Public Perceptions of Circular Economy in Latvia: Insights for Municipal Governance

Abstract

The circular economy (CE) supports sustainable development through local action, with municipalities playing a central role in governance, service provision, and citizen involvement. This paper presents a systemic analysis of public attitudes, behaviours, and perceptions related to CE, aiming to identify governance gaps and recommend strategies to align implementation with societal needs. Data was collected through a survey across five consumption categories: food, textiles, plastics, electronics, and mobility. The findings indicated that the public is generally willing to adopt circular practices provided adequate services are available. The study applied the 10R framework to categorize circular strategies and mapped services to these relevant governance instruments: infrastructure, economic and planning instruments, education and information, and collaboration. A document analysis of multi-level governance frameworks further contextualized the results. A polarized engagement pattern emerged: preventive strategies like Reduce and Repair are supported by both public behaviour and municipal services, while end-of-pipe approaches such as Recycling and Landfilling continue to dominate. In contrast, mid-level strategies (Reuse, Refurbish, Remanufacture, and Repurpose) are significantly underrepresented. This gap highlights a critical shortfall in governance and service provisioning. The study concludes that advancing CE requires targeted interventions in infrastructure, improved access to circular services, and greater public awareness to enable broader participation.

1. Introduction

It is a globally acknowledged fact that the world is facing a triple planetary crisis: climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution [1]. Natural resources form the foundation of economies and societies, making their sustainable use essential for addressing poverty and inequality. They also play a critical role in the transition to climate-neutral or net-zero economies [1]. However, a growing population, rising living standards, and an increasingly resource-intensive global economy are driving higher levels of natural resource consumption and waste generation, intensifying pressures on natural systems and exacerbating the triple planetary crisis, while progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) remains off track [1]. Barriers to sustainable resource use include economic lock-ins, weak institutions and fragmented governance, resource-intensive consumption models, inadequate infrastructure for sustainable lifestyles, skills gaps, and knowledge constraints [1].

In this context, improving resource efficiency and stimulating the transition towards a more circular economy (CE) has become crucial [2]. A CE offers a pathway to reduce resource pressures while advancing the SDGs.

Practical applications of the CE concept to modern economic systems and industrial processes, however, have gained momentum since the late 1970s as a result of the efforts of a small number of academics, leaders, and businesses [3]. There is no one uniform definition of a CE [4]. Nowadays, the CE concept is framed as a transformative model aimed at economic gains from the efficient use of resources through waste minimisation, long-term value retention, a reduction in primary resources, and closed loops of products, product parts, and materials within the limits of environmental protection and socioeconomic benefits [5]. However, it is essential to focus not only on measures on the supply (production) side of these systems but also on the demand (consumption) side [1].

The CE highlights multiple paths to attain sustainable development (SD) [6]. It represents a new socio-economic paradigm. The deeply embedded culture of consumerism in contemporary social norms underscores the urgent need for a shift in values, attitudes, and behaviours toward circularity [7]. The transition to the CE is also a profound socio-technological transformation where the linear production structures, business models, products, and consumption practices shall undergo a fundamental change to more circular modes of production and consumption. Such shifts may have significant impacts on people’s lives and well-being [8].

The stakeholder theory emphasizes the importance of involving various stakeholders in the transition towards a CE [9]. Social change, education, public participation, and supportive regulatory policies are critical enablers in this process [2,9,10]. The systemic barriers for broader societal engagement are limited access to circular services and infrastructure, knowledge gaps, and skills for circular lifestyles [1,11,12].

Scholarly discourse on CE remains dominated by science, technology, and business perspectives, while the social and institutional dimensions of CE are comparatively underexplored [6,12,13,14]. The current emphasis of the CE on economic actors and environmental efficiency may overlook societal needs, posing risks to achieving the inclusive and socially just outcomes central to the core principles of the SDGs. The roles of actors in moving towards a CE have not been formalized in the literature, and companies are often expected to drive this transition [4]. Very few papers address the role of local governments in CE [15,16] despite their responsibility for implementing key policies in areas such as waste management, water use, land planning, and maintaining direct connections with both citizens and local businesses. The influence of local governance structures, processes, and stakeholders on CE implementation and on the broader transition to sustainable socio-technical systems remains insufficiently understood. There is a notable lack of research examining CE at the micro level, particularly within households and individual behaviour. As a step toward addressing this gap, this paper focuses on the under-explored micro level. The broader aim of the study is to identify gaps in existing circular practices and services, and to formulate recommendations for aligning CE implementation at the municipal level with societal needs. The research framework is structured across three interconnected governance levels: micro; meso; and supra-meso. The paper focuses on the micro-level component that enhances understanding of how individuals and households in Latvia relate to CE. It examines self-perceived knowledge, behavioural practices, and public perceptions of local circular services.

The study addresses the following research questions: What are the public’s attitudes, behaviours, and perceived needs regarding the CE at the municipal level, and what governance strategies are needed to support and strengthen public engagement?

2. Multi-Level Policy Framework Overview

Multi-level governance theory highlights the importance of consistent policy aims across different governance levels and sectors [17,18]. It entails delegating power to supra-national bodies, developing subnational infrastructures, and adopting new policy instruments at the national level, often through partnerships with private actors [18].

The overall study presents a multi-level research design developed to explore the implementation of a CE. The following policy document analysis identifies the external drivers shaping the municipal activities in the transition to a CE.

2.1. Global and the European Union Level

At the global level, the United Nations’ (UN) SDGs framework plays a pivotal role in shaping policies across all governance levels. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is key document to guide the process. Still, the 2025 progress assessment reveals that the world remains far off track from achieving the 2030 Agenda and SDGs [19].

The core concepts of the CE intersect with and contribute to the achievement of several SDGs. The strongest relationships exist between CE practices and the targets of SDG 6 (Clean water and sanitation), SDG 7 (Affordable and clean energy), SDG 8 (Decent work and economic growth), SDG 12 (Responsible consumption and production), and SDG 15 (Life on land) [20]. UN report [19] also highlights relevant links to SDG 2 (Zero hunger), SDG 9 (Industry, innovation, and infrastructure), and SDG 11 (Sustainable cities and communities).

Between 2019 and 2025, data shows encouraging progress on many SDGs, with the most advancement in CE-related goals such as SDG 7, SDG 11, and SDG 12 [19]. However, persistent gaps remain in food systems (SDG 2) and water management (SDG 6), where CE approaches offer untapped potential. Achieving SDG 11 also requires more inclusive and participatory governance. Integrated strategies that combine infrastructure, finance, and citizen engagement are essential to building inclusive, resilient societies.

