The statistical architecture of the study deserves closer attention, because the way the researchers structured their evaluation reveals how design quality can be quantified in a field that has traditionally relied on subjective judgment. By recruiting twenty-two specialists to validate the research instrument before any designs were assessed, the team addressed a common weakness in design research: evaluation tools that measure the evaluator’s preferences rather than the object’s qualities. The subsequent use of seven independent specialist evaluations per design allowed the researchers to compute quality coefficients—percentage scores expressing how closely each design approached the theoretical maximum across the assessed criteria—rather than relying on raw rankings alone. This approach transforms aesthetic judgment into a comparable metric across fourteen distinct proposals, which is what made the analysis of variance meaningful in the first place.

The analysis of variance itself is worth unpacking for readers unfamiliar with the technique. ANOVA tests whether the differences among group means exceed what would be expected from random variation alone. In this study, the very large F-values—36.082 for aesthetic quality, 19.680 for perceived economic potential, and 45.816 for overall evaluation, each with p-values below 0.001—indicate that the spread among the fourteen designs was far greater than the noise within each design’s set of evaluations. In practical terms, the specialists did not merely disagree mildly among themselves; they converged strongly in distinguishing stronger designs from weaker ones. This convergence matters because it suggests the designs genuinely differed in perceived merit, rather than the results reflecting idiosyncratic tastes of a small panel.

Equally instructive is the comparison between the two top-performing designs. When the researchers isolated Design 11 and Design 6 for functional-performance testing, the resulting F-value of 2.149 with a p-value of 0.173 failed to reach statistical significance. This null result is not a failure of the study but a substantive finding in its own right: it indicates that the functional quality of the two leading designs was statistically indistinguishable, even though their overall quality coefficients differed by roughly one and a half percentage points. The distinction between the two designs therefore rested primarily on aesthetic and economic perceptions rather than on measurable functional differences—a nuance that matters for anyone interpreting which design characteristics actually drove the top rankings.

The quality coefficients themselves invite interpretation. A coefficient of 92.08% for Design 11 means that, averaged across all evaluation criteria and all specialist raters, the design achieved slightly more than nine-tenths of the maximum possible score. Scores in this range are notably high for design evaluations, where panels typically reserve the upper end of rating scales for exceptional work. That both leading designs exceeded 90% while both incorporated 3D-printed components suggests that additive manufacturing did not impose an aesthetic penalty in the eyes of the evaluating specialists. This is significant because printed components in fashion have historically faced skepticism regarding surface finish, perceived cheapness, and compatibility with textile traditions.

The choice of Sadu weaving as the cultural reference point connects the study to a broader conversation about intangible heritage in contemporary design. Sadu is a traditional weaving practice associated with Bedouin communities in the Arabian Peninsula, characterized by geometric patterns, bold color bands, and symmetrical motifs traditionally executed in wool on ground looms. Its recognition as living heritage has made it a frequent reference for Saudi designers seeking to anchor contemporary products in recognizable cultural vocabulary. What this study adds is a fabrication pathway: rather than reproducing Sadu patterns solely through conventional weaving or surface printing, the researchers embedded Sadu-inspired elements into digitally fabricated components, allowing the geometric logic of the tradition to inform three-dimensional form, structural detail, and surface relief in ways that flat textile reproduction cannot easily achieve.

This hybrid strategy—combining printed polymer structures with textile elements—addresses one of the persistent limitations of fully printed fashion products. Printed polymers, even when flexible, rarely match the drape, hand feel, and breathability of woven or knitted textiles. By assigning structural and decorative roles to printed components while reserving flexible, tactile surfaces for fabric, the designs exploited the strengths of each material class. The printed elements can carry precise geometric detail derived from Sadu motifs, provide rigid frames or closures where load-bearing behavior is needed, and be produced on demand without tooling, while the textile portions supply comfort and the sensory qualities users expect from a handbag. This division of labor between materials reflects a pragmatic middle path that many researchers in digital fashion manufacturing have advocated: augmentation of conventional craft and garment construction rather than wholesale replacement.

