Implicit Circularity in the City: How Makerspaces Enable Everyday Repair, Reuse, and Learning

Abstract

Makerspaces can serve as distributed urban infrastructures for repair, reuse, tool sharing, and peer learning, yet their contributions to circular economy (CE) goals often occur without being explicitly recognized or framed as CE practices. Inspired by practice theory and the literature on quiet sustainability, this study introduces implicit circularity as circular practices enacted without an explicit sustainability/CE framing by participants, and examines how such practices shape bottom-up circular transitions. Using reflexive thematic analysis informed by constructivist grounded theory procedures, we examined three linked questions: which circular practices occur in makerspaces and how they cluster into domains, how these practices vary across makerspace types, and which barriers and governance arrangements shape makerspaces’ consolidation as circular urban infrastructure. A qualitative multi-method design was employed in Czechia, combining field mapping with in-depth qualitative inquiry. Data included 40 semi-structured interviews with makerspace founders and operators, documentary analysis based on websites, social media, event listings, rules, and other documents, and 21 observations. Using reflexive thematic analysis informed by constructivist grounded theory procedures, we analyzed how circular practices cluster into domains, how implicit versus explicit circularity varies across makerspace types, which barriers constrain makerspaces’ consolidation as circular urban infrastructure, and what governance arrangements could mitigate them. Circularity was dominated by implicit, routine practices rather than formal, CE-branded programs. Three practice domains were identified: repair and maintenance, material flows, and learning/education. Explicit programming was comparatively less common and context-dependent. Barriers formed a reinforcing system spanning institutional fragmentation and coordination deficits, capability gaps, infrastructural constraints, and tensions around autonomy and legitimacy, which together kept many circular contributions low-visibility. Makerspaces constitute an under-recognized form of circular micro-infrastructure that couples technical capacity with social learning and can translate CE ambitions into everyday practice. To mobilize these latent capacities, cities need hybrid governance, especially light-touch coordination platforms, long-horizon operational support, and integration of makerspaces into municipal material-flow systems and repair/reuse strategies. The study offers a practice-based framework and a cross-case typology to support comparative research and grounded urban CE policy design.

1. Introduction

The circular economy (CE) seeks to minimize waste and retain material value by prioritizing inner loops such as repair, maintenance, reuse, and refurbishment over more resource-intensive, end-of-pipe options such as recycling [1,2,3]. Despite sustained policy attention, Europe’s material throughput and waste generation remain high, and recycling alone has not produced the reductions required to meet CE ambitions [4]. Achieving CE goals therefore depends not only on technological substitution and market instruments but also on the everyday practices that extend product lifetimes and reduce demand for primary resources [5,6,7]. Yet access to the tools, skills, spaces, and social support required for maintenance, repair, and refurbishment is unevenly distributed in urban settings; lack of competence and equipment is repeatedly identified as a key barrier to do-it-yourself (DIY) life-extension practices [8,9].

Makerspaces have been proposed as enabling infrastructures for distributed manufacturing and localized circular practices by providing settings for repair, tool sharing, reuse, and creative upcycling, i.e., activities that can extend product lifecycles and reduce waste [10,11]. Makerspaces that are understood as shared workshop environments equipped with craft tools and, often, digital fabrication technologies (e.g., 3D printers, laser cutters, CNC machines, electronics/IoT platforms) serve as platforms for individual and collective making, local repair, prototyping, and innovation incubation [12,13]. In doing so, they can lower entry barriers to technical work, broaden participation in maintenance and production, and support skills that are central to inner-loop circularity [14,15,16].

The literature highlights a persistent tension between top-down CE agendas (frequently framed through technological innovation) and the bottom-up character of makerspaces [10,17,18,19]. This mismatch can leave makerspaces’ circular potential underutilized; consequently, community makerspaces remain marginal to institutional attention. They are rarely recognized as part of urban circular infrastructure, and their contributions are dispersed across routine, low-visibility practices and limited resources constraining their systematic development.

We conceptualize implicit circularity as a mismatch between circular practices and the meanings actors attach to them. In this paper, implicit refers to circular practices that are enacted and coordinated without being explicitly framed by participants as CE or sustainability. This conceptualization is related to the quiet sustainability that is understood as environmentally beneficial routines carried out for reasons other than environmental [20,21,22,23], but it is distinct from silent sustainability [24,25] and greenhushing [26], which concern the under-communication of actions that actors already recognize as sustainable. Here, the core mechanism is not communicative silence but the absence of a sustainability/circularity framing in practice. Throughout the paper, we use implicit circularity to denote unmarked circular practices, i.e., as a meaning-related attribute. We do not use implicit circularity as a synonym for informal governance, unplanned activity, or everyday life. When referring to governance arrangements, we use informal in its institutional sense, i.e., not codified, contractual, or formally mandated. Noteworthy, we do not claim that the practices captured by implicit circularity are new; rather, the contribution of the concept lies in making analytically visible how long-standing practices of repair, reuse, sharing, and tinkering function as circular-economy processes even when they are not named or organized as such by participants.