At the European Union (EU) level, the shift toward CE is marked with the 2015 Circular Economy Action Plan (CEAP), which has positioned waste as a resource central to the CE model [21]. The 2019 European Green Deal (EGD) reinforces the CE agenda by framing it as a pathway to climate neutrality [22]. The CEAP of 2020 [23], a core pillar of the EGD, targets resource-intensive sectors with high circularity potential, including electronics, plastics, food, and textiles. Relevant to that, the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) sets progressive recycling targets for municipal waste: 55% by 2025, 60% by 2030, and 65% by 2035 [24]. Since 2024, the separate collection of bio-waste has been mandatory; however, binding targets for bio-waste are still missing [25]. The Landfill Directive complements this framework by restricting the landfilling of recyclable or recoverable waste from 2030 and capping municipal waste sent to landfills at 10% by 2035 [26].

To address unsustainable textile production and consumption in the EU [27], the 2022 EU Strategy for Sustainable and Circular Textiles [28] has introduced measures to make textile products more durable, repairable, and recyclable. Among the new requirements are targets for textile collection [29].

Notably, the 8th Environmental Action Programme (2022), building on the EGD, reinforces integrated policy across all levels of governance and sectoral collaboration [30].

Regardless of these policy efforts, the volume of household waste generated in the EU does not show a stable downward trend [31]. The municipal waste generation has risen from 481 kg to 511 kg per capita by 2023, indicating that the implementation of CEAPs has yet to drive significant changes in consumption and production patterns.

However, municipal waste recycling rates in the EU have shown a steady rise since 2015, reaching nearly 50% by 2022. Given the limited time before the 2025 target, the European Commission has issued the Waste Early Warning Report in 2023 [32], identifying eight countries, including Latvia, at risk of missing the municipal waste target. In waste streams with longer-standing policies, such as electrical and electronic waste, progress is more consistent. For example, the EU recycling rate for separately collected electrical and electronic equipment remains stable at around 80%.

2.2. National and Regional Level

The sustainable use of natural resources is one of the key strategic priorities defined in Latvia’s Sustainable Development Strategy until 2030, the highest-level long-term planning document [33]. Medium-term priorities are set out in the National Development Plan of Latvia (NDP) for 2021–2027 [34] and sectoral policies. These policy documents are instrumental in setting investment priorities essential for the country’s transition to a CE.

Aiming to promote low-carbon, resource-efficient, and climate-resilient development, the NDP allocates a total of €1370.45 million to priority measures: promoting the efficient use of local resources based on eco-design and CE principles; reducing the volume of generated and landfilled waste while increasing the share of recycled and recovered materials with a focus on biodegradable waste; and encouraging change in public behaviour and habits through awareness-raising initiatives.

The State Waste Management Plan (including the Waste Prevention Programme) [35] and the Action Plan for the Transition to a Circular Economy [36] provide a complementary policy framework and quantitative targets guiding the country’s transition to a CE—as illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

Key governance instruments supporting the CE are the natural resources tax (NRT) and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), both stipulated in the Natural Resource Tax (NRT) law [37]. To support the transition to CE and prevent the loss of valuable resources, the NRT for landfilling non-hazardous municipal waste has gradually increased from €12 per ton in 2016 to €120 per ton by 2025. This policy aims to discourage landfilling, promote waste prevention, and incentivize the recovery and reuse of materials.

Complementing this, economic instruments are introduced to motivate citizens and businesses to adopt circular practices. To encourage source separation of bio-waste, municipalities are required to reduce the collection fee for biological waste to 60% of the fee for mixed municipal waste. Additionally, EPR schemes are in place for vehicles, packaging (excluding deposit packaging), and environmentally harmful goods, including electronics, and, since 2024, for textiles. These measures aim not only to ensure the collection and proper treatment of waste from hazardous goods, but also to engage citizens more actively in recycling systems by making producers responsible for the end-of-life management of their products. Moreover, EPR schemes are intended to divert waste from landfilling and reduce reliance on complex separation technologies by promoting more efficient and source-based waste sorting.

Two high-profile assessments, the 2023 Waste Early Warning report [32] and the OECD’s 2019 Environmental Performance Review for Latvia [38], identify shortcomings in waste management and, consequently, in the implementation of a CE in Latvia. A slight upward trend in volumes of generated municipal waste in Latvia, from 404 kg per capita in 2015 to 464 kg in 2022 [31], further underscores these concerns.

With the restructured waste management system replacing the previous model of 10 WMRs (each linked to a landfill) with five WMRs in 2023, the country aims to better address these problems. Each WMR is required to prepare a regional waste management plan. The plan defines the infrastructure, governance mechanisms, and stakeholder collaboration necessary to support the implementation of national waste targets and promote the CE at the regional level. Municipalities are shareholders in these regional entities and participate in the operation of regional waste management centres.

The online platform “skiroviegli.lv” (in English, “Sort Easy” (accessed on 20 August 2025), run by the State Environmental Service, is a useful digital tool that improves access to information on the locations of public waste infrastructure. By making such information easily accessible, the platform facilitates public engagement in proper waste sorting and recycling. The platform is regularly updated by waste managers and operators, ensuring the most up-to-date information and complementing local and regional information efforts carried out through business. All these efforts are aimed at better informing citizens and encouraging active participation in waste management practices.

2.3. Local (Municipal) Level

Local level governance in Latvia is a one-tier system. The 2021 Administrative Territorial Reform has reduced the number of local governments from 119 to 42, classifying them into state city governments and municipality governments (in Latvian, “novads”).

The Local Government Law defines municipal autonomous functions [39]. Some of them are, in principle, relevant to the implementation of CE. Municipalities are responsible for organizing municipal waste management services for all inhabitants, ensuring the improvement and cleanliness of their territories and promoting healthy lifestyles. They are tasked with facilitating the sustainable management of natural capital and contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation. In addition, the law allows municipalities to voluntarily implement initiatives in the interests of their residents, thereby offering opportunities to pilot and experiment with CE-related ideas.

The Waste Management Law [40] stipulates that municipalities shall:

• Develop a regional (or individual) waste management plan;
• Issue binding regulations, including for the waste collection, sorting, separate waste collection, and payments for waste management;
• Organize separate waste collection and promote the active involvement of inhabitants in waste prevention and waste sorting by organizing educational events;
• Select a waste management operator for collection services through public procurement or public–private partnerships;
• Make decisions on placing new waste infrastructure objects.

National frameworks foresee the involvement of municipalities in implementing several key measures relevant to the transition to a CE. These include support for circular business models, promotion of social innovation and entrepreneurship, particularly in repair services, and vocational education and lifelong learning for CE-related skills.