The sustainability claims surrounding additive manufacturing warrant careful reading, and the study’s framing is appropriately cautious on this point. Additive processes deposit material only where needed, which contrasts with subtractive manufacturing that removes and discards material, and with cut-and-sew garment production where pattern inefficiencies generate offcuts. For accessories like handbags, where components are small and geometrically complex, the material savings from print-on-demand fabrication can be meaningful. Furthermore, distributed production—the ability to print components close to the point of use—can shorten supply chains and reduce inventory waste associated with overproduction. However, the energy consumption of printing equipment, the embodied energy of polymer feedstocks, and the limited recyclability of mixed-material products all complicate simple environmental accounting. A handbag combining printed PLA elements with textile components, adhesives, and metal hardware presents genuine end-of-life challenges, since disassembly and material separation are prerequisites for effective recycling.

Polylactic acid, the most common filament material in consumer and educational 3D printing, illustrates these complications. Derived from fermented plant starches, PLA is often marketed as biodegradable, yet its degradation in ambient environments is slow, and industrial composting infrastructure is required for meaningful breakdown. Its mechanical properties—adequate stiffness but limited heat resistance and impact toughness—make it suitable for decorative and semi-structural handbag components but questionable for high-stress elements like handles or load-bearing straps. The study’s success in achieving functional-performance coefficients above 85% suggests that the researchers selected applications where PLA’s properties were adequate, but the broader literature on recycled and bio-based filaments indicates that mechanical consistency remains a hurdle when waste-derived feedstocks enter production.

The economic dimension of the findings also merits attention. Perceived economic potential was assessed as a distinct criterion, and the significant differences among designs on this measure indicate that specialists evaluated commercial viability separately from aesthetic merit. This separation is methodologically sound, since a design can be beautiful yet difficult to produce profitably, or commercially promising yet visually unremarkable. The alignment of Design 11 and Design 6 at the top of both aesthetic and overall rankings suggests that, in this case, commercial perception tracked closely with aesthetic quality—specialists may have judged that culturally resonant, well-executed designs would command market interest. For a regional fashion sector seeking to develop identity-driven products, this alignment between cultural specificity and perceived commercial value is arguably among the most actionable findings of the research.

The study also sits within a notable shift in how fashion research approaches digital fabrication. Early work on 3D printing in fashion emphasized spectacle: avant-garde garments, runway pieces, and demonstrations of technical possibility. The trajectory described in the literature—from experimental prototypes toward functional textile structures with improved flexibility and wearability—reflects a maturing field moving from proof-of-concept toward everyday products. Handbags occupy a favorable position in this transition because their semi-rigid structure tolerates the stiffness of printed polymers better than garments do, their components are small enough to print on accessible equipment, and their market tolerates premium pricing that can offset the per-part costs of additive production.

The anisotropy of printed parts deserves emphasis for anyone considering similar applications. In fused filament fabrication, layers bond to one another during deposition, and the strength of these interlayer bonds typically falls short of the strength within a layer. A printed component loaded parallel to its layers behaves differently from one loaded perpendicular to them. For handbag hardware—clasps, frame elements, decorative panels—this means that print orientation is not merely a production detail but a design decision affecting durability. A handle printed flat may delaminate under repeated flexing, while the same geometry printed on edge may better resist the stresses of daily carrying. The study’s attention to functional performance alongside aesthetics implicitly acknowledges this reality, since a beautiful printed clasp that fails in use would undermine the entire product.

From a methodological standpoint, the sample of seven specialist evaluations per design, while sufficient for the statistical tests employed, represents a modest panel by the standards of sensory or consumer research. The strength of the observed effects—large F-values and highly significant p-values—partly compensates, since clear effects are more robust to small samples than marginal ones. Nevertheless, specialist panels measure expert judgment, not consumer preference, and the gap between what experts admire and what buyers purchase is a perennial challenge in design research. Future work extending evaluation to end users, or tracking actual market performance of produced designs, would strengthen the economic claims that the current study frames as perceived potential.

The regional context of the research adds another layer of significance. Saudi Arabia’s broader investments in cultural industries and design education have created institutional interest in products that express national heritage through contemporary manufacturing. Studies of this kind serve a dual function: they test technical feasibility, and they build a documented evidence base that designers, educators, and policymakers can draw upon. Demonstrating that heritage-inspired, digitally fabricated accessories can achieve quality coefficients above 90% under structured expert evaluation provides a reference point for subsequent projects, whether in accessories, footwear, or home textiles, where Sadu and related traditions might similarly inform additive manufacturing workflows.

