aspects can constitute leverage points in the upscale of repair.We discuss this more in the 'Considering the entire value proposition of Repair' section.

Discussion
The results and analysis offer several insights that are briefly discussed in separate sections, with suggestions as to their implications for the process of upscaling repair (i.e.making repair more prevalent in society).

The Flows of the Repair Process Cycle
The findings indicate that certain stages can have an impact further down in the process, beyond the next stage (Fig. 6).

Table 4
The key factors of the repair process, at each repair process stage (brackets denote organisation according to Fig. 3  • Product design (disassemblability and ease of diagnostics) • Access to diagnostics equipment and manuals/ schematics As discussed, an individual's predisposition toward repair can impact the value-set and motivation throughout the process.Moreover, for example, findings at the investigation stage set the expectations for the arrangement process, and impact satisfaction, as does the decision (i.e.expectations vs. reality).These forward loops must be systematically considered in the repair upscale process, e.g. by providing product-specific repair decisionsupport guides to help individuals understand the process, collect important information, and facilitate a fact-based decision, rather than a subjective or subconscious decision.It also highlights the general need for measures that help ensure a positive repair outcome to ensure the virtuous cycle it implies; successful repairs increase the willingness to pay for a more repairable product [68], facilitating future repair cycles.
In addition, depending on the outcome of each stage, 'backward' loops and iterations within this process are possible (Fig. 7).For example, a failed repair stage might bring the process all the way back to investigation, similar to an unexpected diagnostics, or failed arrangement.
Again, facilitation of repair overall, such as the sharing of information among actors involved in repair, prevents or at least mitigates the occurrences and effects of these effortand time-increasing backward steps.

Situational and General Factors
Overall, among the factors of repair, there are repair process cycle-or situation-specific factors (situational), such as the level of product attachment to the defaulting product in Fig. 7 Possible backward loops in the repair process cycle question (impacted, e.g. by the type of product) or access to specific spares.These need to be distinguished from factors applicable across repair cycles (general), such as a sense of product stewardship and socio-cultural influences.This distinction follows individuals' motivation to repair by Ackerman et al. [69] as being concerned with the product (i.e.foremost situation-specific), the relationship to the product (i.e.potentially both situational and general), and the values of the individual (i.e.general).Importantly, the predispositions (e.g.social norms and exposure to repair in childhood [27]) consist of both general factors that are ever-present, as well as factors triggered in the actual situation, or specific repair process cycle.The cross-over between these two categories (situational vs. general) can be seen when preconceptions of the usefulness of repair options (i.e.general factor) deter people from advancing through the repair process cycle; situational factors from a previous specific experience get transformed into a general factor that can affect how the individual moves through the repair process in the future [36].This insight speaks to the cyclical nature of repair; the current process cycle carries with it the burdens (or joys) of previous repairs, at the same time as it shapes future repairs.To combat these challenges, information and awareness campaigns are key.
The distinction between the two types of factors matters for the upscale of repair (i.e.making repair more prevalent in society) as they entail two different types of interventions.A situational approach could for example consist of product design strategies for product retention, employed to ensure a high overall value of the current device and boosting the five values (functional, emotional, financial, conditional, and knowledge-bases) [32] ensuring that product designs are 'resilient' (i.e.durable and timeless) [94] and upgradable, as well as creating product attachment [32].A general approach, on the other hand, could instead seek to enhance the social meaning of longevity (vs.newness) [26,69].A Swedish study found that individuals would like a stronger cultural messaging that repair is important, as has been done in the example of reusable grocery bags [36].Here, repair cafes can have an important role to play as such events make repair 'visible in the public space [which] helps to transform the social norms around this practice, gradually making it acceptable and standardised' [68, p. 13].