Municipalities are also expected to contribute to behavioural change regarding food consumption through education and information campaigns, facilitate food redistribution systems in collaboration with social enterprises, and support efforts to reduce textile and furniture waste by encouraging reuse and recycling.

However, the mechanisms for implementing these tasks remain largely undefined. To date, the only specified approaches include strengthening municipal capacities to integrate CE principles into green public procurement and urban planning, primarily through informational events and limited financial support for pilot projects, particularly those fostering industrial symbiosis.

More broadly, municipalities are expected to act as key partners in public awareness campaigns aimed at transforming consumption behaviours and in disseminating best practices and lessons learned from pilot initiatives.

Table 1. The roles in multi-level CE governance in the context of Latvia.

Governance Level	Key Roles
European Union	Develops overarching policy frameworks and legislation; Harmonizes standards across the single market; Provides financing programmes for implementing policies; Establishes monitoring and compliance mechanisms.
National government	Defines national priorities and policy objectives; Transposes EU legislation into national legislation; Sets implementation requirements through policy instruments; Allocates public financing and sets investment priorities.
Regional waste entities	Adapt national policies to regional contexts through planning; Coordinate with local stakeholders and municipalities; Facilitate stakeholder engagement and awareness-raising; Ensure effective infrastructure and technologies; Promote circular symbiosis and inter-municipal collaboration.
Local governments	Conduct local sustainable development and sectoral planning; Develop municipal binding regulations, incl. waste management; Implement green public procurement for waste services; Manage on-the-ground implementation, including infrastructure; Engage with communities and support grassroots initiatives.

summarizes the responsibilities under a multi-level governance system.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Design

While the micro-level analysis forms the empirical basis of the paper, it is conceptually embedded within the broader research framework (Figure 3) structured across three interconnected governance levels: (1) micro—individual and household engagement with CE practices; (2) meso—practical manifestations and contextual factors influencing CE at the municipal level; and (3) supra-meso—regional dynamics within selected WMRs, including perspectives from institutions and the business sector.

A quantitative social survey was conducted to capture micro (individual) level data. The research was conducted in two stages. Stage I, a pilot phase, was conducted over a two-week period in autumn 2024 and involved students from two university faculties participating in the course “Environmental Protection” under the theme “Waste management and CE.” The pilot aimed to test the questionnaire’s clarity and structure. A total of 52 responses were collected electronically from all respondents involved in the study. The questionnaire was administered in the Latvian language.

Stage II, the primary data collection phase, was carried out in spring 2025 using a Computer-Assisted Web Interviewing (CAWI) method. The questionnaire was created using Microsoft Forms, allowing seamless data export to Excel for analysis. A QR code, in conjunction with a link, was deemed to be a user-oriented approach.

This paper focuses on the results of Stage II, supplemented by selected insights from Stage I to triangulate interpretations and support reliability assessment.

3.2. The Survey Instrument and Its Reliability

The questionnaire was organized into sections to guide respondents through the instrument in a structured manner. A total of twenty-three questions and 128 sub-questions underscore the comprehensive and in-depth nature of this exploratory study (

Table 2. The structure of the questionnaire.

Section	Questions Q, Options	Number of Q	Plastics (Q5, 6)	Textiles (Q7, 8)	Electronics (Q9, 10)	Mobility (Q11, 12)	Food (Q13, 14)
Knowledge self- assessment	Q1	1	-	-	-	-	-
Competence spheres	Q2 (8)	1	-	-	-	-	-
Governance levels	Q3 (6)	1	-	-	-	-	-
Sources of knowledge	Q4 (14)	1	-	-	-	-	-
Circular practices	Q5, 7, 9, 11, 13	55	10	12	15	6	12
Circular services	Q6, 8, 12, 14	60	10	12	13	14	11
Motivation	Q15 (10)	1	-	-	-	-	-
Socio-demography	Q16–22 (7)	7	-	-	-	-	-
Impact	Q23	1	-	-	-	-	-

).

The survey included closed-ended questions, multiple-choice items, and evaluation options based on a 5-point Likert scale. The questionnaire for Stage II was simplified and standardized compared to Stage I. In Stage I, the Likert scale categories were nuanced to account for importance, agreement, frequency, and satisfaction. For Stage II they were reduced to importance (“Not at all important” to “Necessary”) and frequency (“Never” to “Almost every time”). The experience from the pilot phase necessitated this simplification, although this imposed constraints on the use of data from both surveys into a cohesive data set.

The survey started with an introductory note explaining the aim and the anonymity issue. The initial section invited respondents to self-evaluate their understanding of a CE, followed by sections on their competence across material categories (8 options) and identified sources of knowledge (14 options), perceived success of governance efforts (at 6 levels), and motivations for implementing (10 options). The socio-demographic section captured respondents’ details: gender, age, education, residence, and income data.

Other questions were divided into sections according to five material categories:

• Plastic-containing household items (kitchen utensils, furniture, toys, sporting goods);
• Textile items (clothing, footwear, accessories, kitchen textiles, textile furniture);
• Electrical and electronic appliances and instruments used in everyday life;
• Mobility (means of transportation, organization of public mobility);
• Food consumption.

These categories were selected based on their prioritization in the CEAP [23]. The mobility sector was included as it encompassed numerous circular practices [41].

Within each material category, respondents were asked to assess the frequency of their engagement in different circular practices and evaluate the importance of circular services deemed necessary at the local level for better involvement of people in the CE.

A total of 55 circular practices and 60 services were identified based on findings from various sources, including policy documents, project reports, and the websites of leading organizations, while also considering the national context. To facilitate comparison across categories, the formulations were standardized.

The internal consistency of the survey instrument was evaluated using Cronbach’s Alpha. The survey achieved a high overall reliability score of α = 0.9746, indicating strong consistency across all items. When analyzed by thematic domains, behaviour-related items (assessing frequency of circular economy practices) yielded a high reliability of α = 0.982, while service evaluation items (assessing perceived importance of circular services) also showed excellent consistency (α = 0.979). Despite earlier subgroup-level variation, particularly lower alpha values in behavioural subcategories such as mobility (α = 0.14) and food (α = 0.17), the final domain-level alpha values suggested that both behavioural and services evaluative components reliably measure the intended constructs.

This supported the survey’s credibility and suitability for exploratory analysis in the CE research context.

3.3. Development of an Analytical Tool Using the 10R Approach

The Dutch-established 10 R framework is among the widely accepted frameworks of circularity strategies [42]. It includes R0 (Refuse), R1 (Rethink), R2 (Reduce), R3 (Reuse), R4 (Repair), R5 (Refurbish), R6 (Remanufacture), R7 (Repurpose), R8 (Recycle), and R9 (Recover).