The study pursues two aims: (1) to map circular practices across diverse makerspaces, with a focus on how routine activities contribute to repair, reuse, and learning, and (2) to identify structural, institutional, and cultural barriers that limit the development of these practices and constrain the evolution of makerspaces into robust urban hubs of circular activity. In doing so, the study clarifies the relationship between everyday practice and systemic change and indicates how bottom-up initiatives might be better connected to formal sustainability policies. Accordingly, the paper addresses three research questions:

RQ1: What circular practices occur in makerspaces, and how do they form into practical domains?

RQ2: How do circularity practices vary across makerspace types?

RQ3: What barriers constrain makerspaces’ circular potential, and what governance arrangements can bridge grassroots practices with formal CE strategies?

1.1. Makerspaces, Grassroots Innovation, and the Social Aspect in Circular Transitions

Conventional CE narratives emphasize technological innovation, business models, and macro-level strategies led by firms and public policy [2,27,28]. In contrast, research on grassroots innovation shows how civic and community initiatives contribute to sustainability from below [14,15,16,29,30]. Scholars argue that neglecting social and community dimensions is a key limitation on transformative potential [31,32,33,34]. For example, Purvis et al. [31] suggest that community repair initiatives can re-politicize the CE by giving circular transitions collective meaning [35], strengthening citizen participation [36], and supporting more socially just transformations [29]. Complementary research on DIY repair documents social learning and norm change that enable inner loops in practice [37].

The concept of implicit circularity underscores that substantial sustainability outcomes can arise without explicit environmental intent. In post-socialist contexts, for instance, self-provisioning practices such as growing food, preserving produce, exchanging crops, and routine repair were often motivated by quality of life, tradition, or the enjoyment of activity, yet they reduced resource use and environmental impacts in ways rarely captured by formal strategies [38,39,40,41,42]. Such practices typically persist outside official programs and remain analytically and politically under-recognized, even when they constitute a durable parallel sustainability regime.

1.2. What Is Known About Makerspaces in the CE

The literature linking makerspaces and the CE is expanding rapidly [43,44,45]. Prendeville et al. [10] connected these domains by showing how makerspace leaders can shape circular practices through the cultures they cultivate and by arguing for early promotion of norms such as knowledge sharing, access to local material resources, and repair. Subsequent studies documented potential environmental benefits, including life extension through repair, waste reduction via reuse and upcycling, and increased environmental awareness [46], while also highlighting the potential for socio-economic inclusion through engagement of diverse publics in repair and reuse loops [18,47,48].

Recent research also underscores limits to expansion and institutional embedding. Elwakil et al. [49] identify makerspace typologies across European cities and argue that, while reduce–reuse–recycle principles align with many makerspace missions, acknowledging makerspaces’ potential at scale requires stronger integration with urban planning, governance, and material logistics. Comparable dynamics appear in university and educational contexts when Honkala et al. [11] document a wide range of circular solutions alongside coordination gaps and limited guidance and resources. Although repair cafés, reuse centers, and tool libraries are increasingly recognized as circular infrastructures, makerspaces occupy multiple roles combining fabrication, repair, education, and community-building, which makes their contributions more diverse and harder to capture using conventional CE metrics [11,35,50,51].

1.3. The Czech Case as a Theoretically Informative Context

Our study examines makerspaces in Czechia as a specific instance of informal circular infrastructure. We focus on Czechia because it combines a rapidly developing makerspace field that remains weakly institutionalized at the national policy level, and a post-socialist legacy in which repair and self-provisioning practices persisted through periods of scarcity and economic transition. This context provides a theoretically informative case for examining how circularity can be sustained through everyday competences and norms even when CE discourse, funding instruments, and governance coordination lag practice.

Beyond Czechia, makerspaces intersect with several international research streams relevant to circular transitions: community repair and maintenance initiatives (repair cafés and fixers’ collectives), sharing infrastructures (tool libraries and community workshops), and grassroots innovation movements that experiment with alternative socio-material arrangements [52,53,54,55]. Recent work highlights both opportunities (skills, social learning, localized reuse networks) [56,57,58,59] and tensions (resource intensity of fabrication, uneven inclusivity, reliance on volunteer labor, and limited policy integration) [60,61,62].

The paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 outlines the research design, sampling strategy, data sources, and reflexive thematic analysis. Section 3 presents the results following the analytic workflow beginning with mapping and typology for cross-case comparison, implicit/explicit distinction, and the barriers coupled with their reinforcing dynamics. Section 4 discusses contributions to CE scholarship and practice theory, situates findings in governance debates, and distinguishes context-specific from transferable insights. Section 5 concludes with implications and directions for future research, including stakeholder extensions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Rationale

This study aimed to identify the breadth of everyday practices and lived experiences among Czech makerspace founders and operators, with particular attention to how circular practices emerge, remain routine, or become formalized. We employed a qualitative multi-case design complemented by systematic field mapping to contextualize the makerspace landscape [43,44,45,51,63]. The objective was not statistical representativeness but rather we sought maximum variation across institutional arrangements, technical profiles, and modes of operation to document the diversity of contexts in which specific circular practices are enacted and governed.

For each makerspace identified during the mapping stage of our study, we compiled documentary materials from the organization’s official website, public social-media channels, and publicly accessible event listings and municipal/partner webpages. Makerspaces were located using an auditable search protocol that combined keyword searches in Czech and English (e.g., “makerspace”, “dílna”, “otevřená dílna”, “fablab”, “hackerspace”, “repair café”) paired with city names; snowballing through cross-links among makerspaces and related initiatives; and verification via at least two independent sources. For each mapped makerspace, we archived key descriptors, especially location, organizational form, mission, and evidence of recent activity such as events or social-media posts. These descriptors informed the sampling frame and were later used to triangulate interview accounts.

2.2. Sampling

Because no official registry of makerspaces exists in Czechia, we performed multi-source desk research to identify active makerspaces relying on such resources as websites, social media, media coverage, municipal portals, and organizational reports. We also used snowball sampling to extend coverage beyond publicly visible actors. As of March 2024, we mapped 98 makerspaces.

Table 1. Multi-source protocol for identifying and mapping active Czech makerspaces (n = 98).

Source Type	Specific Sources/Search Procedures	Coverage Function
Web keyword search (Czech + English)	Terms: “makerspace”, “dílna”, “otevřená dílna”, “sdílená dílna”, “městská dílna”, “fablab”, “hackerspace”, “repair café” paired with names of Czech towns and cities	Primary identification of makerspaces with web presence across all regions
Social media and online communities	Facebook groups/pages, Instagram, makerspace, and repair networks (e.g., FabLab CZ network, Repair Café CZ, Federace nábytkových bank a reuse center CZ, Maker Faire CZ)	Capturing active, informally operating, and community-based actors with limited institutional web presence
Municipal and public institution portals	Municipal cultural and community portals; youth center directories; public library websites; regional development agency databases	Identifying institutionally embedded makerspaces not systematically searchable via general web queries
Media and press coverage	Regional and national news archives; project blogs; press releases from municipalities and NGOs	Extending coverage to recently founded or newly established makerspaces
Project and organizational databases	CE-related project outputs (Ministry of the Environment of the CZ); NGO directories; regional development reports	Capturing project-funded or formally registered makerspaces
Snowball sampling	Cross-links on makerspace websites; referrals from interview participants; expert contacts in the makerspace community	Extending coverage to low-visibility, informal, or newly established actors not yet indexed
Verification criteria	Confirmed recent activity (events/posts within 12 months); identifiable location	Ensuring only active, operationally identifiable units are included; filtering out inactive or duplicated entries

Note: Search procedures were conducted between August 2023 and March 2024; n = 98 reflects active makerspaces confirmed at the time of fieldwork and sampling.

presents the multi-source protocol used to identify and map the 98 makerspaces constituting the sampling frame. The protocol combined systematic keyword searches, social media screening, institutional portal review, media coverage, project databases, and snowball referrals, with verification requiring confirmation and evidence of recent activity.

From this sampling frame, we purposively recruited 40 makerspaces for in-depth qualitative study. Selection criteria targeted heterogeneity in region (metropolitan vs. non-metropolitan), institutional provenance (community/non-profit, municipal/public, institutional, commercial), and technical profile (craft-oriented; digital fabrication or experimental; polytechnic/educational), access model (open/community vs. membership-based vs. educational program-based), maturity (years in operation), and resource base (equipment intensity and staffing/volunteer dependence, inferred from documentary sources), ensuring that each major configuration was represented. Cases were selected iteratively to maximize heterogeneity across these attributes while maintaining feasibility for in-person fieldwork [64]. The resulting set covers all provenance categories and regions, and includes both highly institutionalized and informal grassroots organizations, enabling cross-case comparison across multiple dimensions. For inclusion, cases had to show evidence of current or recent activity, a makerspace-like orientation to shared making/repair/learning, and a publicly identifiable organizational or communication presence. Exclusion criteria included inactive projects, one-off events, purely commercial retail operations without shared making functions, and spaces lacking sufficient evidence of ongoing activity. Because the mapping combined desk research and snowballing, rejection and non-response rates were not recorded. The aim was not statistical representativeness but the inclusion of information-rich cases spanning the principal configurations identified in the mapping stage. Cases were selected iteratively to preserve heterogeneity across the sample while keeping the design feasible for in-person fieldwork. The details of cases selection are given in