Finally, the study’s publication in a circular economy research venue signals how sustainability and cultural heritage are increasingly treated as complementary rather than separate concerns in design research. A product that encodes local cultural knowledge, is fabricated on demand with minimal tooling, uses bio-based polymers where appropriate, and is designed for disassembly into separable material streams embodies several circular-economy principles simultaneously. The research does not claim to have closed the loop—no life-cycle assessment is reported, and the end-of-life pathway for the hybrid products remains open—but it demonstrates that culturally grounded design and digitally enabled, resource-conscious production can be pursued within a single coherent design process. That integration, more than any single statistic, may be the study’s most durable contribution to the literature on sustainable fashion manufacturing.

Subject of Research: …

Article Title: The aesthetics of applying 3D printing in the design and manufacture of sustainable bags for women

Article References: The aesthetics of applying 3D printing in the design and manufacture of sustainable bags for women. (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2026.1889502

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/frsus.2026.1889502

Keywords: 3D printing, additive manufacturing, sustainable fashion, Sadu weaving, Saudi cultural heritage, women's handbags, PLA filament, fused deposition modeling, circular economy, design evaluation, functional performance, digital fabrication

The research team, led by Sarah Hassaan and Nezir Aydin of Hamad Bin Khalifa University in Qatar together with Brenno C. Menezes of Climbex Global and the Institute for Technological Research in Brazil, approached the question through the lens of industrial ecology, a discipline that treats industrial systems like ecosystems, tracking how materials and energy flow through them. From this perspective, fashion’s environmental crisis is not a series of isolated inefficiencies but a systems failure. Environmental burdens accumulate across every stage of a garment’s life, from raw material extraction and processing to manufacturing, consumption, and disposal, which means that interventions aimed at single stages cannot fix what is fundamentally a broken material cycle. Between 4 and 9 percent of newly produced apparel is disposed of without ever reaching a consumer, and in the United States alone, textile waste reached 17 million tons in 2018, with roughly 85 percent of it landfilled or incinerated.

To diagnose why circular solutions fail to scale, the researchers applied the Denyer and Tranfield systematic review methodology, searching the Scopus database with a carefully constructed Boolean query combining terms for sustainable fashion, lifecycle assessment, circular economy, cradle-to-cradle, and closed-loop systems, along with environmental impact and supply chain concepts. The initial search returned 661 documents. After removing non-peer-reviewed work, studies outside the fashion and textile sectors, and papers that mentioned circularity only in passing without engaging any of the three focal frameworks, the final dataset settled at 110 articles for full-text analysis. Each study was categorized by two researchers working independently, with disagreements resolved by consensus, and the resulting classification matrix mapped circular practices across lifecycle stages, technological readiness levels, and adoptability constraints.

The descriptive findings reveal a field that has exploded in recent years. Research activity was modest between 2014 and 2018, but approximately 86 percent of the analyzed papers were published after 2019, coinciding with the rollout of major European policy initiatives targeting textile waste. Publication volume nearly doubled between 2020 and 2021, and reached 19 articles in 2024. Geographically, however, the literature is heavily concentrated in Europe, driven by the European Union’s circular economy directives and extended producer responsibility policies, with additional contributions from the United States, China, and Australia. Africa and South Asia, regions where much of the world’s textile production and waste generation actually occur, remain critically underrepresented. The authors argue that circular strategies are largely conceptualized in consumption-oriented regions while being operationalized, or failing to be operationalized, in production regions.

At the heart of the review is a technological readiness level analysis that exposes a systemic mismatch. Circular economy concepts, which provide system-level direction on durability, reuse, and recycling but often lack the material and operational mechanisms to close loops in practice, cluster at early stages from TRL 1 to 4. Meanwhile, cradle-to-cradle approaches, which emphasize non-toxic inputs, mono-material construction, and recyclability without quality loss, and closed-loop systems, which embed reverse logistics, take-back schemes, and recycling infrastructure into supply chain design, face their hardest technical realities at TRL 4 to 6. The policy environment, the authors find, fails to bridge these two zones. Early-stage ideas receive conceptual support but no pathway toward material validation, while technically promising mid-stage pilots are starved of the infrastructure investment, standardization, and demand guarantees needed to reach the market. This mid-TRL bottleneck, compounded by regulatory inertia and fragmented governance across supply chain actors, is the central reason circular fashion remains trapped in a landscape of disconnected pilots.