In this study, each circular practice was mapped to an R strategy, ranging from R0 (Refuse) to R10 (Landfill). This effort was informed by the literature [5,43,44,45] and supported by the author’s expert knowledge, developed over ten years of professional experience at the Ministry of Environment and Regional Development of Latvia.

The primary criterion for mapping was the impact of activity on material circularity. For example, social services coordinating the donation of used goods and charity were classified under R3 (Reuse). However, in the food category, similar services were mapped to R2 (Reduce), reflecting their primary impact on minimizing food waste. Another example included self-service options in the electronics category and car-sharing and micro-mobility services in the mobility category. These were mapped to the R1 (Rethink) strategy, highlighting their role in encouraging shifts in user behaviour and promoting the rethinking of conventional consumption patterns toward more sustainable alternatives. Avoiding spontaneous purchases was also classified differently for textiles (R0 (Avoid)) and for electronics (R2 (Reduce)) if postponing high-cost acquisitions tended to reduce consumption rather than eliminate it entirely. Linear economy option R10 (Landfill and recovery) was included in the survey as a typical one in the Latvian context.

On the contrary, R5 (Refurbish), R6 (Remanufacture), and R7 (Repurpose) activities were not included as such practices hardly existed. Some of the activities representing specific governance elements were labelled ‘G.’ These services were seen as complementary horizontal instruments for the CE policies and strategies implementation.

The results of the mapping are presented in Appendix A.

The distribution of survey questions across 10R strategies, as illustrated in the charts of Figure 4, reflected an imbalance in the survey design toward strategies of R2 (Reduce) and R3 (Reuse) as those are more frequently used in Latvia. Data normalization was applied when comparing across R strategies. Meanwhile, the distribution of questions across material categories was kept balanced, except for mobility, where practices were limited.

3.4. Sampling: Respondent Group Characterization

A convenience sampling strategy was employed. The survey was made available to the public. As participation in the online survey was voluntary and not randomly selected, the resulting sample was not statistically representative of the broader population. The study initially aimed to collect a minimum of 100 responses, with an optimistic goal of reaching 300. To enhance voluntary respondents’ engagement, a variety of channels were employed: social platforms (LinkedIn and Facebook), a network of professionals, scientific conferences, and a faculty’s information board.

Despite these efforts, only 54 questionnaires were submitted.

The group was dominated by women (72%). The majority (81%) fell into the category of economically active, aged 26–65 years, and 46% belonged to the 45–65 age group. Around 17% of all respondents were young people under twenty-five. The education level of the respondents was high, with 85% holding a higher education or doctoral degree. Geographically, 67% of respondents were from the capital city of Riga and the surrounding Pieriga region, with the remainder from four other planning regions. Most respondents (74%) lived in cities, predominantly Riga. Regarding housing, 56% resided in flats, 34% in private houses, and some in student dormitories. According to 2024 statistics, the average monthly salary in Latvia was 1685 euros. About one third (31%) of the respondents earned above this average, while another 31% earned significantly less.

Socio-economic characteristics of the group are illustrated in Appendix B.

In the Stage I group (N = 52), the dominant socio-demographic features were similar: 77% were women, 52% aged between 25 and 45 years, 90% had higher education, and 45% reported a relatively high monthly income (over 1500 euros per household member), and 46% lived in flats. 21% were young respondents. These similarities justified the complementary use of data for validating findings across the two samples.

4. Results and Analysis

4.1. Respondents’ Knowledge of CE

The mean score for respondents’ self-assessed understanding of the CE topic in general was 6.2 on a 10-point scale, where ‘1’ represented ‘No knowledge’ and ‘10’ represented ‘In-depth/expert knowledge’ (Figure 5a). For the Stage I respondent group (N = 52), the mean score was slightly lower at 5.65. These findings suggested that the respondents’ self-perceived knowledge was moderately satisfactory.

Respondents indicated that they were most knowledgeable about plastic packaging (65%), followed by textiles (57%) and electrical and electronic household appliances (54%), while knowledge on construction materials containing plastics lagged significantly behind (11%). (Figure 5b). This likely reflected the greater public exposure to the information on these materials in media and policy narratives.

4.2. Respondents’ Views on CE Governance

The data suggested that various information channels were complementary to serve as sources for knowledge about the CE (Figure 6a). Many respondents identified waste managers (48%) and NGOs or activist groups (41%) as key sources. Individual or self-directed learning (41%) also emerged as a critical driver of awareness, a finding supported by Stage I results (67%). Participation in projects focused on sharing best practices was another source for raising awareness.

Notably, informal communication channels, such as mass media, social networks, and personal conversations, played a larger role in shaping understanding than public sector efforts. Activities by municipalities and the state received the lowest recognition, at around 10%. The contribution of other businesses, including retailers who influence consumption behaviour, was considered limited (13%).

Further on, when asked to assess the success of various stakeholders’ efforts towards CE in the multi-level governance system, the household/individual practices received the most criticism in 65% of responses, closely followed by critique of national (61%) and municipal (56%) governments (Figure 6b). This was consistent with the views on the CE information sources. The EU was perceived as the most successful actor within the CE governance; however, this perception did not extend to the EU’s role in informing.

Concluding, the responses indicated moderate levels of respondent group dissatisfaction with CE governance at national and municipal levels.

4.3. Respondent Motivations to Engage in Circular Activities

As shown in Figure 7, the top motivations for environmentally friendly consumption cited by most respondents were concerns about personal health and a healthy lifestyle, followed by climate and environmental concerns, and, finally, economic interests, primarily saving money. Social factors ranked low in priority. Interestingly, despite positive attitudes toward participation and networking as sources of CE knowledge, these factors did not emerge as significant motivators for engagement.

4.4. Respondents’ Engagement in Circular Practices

This section summarizes the findings from the analysis of 55 circular practices using a data aggregation approach.

The ‘positive response’ group includes the options ‘Always,’ ‘Often,’ and ‘Sometimes.’ Importantly, practices that lead to R10 (Landfilling) were excluded as they represent a reverse logic in the context of circularity.

The following equation was applied:

$$Share of positive responses in category c = \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\sum }_{i=1}^N{p}_{ic}\right)\times 100,$$

(1)

where N = number of respondents; c ∈ {1,2,3,4,5} index for categories (plastic, textile, food, electronic, mobility); p_i,c ∈{0,1} binary indicator (1, respondent i gave a positive response in category c; 0 otherwise).

The results showed that across all categories and practices, over half of the responses (54%) indicated positive engagement in circular behaviours. The highest levels of engagement were observed in textiles (61%), followed by plastics (57%), food (54%), and electronics (52%), while mobility showed significantly lower engagement at 34%. However, the share of ‘strictly positive’ responses, interpreted as strong commitment or high-frequency behaviours (‘Always’ or ‘Often’), was notably lower, at just 34%. Within this ‘strongly committed’ group, the highest levels of engagement were reported in the food category (40%), followed by textiles (38%), then electrics (34%) and plastics (31%).