Table 2. Selection criteria matrix for purposive sampling of 40 makerspaces from the 98-makerspace frame.

Criterion	Categories/Levels	Rationale
Geographic location	Metropolitan (≥100,000 inhabitants) vs. non-metropolitan	Captures urban–rural variation in resource access, governance density, and makerspace ecology
Institutional provenance	Community/non-profit; municipal/public; institutional (school, library, university); commercial	Captures variation in governance arrangements, funding dependency, formalization, and mission orientation
Technical profile	Craft-oriented (manual, textile, woodworking); digital fabrication/experimental (3D printing, CNC, electronics); polytechnic/educational (blended)	Captures structural differences in circular practice types, resource intensity, and equipment-related barriers
Access model	Open/community-based; membership-based; educational program-based	Reflects variation in inclusivity, participation dynamics, and reach to different user groups
Organizational maturity	Early-stage (<1 years); established (1–3 years); mature (>3 years)	Captures trajectory variation, path dependencies, and level of institutionalization
Resource base	Equipment intensity (basic craft tools vs. digital fabrication); staffing and volunteer dependence (inferred from documentary sources)	Captures structural constraints on circular practice scope and capacity to develop explicit programming

Note: Selection proceeded iteratively to achieve maximum heterogeneity across all criteria simultaneously. The aim was not proportional representation but systematic coverage of all major configurations.

.

2.3. Data Collection

Data collection combined three complementary sources: interviews, observations, and documentary materials. Interviews were used to capture participants’ understandings, motivations, and interpretations of everyday practice; observations were used to document situated routines, material arrangements, and interactional dynamics; and documentary materials were used to contextualize formal missions, rules, public communication, and programmatic activities. Together, these sources enabled triangulation across reported practice, observed practice, and institutional framing.

2.3.1. Interviews

Altogether, 40 semi-structured interviews were conducted in Czech with makerspace founders and/or operation managers. Within each makerspace, one interview was conducted. Interviews lasted approximately 60–90 min and were audio-recorded with participants’ permission; all participants provided informed consent prior to participation. The study protocol, including interview and observation procedures, was reviewed, and approved by the INESAN Ethical Committee (IREBA/2023/711; 11 July 2023).

2.3.2. Observations

In addition, we conducted 16 non-participatory observations and 5 participatory observations across the 40 sampled makerspaces. Observation focused on spatial layout and processes (e.g., storage flows and movement of materials), handling and treatment of materials (e.g., reuse, sorting, disposal), organization of work (e.g., maintenance routines, repair practices), and manifestations of community functioning (e.g., peer learning, decision-making).

2.3.3. Data Corpus and Handling

Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and anonymized. Transcripts were analyzed in the original language; illustrative quotations and key terms were translated into English for reporting, with translation checked to preserve meaning and nuance. Observations were recorded as structured fieldnotes using a shared observation guide covering space layout and material infrastructures; repair/reuse practices; forms of guidance and learning; boundary practices (e.g., intake of materials, waste handling); and interactions among staff, volunteers, and users. Fieldnotes were written up within 24 h and anonymized. Documentary materials (webpages, posts, event descriptions) were archived and coded as contextual and triangulation sources. All materials were treated as analyzable text and coded using a shared coding frame, enabling convergence checks across interviews, observations, and documents.

2.4. Analytical Strategy

We followed reflexive thematic analysis [65], drawing on Charmaz’s constructivist grounded theory [66] to inform iterative comparison and memo-writing. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted as an interpretive, iterative procedure. Following the phases of (1) familiarization, (2) initial coding, (3) theme development, (4) theme review, (5) defining/naming themes, and (6) writing-up, the analysis combined inductive coding of practices and barriers with sensitizing concepts from practice theory and CE scholarship. Reflexivity was supported through analytic memos and regular peer debriefing within the research team, including explicit attention to how implicit vs. explicit circularity shaped coding and interpretation.