Themes in the Repair Process
In the conceptualisation of the repair process, three themes of the repair experience emerge: (1) interpreting brokenness, (2) engaging in repair, and (3) using the repaired device (Fig. 8).
Starting at the end of the repair process-hence, the outcome-perceptions regarding using the repaired item involve factors such as the age and level of restoration of function and aesthetics of the product [26].This theme matters at the beginning of the repair process (the event) in terms of the motivation or disincentive to initiate the repair process, as well as throughout the repair process.It is also relevant at the end of the process (satisfaction) when the individual is assessing the result of the repair.Preferences for newness vs. longevity matter here.The individual can be 'pushed' away from repairing the old product, which may be viewed as obsolete and connected with shame and exclusion [27,35,60].At the same time, there might also be a simultaneous 'pull' towards replacement (see [26]), which is connotated with success, belonging, and self-esteem [59].These 'push' and 'pull' forces are arguably similar, albeit not necessarily identical in terms of repair-or-not behavioural outcome, as well as the behavioural motivation (i.e.avoiding shame and exclusion vs. seeking status and belonging).Important here is also the individual's ability to (at the 1 3 event stage) assess the aesthetics and/or functionality of the items as repaired and form realistic expectations of the repair result see [26].
Engaging in repair takes place when the individual has decided to explore repair options, up until the repair is finalised (the process stages investigation to repair in Fig. 4).Here, financial and behavioural costs can impede repair, see, e.g.[26,80], along with the perception of convenience [36,54].Although individuals would like for repair to be as effortless as replacing the device [36], there are also underappreciated gains to the engagement, such as reduced cost of living [63,75], more control in life, opportunities for socialisation [95], and other emotionally rewarding experiences [64,65,71] that might make the efforts worthwhile.In summary, this theme speaks to how the upscale and normalisation of repair engagement is hingent upon the contention between the friction and transaction cost (i.e.effort, price, time), and the benefits, including advantageous motivations and values, and an appreciation of the repaired item.
Lastly, the theme of interpreting brokenness is centred on the event stage, but arguably follows the product in the repair process cycle, and, depending on the level of friction discussed above, can result in the individual finally deciding that the product is 'beyond' repair [32].This speaks to how 'brokenness is not necessarily an intrinsic condition of the machine but rather a perceived state in which unwanted effort is required of the user by the item' [31, p. 347].Moreover, as people's definition of brokenness varies [33,35] and is impacted by psychological obsolescence [26], the assessment is connected to the first theme of using the repaired device.The desirability of the anticipated repair result influences the perceived state of the device pre-repair.In summary, under Fig. 8 Themes in the repair experience this theme, two processes are arguably occurring: the individual is first determining whether the object is indeed 'broken' (vs.still usable, or simply in need of maintenance efforts) [31], and, secondly, if it is worth looking into repair options (or if the product is broken 'beyond' repair) [32].Knowledge and preferences play into these two assessments differently.
Overall, these three thematic lenses can offer comprehensive insights into what the normalisation of repair entails, and the many roles played by the individual in the repair outcome (Fig. 5).The repair process cycle and the themes can reveal blind spots; in current repair upscale efforts, repair is commonly depicted only as the decision stage of the process to the repair stage (see dark blue frame in Fig. 9).
Such a simplistic view of the repair process, illustrated by the blue borders in Fig. 9, can make the employment of single solutions attractive, such as lowering the monetary cost of repair.

Considering the Entire Value Proposition of Repair
The literature viewed through the lens of the individual's experience of repair (Fig. 3) shows that the process is largely characterised by trade-offs concerning the process as a whole, which speaks to the importance of considering the entire value proposition of repair; efforts to upscale repair need to simultaneously work towards reducing frictions, such as waiting times, as well as boosting and enhancing awareness of Fig. 9 Comprehensive view of the repair process according to the themes the rewards, such as cost savings [63] and opportunities for 'emotional fulfilment' and socialisation [64,95].For example, people exhibiting low repair propensity placed higher importance on economic factors [71], presumably due to the perceived low non-monetary benefits with repair, such as living in alignment with one's values [71].Moreover, individuals clearly use replacement as a reference point for their assessment of repair [85], with disadvantageously inflated values of new as well as cost of repair [26,36,54].