Due to the specific characteristics of the mobility category, comparing it with the other categories was a challenging task. The implementation of the sharing (transport co-usage at the family level, renting from Bolt, City Bee or sharing platforms) indicated a deviation from the results in other categories, reaching 20% of high frequency responses.

Among the ‘positive response’ group, the three most frequently reported circular practices in the categories of plastics, textiles, and electronics were: (1) avoiding unsustainable purchases; (2) donating unused items to charity or friends; and (3) using repair or mending services. In the food category, the top practices differed and included (1) thoughtful purchasing; (2) proper food storage; and (3) using leftovers in meal preparation. Each of these six practices accounted for 10% to 16% of all ‘positive responses’ within their respective material categories. In contrast, food donation was rarely practiced, with only 2% reporting it.

Regarding non-circular practices, the activity of disposing of unnecessary or broken items and leftover food in household waste containers was marked as a high-frequency behaviour in 35% of responses (excluding the mobility category). Further analysis revealed that the highest share of responses indicating engagement in discarding practices was in the plastics category (41%), followed by food (30%), textiles (24%), and electronics (11%). High-frequency responses in this practice analysis highlighted implementation gaps in the waste management system.

4.5. Respondents’ Views on Circular Services

Since the survey of Stage II did not address satisfaction with or availability of circular services (topics covered in Stage I), selected findings from Stage I were used to support the interpretation. Practices from Stage I were carefully selected to align as closely as possible with the service formulations in Stage II. However, comparisons across categories were limited due to variations in Likert scale options used in both surveys.

Despite this, the results provided valuable, comparable insights into citizens’ perspectives due to the shared conceptual approach and respondent profiles.

The findings indicate that negative attitudes (dissatisfaction) toward circular services prevail across all material categories. The electronics category shows the best situation (Figure 8a).

In the food category (Figure 8b), 78% of respondents expressed dissatisfaction with services. Similarly, in textiles, the majority reported negative experiences. 57% were dissatisfied with services (Figure 8c), and 52% were dissatisfied with their availability (Figure 8d). A notably high percentage of ‘don’t know’ responses were also given in this category: 42% were unaware of DIY workshops and 28% were unfamiliar with separate collection services for textiles. This suggests either a lack of services or insufficient information. In contrast, in the electronics category, 91% of respondents expressed satisfaction with services.

The data on plastics were not provided, as the questions were asked only about sorting. But, according to respondents, the most common household items containing plastic were electrical/electronic equipment and kitchenware, which were typically discarded in unsorted municipal waste containers. Additionally, 67% noted the absence of containers in their area for the donation of household plastic items for reuse by others.

4.6. Prioritization of Circular Services

During the Stage II survey, a total of 60 services were surveyed. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of having services across five material categories using a five-point scale, ranging from ‘Absolutely necessary’ to ‘Not important at all.’

To prioritize the services across all categories, a multi-step approach was employed.

First, we calculated the number of ‘positive responses’ for each service. Then we counted the number of ‘strictly positive’ responses (‘Absolutely necessary’, ‘Very important’). Next, for each service, we summarized and combined the counts of ‘positive’ and ‘strictly positive’ responses to create a ‘priority score’ for each circular service.

This method allowed for prioritization among services that received the same number of ‘positive responses’.

The equation used was as follows:

$${Priority score}_{j,c}=P_{j,c}+S_{j,c}$$

(2)

where P_jc = number of positive responses (‘Absolutely necessary’, ‘Very important’, ‘Moderately important’); S_jc = number of strictly positive responses (‘Absolutely necessary,’ ‘Very important’); c ∈ {1,2,3,4,5} index for categories; j ∈ {1,2… 60} index for services.

Using the priority score, the five services in each category that received the highest cumulative level of positive feedback (priority score) were selected. This process resulted in a list of twenty-four top-priority services.

As the next step, services with similar functional roles were grouped into clusters. To compare, each priority service was given the same weight. In total, six main clusters were created: (1) infrastructure, (2) cooperation between municipalities and stakeholders, (3) support for entrepreneurship, (4) repair services, (5) donation collection campaigns, (6) economic incentives and social services aimed at encouraging circular behaviours and coordinating charitable activities. Services specific to the food category (such as support for local farmers’ produce and food markets) and those unique to mobility (such as well-maintained green areas for leisure and support for community-based transport-on-demand services) were not clustered due to their category-specific nature. Likewise, material exchange points, as they were high-scoring only within the plastics category, were left separate. Figure 9 presents the results of prioritization and clustering.

The findings indicated that across all material categories, two clusters of services consistently emerged as priorities: (1) infrastructure improvements (separate waste collection systems and public transport or cycling networks) and (2) cooperation between municipalities and other stakeholders.

To interpret the results, ‘priority scored’ services were grouped into three perceived impact levels: low (below 40% of responses), moderate (40–60%), and high (above 60%). These levels were used in the text to reflect the perceived necessity, significance, or public support for each service, depending on the context.

From this perspective, stakeholders’ cooperation was classified as a high-significance, municipality-steered activity in the categories of plastics, mobility, and food, and as moderately important in the electronics category. Public infrastructure supporting circular practices was ranked as a high-necessity service across all categories. There was a particularly strong demand for improved infrastructure for separate plastic waste collection, such as dedicated containers and collection points, as well as for high-quality public transport infrastructure in the mobility category, with emphasis on accessibility, convenience, connectivity, and integrated ticketing.

In terms of economic instruments, respondents assigned moderate importance to economic incentives for encouraging citizen participation in circular practices. Slightly higher perceived necessity was reported in the food category, where reduced tariffs for separate food waste collection served as an example. There was also moderate interest in municipal support for business initiatives, including models of social entrepreneurship.

Support for repair services varied across categories, ranking high in electronics but only moderate in others. Interest in courses and workshops teaching practical skills for item transformation was low across all categories, with moderate interest observed in the mobility category, particularly for DIY initiatives like “Repair Your Bike Yourself!”.

In the electronics category, respondents were asked about the need for coworking workshops or co-recreation spaces where equipment or tools could be used on-site for free or a small fee. Responses indicated only moderate interest in these services.

Overall, these findings suggested limited public willingness to engage in repair activities, reflecting a low personal intention to undertake such efforts.

Next, regarding the role of social services in coordinating donations, overall support was moderate. However, expectations were higher in the electronics category, likely due to the more frequent replacement of electronic items in households and a readiness to give them away. Since most respondents represented well-situated urban dwellers, they might be unaware of the functions of municipal social services.