The technical barriers are formidable. Blended textiles such as cotton-polyester fabrics cannot currently be separated without degrading fiber quality, forcing material into downcycling or disposal. Chemical treatments and dyeing processes further reduce recyclability. Advanced recycling methods exist but are often resource-intensive, consuming high levels of energy and water that erode their environmental benefits. Mechanical recycling remains the most widely used industrial approach, but fiber shortening limits its outputs to lower-grade products. Chemical recycling via hydrolysis can depolymerize synthetic fibers like polyester but at high cost and energy demand. Solvent-based dissolution can separate blended fabrics without damaging fibers, yet remains largely at pilot stage, and biological recycling using enzymes is an emerging low-energy option constrained by slow reaction speeds and narrow material requirements. Meanwhile, emerging biomaterials such as bacterial cellulose can cost up to ten times as much as conventional fibers, illustrating the persistent tension between technical feasibility and economic viability.

The review also identifies deeper measurement failures that quietly reinforce the status quo. Roughly 72 percent of the studied approaches focus on material substitution strategies, while only 7 percent address fundamental system redesign. Current sustainability metrics reward efficiency gains within existing linear architectures rather than the structural transformation required for regeneration. The analysis further reveals an equity dimension that is rarely measured at all: capital-intensive technologies like automation, blockchain traceability, and RFID systems deliver impressive performance, achieving up to 99.9 percent inventory accuracy in some deployments, but their cost favors large firms and excludes the small and medium enterprises and informal-sector actors who dominate textile production in developing economies. The authors warn this dynamic risks creating a two-tier circular economy, a circularity for the few, in which leading brands capture sustainability gains while subcontractors and waste workers remain excluded.

Consumer behavior adds another layer of friction. The global second-hand apparel market is now valued at around 36 billion dollars, yet empirical studies across Western and emerging markets consistently show that price, convenience, and perceived quality override environmental concern at the point of purchase. High social media engagement with sustainability content rarely translates into changed buying behavior, echoing long-standing research on the attitude-behavior gap. Rental and resale models perform best where regulation or financial incentives reshape market conditions, such as under France’s anti-waste legislation, suggesting that consumer adoption is structurally constrained by market design rather than by individual preference.

The authors’ prescription is a set of TRL-aware policy mixes calibrated to each stage of innovation maturity. At early TRLs of 1 to 3, they recommend public research grants, open testing platforms, regulatory sandboxes for novel biomaterials, and mandatory disclosure of standardized techno-economic metrics. At the critical mid-TRLs of 4 to 6, where most innovations currently die, they call for shared infrastructure financing through pooled public-private funds, procurement guarantees for recycled fibers and product-as-a-service capacity, common product specifications and digital identifiers, and conditional tax incentives tied to verified recycled content rather than technology inputs. At high TRLs of 7 to 9, tools shift to recycled content mandates, extended producer responsibility schemes that fund processing infrastructure, and auditable performance-based certification. Across all bands, the review stresses that small and medium enterprises need tailored transition support, international standards must align across borders to prevent material leakage, and social-equity indicators should be reported alongside environmental ones to avoid one-dimensional optimization.

Ultimately, the study reframes circular fashion not as a technology problem but as a coordination problem, and in doing so hands policymakers and industry leaders a concrete diagnostic map. The combination of circular economy’s system orientation, cradle-to-cradle’s material purity focus, and closed-loop systems’ operational feedback loops offers the most durable path forward, but only if innovation grants, shared infrastructure, and market demand instruments are deployed at the right stage of technological maturity. Without that alignment, the authors conclude, the fashion sector will continue producing disconnected technical successes, elegant pilots that never scale, while the mountains of textile waste keep growing. The window for turning scattered circular experiments into a genuinely regenerative material system, they argue, depends on treating the supply chain as a single industrial ecosystem rather than a collection of independently optimizing parts.