Multidimensional Stages
In accordance with the organisation of the literature review (Table 3), the repair experience is impacted by several different dimensions throughout the repair process, as shown below in Fig. 10.
The dimensions are interrelated, such as sociocultural ideals and market preferences, or technological solutions and policy regulations.This emphasises yet again the importance of taking a comprehensive approach to the repair upscale [25]; see [42].Alleviation of technical barriers, such as lack of cost-competitive spare parts, will not have a Fig. 10 Multidimensionality of the repair process cycle maximum impact unless sociocultural barriers to the demand, such as social norms centred on novelty and instant gratification, are addressed [21].To this point, policy efforts (see, e.g.[8] for an overview of repair policies) could be assessed according to which dimension they pertain to, which would reveal gaps and missed opportunities.

A Multilevel Systems View
Aligned with previous literature [16,17], several of the key factors, themes, and dimensions of the repair process cycle hints at the existence of different levels to the system of repair making up the repair experience; while lower, or proximal, system level factors manifest in the individual's external environment (Fig. 3), higher, or distal, system level factors are further removed and can be abstract, such as the overarching culture [17].On this note, Dermody et al. [74] point out how the normalisation of repair would entail a reframing of the economy and the cultural view of repair, as contemporary culture is centred on the buying of new as the path to a thriving economy (i.e. higher system level) and a happy life for individuals (i.e.lower system level, when internalised into the value set of the individual) [74].In the repair upscale, a multilevel conceptualisation of the system of repair can help prevent 'consumer scapegoatism' by distinguishing where agency and leverage points reside, allowing for effective allocation of responsibility in policy interventions [25,96].

Conclusion and Future Research
This paper has presented a comprehensive process approach to product repair from the perspective of the individual.Repair is conceptualised as a process cycle with eight stages, yielding several insights and areas for future research regarding the following: • The roles of individuals in the repair process • The key factors of the repair experience • The importance of enhancing the entire value-proposition of repair • Potential forward and backward impact loops in the process, and how they must be considered and mitigated • The distinction between situation-specific vs. more general factors of repair • The conceptualisation of the repair process as having three themes: using the repaired device; engaging in repair; and interpreting brokenness, and how these can reveal 'blind spots' in policy mixes • The multidimensionality of the repair experiences, which can guide a balanced repair upscale strategy • The necessity to take a multilevel system approach to identify leverage points and assign responsibility for the repair upscale It is clear that single initiatives, such as tax reductions of repair services, are not enough and a policy mix needs to be assessed for how it impacts the entire repair cycle to ensure positive impacts, avoid unintended consequences, and that no gaps exist that can slow down or hinder the upscale process.The findings highlight the need for a strategic and comprehensive assessment of interventions for upscaling repair, considering benefits and costs for individuals, who play diverse roles in the repair process; e.g.individuals can be the assessor of the repairability of the malfunctioning products, transporter to a repair site, and procurer of spares (Fig. 5).Overall, it is crucial to enhance the entire value-proposition of repair.On this note, future research should focus on the role of repair in the quality of life of individuals, especially on how repair engagement can contribute to high levels of well-being, as this is an important impact to understand.Beyond policies, some solutions are better achieved through governance or stakeholder efforts.To this effect, future research should focus on mapping current and proposed repair initiatives to understand their role and impact conjointly with other efforts.
The process approach to repair from the perspective of individuals proposed in this paper is applicable to other CE and sustainable consumption formats, such as reuse and sharing.Similarly, the insights in the 'Discussion' section are equally pertinent and can offer a deepened understanding of the experience of individuals.

Fig. 5 (
Fig. 5 (Possible) Roles of the individuals throughout the repair process

Fig. 6
Fig.6 Possible forward impact loops in the repair process cycle, beyond the immediate next stage

Table 1
Search protocol employed for literature review