Finally, data on public awareness-raising efforts, specifically information and educational initiatives by stakeholders, including municipalities, businesses, and NGOs, showed the highest perceived need in the plastics category. In other categories, the need was moderate, with businesses and NGOs also seen as playing a moderately key role.

4.7. The 10R Framework Analysis

Given that the number of questions in each of the material categories differed, a data normalization method was used.

The equation used was as follows:

$$Share of Pc=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{N\times q_c}}{\sum }_{i=1}^N{\sum }_{j=1}^{q_c}{p}_{i,j}^{\left(c\right)}\right)\times 100$$

(3)

where N = number of respondents; C = 5 = number of material categories (plastic, textile, electronic, mobility, food); c ∈ {1,2,3,4,5}, index for categories; q_c = number of questions in category c; p_i,j^(c) ∈ {0,1}, response of respondent i to question j in category c, where j = 1, …, q_c.

Figure 10 presents the distribution of ‘positive responses’ (‘Always,’ ‘Often,’ and ‘Sometimes’) about circular practices across R strategies.

In the food category, the highest share of circular practices occurred in R2 (Reduce) strategy-guided practices. Making environmentally conscious choices in food consumption by purchasing food thoughtfully, storing it properly to reduce spoilage, and repurposing leftovers in meal preparation minimizes food waste. On the contrary, 43% of respondents reported throwing away food waste (going to Landfilling—R10), indicating it as a typical practice. Approximately one-third (31%) engaged in food waste recycling, either through individual composting or by using designated containers (‘brown containers’ in Latvia), aligning with the R8 (Recycling). Given that 44% of respondents resided in private houses that usually have some private land and gardening activities, composting for soil improvement was a widespread practice, particularly in rural areas.

In the electronics category, support of behaviours aligned with the R2 (Reduce) strategy by avoiding unnecessary purchases was the highest (91%) among all categories. By refraining from buying non-essential items, consumers help reduce the demand for materials, energy, and manufacturing, thereby lowering the environmental footprint across the entire lifecycle of electronic equipment. The next most supported strategy was R4 (Repair), with 73% of responses, which underscores the importance of extending product lifespan for reducing waste. Support for the R8 (Recycling) type of activity from 72% of respondents could be higher, given Latvia’s well-developed and free household electronic waste collection system. This suggests that behavioural norms, rather than infrastructure, could be the limiting factor in participation.

In the textiles category, the R0 (Avoid) strategy was adopted by 96% of respondents, who reported that they avoided spontaneous purchases and bought only necessary things, reflecting an environmentally sound approach. Limiting textile acquisitions to necessary items involved actively choosing not to engage in consumption that could lead to unnecessary resource use and waste. This was followed by preferences for R2 (Reduce) and R4 (Repair) strategies, collecting similar levels of support (81%).

In the plastics category, practices in R2 (Reduce) received the highest support (76%), likely driven by the respondents’ environmental consciousness about the impact of plastics. This was consistent with the motivations, where environmental concerns ranked high. R4 (Repair) strategies collected a similar level of support. There was strong support (72%) for R8 (Recycling), as respondents were favourable towards disposing of plastic waste in plastic packaging containers, expecting that these items would be recycled afterwards.

In the mobility sector, unsustainable consumption was prevalent, with a high share (69%) of fossil fuel car use, classified as an R10 strategy, the most environmentally harmful option. This was offset by practices aligned with the R0 strategy, as 62% of respondents reported daily use of bicycles and car sharing with family or friends for commuting to school or work. Figure 11 presents the result of applying the 10R framework.

Figure 11a illustrates that the most needed services (the six highest-scored priorities) fall under the R3 (Reuse) strategy, with the strongest demand for reuse services in textiles and electronics. The next strongest is the R2 (Reduce) strategy, where the food category leads with three services, followed by plastics with two services.

The need for improvements in R8 (Recycle) strategy services was emphasized across all categories, except mobility. Across all categories, there was a strong requirement for better governance (G), particularly through enhanced municipal collaboration with stakeholders. A need for further service improvements was also identified in the R4 (Repair) strategy, especially for plastics and electronics.

In the mobility sector, the need for R0 (Avoid) and R1 (Rethink) strategies was related to improvements in public transport infrastructure and safe cycling infrastructure. Both these strategies ranked high towards circularity, as they reflected a shift in mobility.

The widest range of R strategies and types of services was reported in the electronics category (Figure 11b). Out of five priority services, two fell under R3, and one under each of Governance (G), R8, and R4. In other categories, the priorities were the following: for textiles—R3, G, and R8; mobility—R3, G, and joint R1-R0 (with a strong link to infrastructure needs); plastics—G, R8, and R4; and in the food category—G and R8 strategies.

Overall, this prioritization revealed those R strategies where services were perceived as the most critical for engaging the citizens. Those were the following: R3 (Reuse), R2 (Reduce), R8 (Recycle), and G (Governance), which must be paid attention to by municipalities.

4.8. Mapping Circular Services to Governance Instruments

Table 3. Mapping circular services to the governance instruments.

Instrument Groups	Circular Services	Importance Level *
		L	Ml	M	Mh	Hm	H
Infrastructure instruments	Separate waste collection infrastructure						x
	Campaigns for the collection of electronics						x
	Public transport and cycling infrastructure						x
	Repair services				x
	Self-service services		x
	Micro-mobility transport rental services		x
	Co-operation among stakeholders						x
Collaboration instruments	Collection campaigns of goods for donation						x
	Social services coordinating donations			x
	Second-hand markets, ‘swapping’ events		x
	People-to-people material exchange points				x
	Coworking space for sharing tools		x
	Motivating incentives for citizens				x
	Support for local farmers and markets				x
Economic instruments	Support for transport-on-demand					x
	Support for social and other entrepreneurs			x
	Support for households for composting			x
	Measures to promote healthy lifestyles					x
Education and information	Informative and educational events			x
	DIY and similar initiatives to learn skills		x
	Courses for learning repair skills	x
Planning	Public green space for healthy leisure activities						x

* Importance levels were established during previous steps of the analysis. L—low importance level, M—moderate, H—high. Sub-indices (l, h, m) indicate a tendency towards the nearest category.

presents the results of mapping circular activities and governance instruments at the municipal level, along with the corresponding importance levels determined by the share of ‘strictly positive’ responses across all categories.

5. Discussion

While the sample size limits the generalizability of the findings, the survey was exploratory in nature, aiming to identify preliminary patterns and inform further research. The low response rate is acknowledged as a limitation and is attributed to several factors: limited institutional support for distribution, low engagement on social platforms, and possible survey fatigue among target audiences.