Subject of Research: Integration of circular economy, cradle-to-cradle, and closed-loop system frameworks across fashion supply chains assessed through an industrial ecology and technology readiness level lens

Article Title: Integrating circular economy, cradle-to-cradle, and closed loop systems in fashion supply chains: a systematic review from an industrial ecology perspective

Article References: Hassaan, S., Aydin, N., & Menezes, B. C. (2026). Integrating circular economy, cradle-to-cradle, and closed loop systems in fashion supply chains: a systematic review from an industrial ecology perspective. Journal of Industrial Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44498-026-00146-5

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s44498-026-00146-5

Keywords: circular economy, fashion supply chains, cradle-to-cradle, closed-loop systems, industrial ecology, technology readiness levels, textile recycling, textile waste, sustainable fashion, systematic review, extended producer responsibility, policy alignment

The research, led by Cabrera, Ong, Diaz, and colleagues, harnessed the analytical power of Random Forest Classifier (RFC) and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN), two robust machine learning methods that process complex data patterns to extract meaningful insights. These methods allowed for a more precise examination of a variety of variables that together shape consumer behavior towards sustainable apparel. Such an approach represents a novel intersection of environmental psychology, consumer behavior science, and computational data analysis, providing a multidimensional perspective on green consumerism.

Central to the study’s findings was the critical influence of Consumer Perceived Value (CPV) and Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) on individuals’ behavioral intentions. Simply put, when customers recognize significant value in apparel made from recycled plastic, they tend to develop more positive attitudes, which in turn strengthens their intent to purchase. This connection emphasizes that beyond environmental benefits, the perceived personal and functional worth of the product is paramount in shaping consumer preferences. Furthermore, PBC arises when consumers feel confident that their choices genuinely reflect their values, enhancing their sense of agency in promoting sustainability through purchasing decisions.

Another pivotal psychological driver identified was the role of consumer attitude (AT). Positive attitudes towards sustainable products significantly influence actual buying behavior. Consumers who see plastic-based apparel as environmentally responsible and socially commendable are not only willing to embrace these products but also exhibit a readiness to pay a premium for them. This shifts the narrative around sustainability from a constraint or sacrifice to a deliberate and empowered choice, aligning ethical consumption with personal satisfaction and social identity.

The social environment and collective norms further shape purchasing behavior. Social Norms (SN) emerged as a direct and potent force promoting sustainable fashion consumption. When individuals perceive that their peers, communities, or influential figures endorse eco-friendly clothing, they experience a stronger impulse to conform and participate in these behaviors. This social validation mechanism galvanizes wider adoption of sustainable practices, reinforcing the momentum for green consumption as part of a shared societal movement.

Economic factors were also found to exert significant sway on consumer intentions. Perceived Economic Concern (PECC), relating to the monetary implications of choosing sustainable apparel, acts as a pragmatic filter through which environmentally conscious choices are weighed. The intersection of ecology and economy becomes a decisive battleground where consumers balance the desire for sustainability against cost considerations. This insight underscores the need for policy makers and marketers to address affordability and value perception concurrently to foster mass adoption.

A particularly insightful revelation of the study pertains to Perceived Environmental Consumer Concern (PENC). Individuals with heightened environmental awareness prioritize ecological preservation and actively seek solutions that minimize plastic’s detrimental impact on nature. These consumers often regard apparel made from plastics not merely as fashion items but as tangible contributions to environmental remediation efforts. Their personal commitment to reducing ecological footprints amplifies their willingness to support innovative sustainable products, thus driving a virtuous cycle of demand and impact.

Beyond individual attitudes and awareness, the endorsement of sustainable consumption by authoritative sources plays an instrumental role. Perceived Attitudinal Support (PAS), defined as the importance consumers place on the backing of reputable institutions or public figures, was shown to reinforce positive behavioral intentions. The study argues for proactive roles from governments and environmental organizations in championing sustainable apparel, thereby normalizing green consumption and integrating it into mainstream cultural values. Educational attainment was similarly correlated with increased sustainability inclination, suggesting that investment in environmental education can cultivate a more informed, conscientious consumer base ready to lead eco-friendly transformation.

Intriguingly, the research highlights the complex interdependencies among these variables, revealing that all examined factors exceed a significance threshold of 60% in their influence on purchase intentions. This multifaceted framework encapsulates perceived value, behavioral control, attitude, economic concerns, environmental consciousness, and social norms into a cohesive model that deepens the understanding of sustainable consumer behavior. It marks a significant advance in mapping the intricate psychological underpinnings behind the green apparel market’s dynamics.