In this section, as far as possible, the results are validated both internally (by comparing the two survey stages) and externally (against publicly available reports or articles on practices in Latvia) to address the limitations imposed by the used convenience sampling approach.

This approach introduced potential self-selection bias, as individuals who were more engaged with or interested in environmental issues were more likely to participate. Additionally, the sample is skewed in terms of demographic and socio-economic characteristics, with an overrepresentation of women, highly educated individuals, urban residents (particularly from Riga and Pieriga), and middle-aged adults, especially those aged 45–65. These characteristics may influence how respondents perceive and engage with CE practices, limiting the generalisability of the findings to other groups such as rural residents, individuals with lower education levels, or other age segments. Despite these limitations, the data offers valuable insights into the attitudes and behaviours of a specific segment of the population, which can inform further, more representative studies.

Table 4. Topics for validation of results from different surveys.

Topics: Circular Practices	Our Surveys	Surv. A	Surv. B	Surv. C
Sample size	52 and 54	1007	1029	404
Circular practices with electric and electronic household appliances
Use of second-hand	x	x	-	x
Repair services	x	x	-	x
Reselling	x	x	-	x
Donation, charity	x	x	-	x
Dispose of in designated containers, points	x	x	-	-
Discard in waste containers	x	x	-	-
Circular practices with textiles
Buying second-hand	x	-	x	x
Buying/selling on social platforms	x	-	x	-
Donation, charity	x	-	x	x
Repair	x	-	-	-
Upcycling	x	-	-	x
Discarding in waste containers	x	-	x	x

illustrates this cross-validation approach, referring to three external surveys. Results from the studies under the Life ‘Waste to Resources’ project in Latvia [46,47,48,49] illustrated how different respondent groups can influence the outcomes of similar surveys.

Survey A on “Consumer behaviour towards electrical equipment usage” [46] and Survey C on “Consumer attitude towards re-use, repair, and upcycling” [47] provided a basis for comparison in the electronics category. Both surveys were commissioned by waste management operators. Survey A covered all of Latvia, while Survey C covered the Ziemelvidzeme WMR, which is predominantly rural. Use of second-hand electronics was higher in both surveys (over half) than in our study (one-third). These differences reflected variations in survey methods, income levels, and respondent demographics. Our sample, mostly from the Riga and Pieriga region, included more high-income and young respondents who could be less inclined to buy second-hand electronics. The results in repair services showed more consistency: over half of respondents in all surveys used them, though in the study, the rate was slightly lower (around one-third).

Reselling rates were similar in our survey and Survey A—in both above one-third, but lower—in rural areas (Survey C, one-fifth) due to fewer opportunities for in-person exchanges. Our data also showed that a third of respondents have used social platforms for reselling, which matches second-hand purchase rates, suggesting online resale was common in urban areas. Donation behaviour was also consistent: our results and Survey A showed over two-thirds donate electronics, while Survey C showed much lower rates (around one-tenth), likely due to fewer donation options or product quality.

Electronics waste disposal at designated points in our study was significantly higher than in Survey A, possibly due to better urban infrastructure or system improvements over time. However, one-fifth of respondents still disposed of electronics waste in containers for unsorted municipal (household) waste.

In the textiles category, all surveys reported that about half of the respondents bought second-hand goods. Social platform use for purchasing was slightly higher in our study. Textile donation patterns mirrored electronics, with higher rates in urban, higher-income groups. Textile repair results from our survey showed varied results. Upcycling remained uncommon, especially in rural regions. Notably, half of our respondents discarded textiles in household waste (double the rate in other surveys), possibly because in rural areas, textiles have often been downcycled for household use or burned, both known practices in Latvia.

Comparison of circular practices in the textiles category showed strong agreement on buying second-hand textiles. All surveys indicated that around half of the respondents engaged in this practice. Use of social platforms for buying or selling second-hand textiles was slightly higher in our studies, but remains around one-fifth. The results of textile donations were like those of electronics donations. Our data showed a significantly higher percentage of donations, likely influenced by income levels. Respondents from Riga and the surrounding regions with higher incomes appeared more committed to donating. Repair services for textiles were examined only in our studies, with results varying widely. No clear explanatory factors emerged, partly due to limitations in the sample size.

The triangulation of our findings with the results from Survey A and Survey B on “Consumers’ textile product sorting habits” [48] revealed a lack of separate collection points for electric household appliances (over half of respondents) and sorting containers for textiles (over a third). The scarcity and clarity of information were attributed to both situations. Over half of the respondents said official electrical equipment repair centres were necessary to facilitate reuse among the population.

Our assumptions aligned with those of the “Study on post-consumption textiles in Latvia” [49], which highlighted a critical skills gap related to repair and refurbishment necessary for advancing circular practices. Both studies revealed low prioritization among citizens for acquiring practical skills that enable active participation in the CE at the household level. This shared observation underscored the need to integrate CE-related competencies into educational curricula, like how the “Environmental Protection” course has been mandatory at all levels of study under the national Law on Environmental Protection [50]. The finding highlighted the urgency of accelerating the implementation of the National Action Plan for the Transition to a CE, which has envisaged educational measures to be enacted by 2027.

When comparing our findings with the “Circular Economy Index study” [51], some differences and similarities emerged regarding municipal service provision. The Index study positioned the Latvian municipalities as being in the initial phase of CE integration into governance. Infrastructure was viewed as a well-established service but underutilized by citizens. In contrast, our research indicated moderate public satisfaction with the availability of circular services, especially infrastructure, which was identified as a priority for enhanced citizen involvement. Both studies, however, converged on the point that public awareness of CE opportunities has remained limited, implying a disconnect between existing communication efforts and citizen knowledge. Furthermore, both highlighted the need for improved information dissemination by municipalities about CE principles and services, suggesting that enhancing communication strategies is key to bridging this awareness gap and strengthening local CE governance.

The insights from a behavioural psychology and communication science perspective inform further discussion. Knowledge, understanding, and motivation constitute the foundational elements of individual decision-making. Individual choices, shaped by their lifestyles and habits, significantly influence the development of CE.

Low awareness contributes to less sustainable behaviours, and the engagement with CE practices remains limited [52]. Broader societal learning and public engagement have gained academic prominence [16], as knowledge and understanding of CE remain limited due to its recent emergence as a policy field. Communication in the public sphere influences societal perceptions and behaviour [53,54]. Within the environmental domain, environmental education (formal, informal), aiming at raising public environmental awareness, is instrumental in shaping behaviours to achieve policy goals [55,56,57].

Public perceptions of resource management are shaped by traditional waste management paradigms, which is unsurprising given the long-standing focus and policy history in this area across Europe [58]. In newer fields, such as the circularity of furniture and construction materials, policy frameworks remain underdeveloped, further constraining the creation, dissemination, and uptake of knowledge.

Although the respondents’ attitudes toward participation and networking as sources of CE knowledge are positive, these factors do not appear to significantly motivate engagement in practical activities. This highlights a challenge in CE engagement strategies. Addressing this issue requires a deeper understanding of how individuals internalize and prioritize knowledge-based motivators in relation to more immediate concerns, such as personal health or economic benefits.

Up to now, municipalities in Latvia have been operating within frameworks centred on waste management and relying heavily on waste managers for provisioning services. As a result, municipalities have not yet recognized or assumed responsibility for leading the broader local societal transition towards a CE. At the same time, public expectations indicated a desire for greater municipal engagement, including a more active role in information dissemination. The overall moderate perception of the effectiveness of local-level CE governance highlights the need for improvements in both policy design and participatory approaches.

The fragmented information and the complexity of waste-sorting rules, as well as inconsistent information dissemination, undermine public participation in CE practices. Better availability of circular services, satisfaction, and involvement might be attributed to the presence of rigid state policies, a regulatory framework, and a well-established collection system, as is the case for electronic household appliance waste in Latvia.

Despite challenges in the provision of circular services, positive engagement trends were observed in the plastics, textiles, and electronics categories, suggesting either increased public CE awareness or the behaviours driven by socio-economic constraints, or potential economic benefits.

The reported non-circular practices (disposal of all household waste into containers for unsorted municipal waste) underscore gaps in both infrastructure and awareness. These behaviours highlight material categories (especially plastics) where circular practices and services have yet to become normalized. For example, the behaviour in the plastics category explains the absence of collection systems for non-packaging plastics and the lack of reuse options such as donation points. In the absence of viable alternatives, people are discarding items as unsorted waste.

However, given the exploratory purpose of the study and the consistency observed in internal reliability measures, the results offer valuable insights into emerging behavioural and perceptual trends related to the CE. Future research should expand on these findings using larger, more representative samples and stratified sampling techniques to enhance external validity. The high internal consistency observed in respondents’ evaluation of circular services (Cronbach’s α > 0.9 across categories) indicates a shared cognitive framework in assessing their value. This coherence suggests that individuals conceptualize CE services through a common lens, likely informed by broader sustainability values. Supporting this interpretation, the survey revealed that the primary motivations driving environmentally friendly consumption were concerns related to personal health and lifestyle, followed by climate and environmental awareness, and then economic incentives such as cost savings.

These findings imply that personal well-being and environmental protection are central to how respondents frame their understanding of circular practices. Notably, social motivations and community factors rank low, despite positive attitudes toward participation and networking as sources of CE knowledge. This disconnection highlights that while social engagement may facilitate awareness, it does not yet function as a primary motivator for behavioural change in this context. Together, these patterns reflect a predominantly individualistic value orientation underpinning respondents’ pro-environmental actions, reinforcing the notion of a shared, but personally grounded, cognitive evaluation of CE engagement.

6. Conclusions

The application of a novel analytical tool, based on the 10R framework approach, reveals that overall, R2 (Reduce) is the most consistently applied behavioural strategy across all material categories, followed by R4 (Repair) and R8 (Recycling). However, the R0 (Avoid) type of behaviour shows particularly dedicated support in textiles and a growing presence in mobility, indicating shifting consumer behaviour towards more sustainable choices. R3 (Reuse) emerges as the most widely needed service strategy, particularly in the textiles and electronics sectors, reflecting strong public interest in extending product lifecycles. Demand for R2 (Reduce) is most prominent in the food and plastics categories. Across all material categories, there is a clear need to improve services related to R8 (Recycle) and Governance (G), highlighting systemic gaps in coordination and accessibility.

In the mobility sector, strategies such as R0 (Avoid) and R1 (Rethink) are especially relevant, emphasizing the importance of infrastructure development to support shifts toward more sustainable mobility choices.

The current CE implementation at the municipal level reveals a polarized pattern of activity with clear engagement at the two far ends of the circularity hierarchy. On one side, there is strong alignment with preventive strategies—R2 (Reduce) and R4 (Repair)– where both public behaviours and services support waste minimization and product lifetime extension. On the opposite end, activities related to end-of-pipe strategies—R8 (Recycle) through to R10 (Landfilling)—remain prevalent, particularly in waste disposal and basic recycling services. However, the intermediate strategies, such as R3 (Reuse), R5 (Refurbish), R6 (Remanufacture), and R7 (Repurpose), are notably underrepresented. These ‘middle’ strategies are unsupported by services and underused by the public, reflecting both a service delivery gap and a behavioural gap.

These findings point to a systemic limitation in CE governance, which remains focused on waste management and basic landfilling reduction while failing to operationalise more complex and collaborative strategies. This highlights a lack of understanding within governance circles regarding the social aspects of the transition to CE [13,14].

The findings on skill-related issues reflect a broader challenge in transition and sustainable consumption, suggesting that without educational interventions, citizens’ ability to engage in circular practices may remain limited [12,59].

The limited availability of spaces for skill development and citizen co-creation (such as DIY workshops and repair cafés) points to a need for enabling environments where individuals can learn by doing, share knowledge, and change social norms. Social learning frameworks can help investigate how participatory approaches at the local level might trigger broader cultural change and increase ownership over CE transitions.

Behavioural insights provide convincing evidence of the public’s readiness for circular practices when supported by appropriate services at the local level. Municipalities must respond with a governance instruments mix that includes not just infrastructure, but also planning, financial support (through participatory budgets or environmental funds), and multi-stakeholder collaboration.

The use of complementary governance instruments, including planning, financial and economic instruments, as well as infrastructure, collaboration, education, and information, can help local governments to address structural barriers and accelerate the transition to CE. To advance CE implementation at the local level and provide a window for all R strategies, municipal interventions are necessary, particularly in the following areas:

• Infrastructure development to support material recirculation, particularly for challenging streams such as non-packaging plastics, textiles, and food.
• The expansion of and improved accessibility to circular services, including those higher in the circular hierarchy, such as repair, rental, and the establishment of coordinated donation networks.
• Greater investment in public education and capacity-building to equip citizens with the knowledge, skills, and confidence needed for active participation in the CE transition.

Finally, country- and even region-specific contextual factors, along with public attitudes, significantly influence how otherwise coherent multi-level governance policies are realized in practice. This study sets the stage for further research into how local governance, business practices, and citizen behaviour evolve together, and how collaborative approaches and the complementary application of governance instruments can help address systemic gaps that hinder a smoother and participatory transition toward a CE.