On a methodological note, the study underscores the emerging potential of machine learning in behavioral research. The successful application of RFC and ANN not only supports data-driven insights but opens pathways for enhanced modeling of consumer patterns. The authors suggest that either MATLAB or Python-based ANN implementations can reliably replicate findings, inviting a broader adoption of computational intelligence tools in sustainability research. This technological shift promises richer, scalable analyses capable of adapting to evolving consumer landscapes.

Looking forward, the researchers acknowledge several limitations that pave the way for further exploration. The predominance of younger respondents, primarily between the ages of 18 and 25, due to data collection via social media platforms, may skew the generalizability of results. Expanding demographic diversity with inclusive sampling techniques could yield more representative insights reflecting wider age and regional spectrums. Additionally, the study’s inability to differentiate between online and offline purchasing behaviors leaves a fertile avenue for deeper examination of channel-specific intentions and influences.

Moreover, the geographic dimension of consumer behavior remains underexplored as respondents were only categorized broadly into rural or urban residences without precise locational data. Future research could leverage geospatial analytics to assess how environmental, cultural, and infrastructural factors in various locales modulate sustainable purchasing decisions. Integrating such granular variables would enrich predictive capabilities and inform localized marketing strategies.

The researchers also emphasize the potential benefit of longitudinal and experimental designs involving pre- and post-purchase evaluations. Such real-world testing would validate model predictions, track behavioral shifts over time, and capture dynamic feedback loops between intention and action. This approach stands to strengthen the predictive power of models and facilitate adaptive interventions aimed at fostering sustainable consumption.

Additionally, the study calls for the incorporation of consumer satisfaction metrics into future research frameworks. Understanding how direct experience with sustainable apparel influences subsequent purchasing behavior could reveal critical retention drivers and brand loyalty mechanisms among environmentally aware consumers. This customer-centric perspective would complement the existing attitudinal and normative constructs, providing a holistic view of eco-conscious market dynamics.

The implications of this research extend across environmental policy, marketing strategies, and product development in the apparel sector. By elucidating the psychological and societal drivers behind purchasing intentions for plastic-based clothing, stakeholders can craft more effective campaigns that resonate with consumers’ values, address economic constraints, and harness social influence. In turn, such informed efforts have the potential to accelerate the transition toward circular fashion economies and mitigate the pervasive problem of plastic waste.

Ultimately, this study represents a pivotal step toward integrating advanced computational tools with the behavioral sciences to tackle pressing sustainability challenges. As awareness about plastic pollution escalates globally, leveraging insights from machine learning-driven analyses will play a crucial role in driving informed consumer choices, supporting eco-friendly innovation, and nurturing a resilient, sustainable fashion future. The plastic-to-apparel narrative not only transforms waste but also redefines consumption ethics for contemporary society.

The fusion of sustainability imperatives with technological innovation reflected in this research offers a blueprint for similar investigations targeting other sectors where consumer behavior intersects with ecological impact. By advancing robust, data-centric models of consumer intention, the scholarly community contributes essential knowledge to spark shifts that extend beyond fashion, encompassing food, energy, transportation, and beyond.

As environmental crises intensify, understanding the human dimension—the attitudes, beliefs, and norms that propel or hinder sustainable practices—becomes indispensable. This study by Cabrera and colleagues signifies a compelling example of how multidisciplinary approaches, empowered by machine learning, can unlock actionable insights. Such research not only influences academic discourse but also shapes real-world policies and commercial strategies geared toward a greener planet.

With the findings presented, industries and governments alike have an evidence-based foundation upon which to build initiatives that empower consumers to make choices aligning with sustainable futures. By championing plastic-to-apparel transformations made discernible through cutting-edge data analysis, the path forward integrates innovation, responsibility, and societal mobilization for meaningful environmental stewardship.

Subject of Research: The study investigates factors influencing consumer behavioral intentions toward purchasing apparel made from recycled plastics, using machine learning methodologies to analyze psychological, social, and economic variables affecting sustainable consumption.

Article Title: Plastic to apparel: an analysis of sustainable purchasing intention using a machine learning ensemble

Article References:

Cabrera, C.A.L., Ong, A.K.S., Diaz, J.F.T. et al. Plastic to apparel: an analysis of sustainable purchasing intention using a machine learning ensemble.
Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 822 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05205-z

Image Credits: AI Generated