We entered the analysis with sensitizing concepts [67] common in scholarship on makerspaces and CE practices (e.g., repair, reuse, upcycling, recycling), using these to focus attention rather than to impose a priori categories [14,34,53]. In the first phase, we conducted open, inductive coding of all passages describing everyday makerspace activities. Through iterative grouping and refinement, three domains emerged as analytically productive in this empirical context: repair and maintenance, material flows, and learning/education.

The selection of these three domains followed an inductive logic consistent with constructivist grounded theory procedures [66]. Progressive focused coding revealed three coherent groupings: codes describing acts of repair, upkeep, and maintenance of objects and equipment converged into the repair and maintenance domain; codes describing how materials moved in, through, and out of makerspaces (including reuse, redistribution, informal sorting, and secondary sourcing) converged into the material flows domain; and codes describing the transmission and acquisition of practical knowledge, whether peer-based or formally structured, converged into the learning/education domain. All three groupings were (i) confirmed across all three data sources (interviews, observations, documentary materials), (ii) present across all four makerspace types, and (iii) interpretive calibration through peer debriefing within the research team to enhance analytical consistency and reflexivity. They do not represent an exhaustive list of all makerspace activities, but rather the dimensions most consistently and substantively relevant to circular practices across the full sample.

In a subsequent step, we identified a recurring cross-cutting distinction between activities unfolding as spontaneous, routine practices and those that were deliberately organized and institutionalized. This conceptualization was developed as a theory-informing move that provided language for regularities and enabled positioning our findings in broader debates on sustainable practices.

Coding proceeded iteratively in cycles of analysis–discussion–revision. To enhance conceptual coherence, two researchers independently coded an initial subset of eight transcripts in MAXQDA, version 20.4.0 (VERBI Software, Germany) and discussed interpretations to refine the coding frame and clarify definitions. This calibration was used to support reflexive consensus, especially coherence and transparency of interpretation. Consistent with reflexive thematic analysis, the initial independent coding by two researchers was used as a reflexive calibration procedure. Its purpose was to compare interpretive readings, refine code definitions, and clarify how sensitizing concepts informed the analysis, thereby increasing conceptual coherence and transparency rather than seeking coding uniformity for its own sake. The aim was to make interpretation more reflexive, coherent, and analytically robust throughout the later stages of theme development. The remaining transcripts and fieldnotes were then coded using the refined framework. In addition to coding circular practices, the analysis also coded passages describing constraints, coordination problems, resource limitations, and tensions around legitimacy and access, which were later grouped into barrier clusters.

2.5. Triangulation and Validation

We triangulated interviews with observations and documentary materials. Observations corroborated routine practices such as leftover shelves, on-the-fly repairs, and peer learning, and they also tempered some interview-based overestimations. Documentary sources (e.g., operating rules, websites, project outputs) were used to provide information on formal procedures, and to corroborate or nuance interview accounts. Discrepancies across sources were examined by research team and addressed analytically, for example, by distinguishing routine practices from episodic events and by clarifying whether activities were implicit or explicitly programmatic.

2.6. Typology Development

To support cross-case comparison, we developed an empirically grounded typology of makerspaces based on the mapping dataset and the qualitative data [68,69]. Typology construction proceeded in two steps. First, we generated candidate types from documentary descriptors, and then we iteratively refined type boundaries using interview and observation data, focusing on differences in practice domains, degree of explicit programming around repair/reuse, and governance interfaces.

The methodological path was organized to address the three research questions in a sequential and complementary way. The mapping stage and typology development supported RQ1 and RQ2 by identifying the diversity of makerspaces and the contexts in which circular practices occur. Interviews, observations, and documentary materials were then used to examine how these practices clustered into domains and how they varied across makerspace types. Finally, the thematic analysis of interviews, fieldnotes, and documents supported RQ3 by identifying the barriers and governance conditions shaping makerspaces’ circular potential.

3. Results

We report results following the analytic workflow. By “analytical workflow” we mean the sequence through which the empirical material was interpreted: first, contextualization through typology; second, identification of circular practice domains and the implicit/explicit distinction; and third, analysis of interacting barriers and their governance implications. First, Section 3.1 presents a makerspace typology used to support cross-case comparison and to contextualize how circular practices are embedded in different organizational trajectories. Second, Section 3.2 describes circular practices across three domains: repair and maintenance, material flows, and learning/education. It shows how these practices differ when they are implicit, i.e., unmarked and not framed by participants as CE or sustainability versus explicit, intentionally organized, programmatic, and publicly articulated. Finally, Section 3.3 analyzes barriers as an interacting system that constrains makerspaces’ circular potential and specify how these barriers reinforce one another over time.

3.1. Makerspace Typology as Analytic Context

This subsection primarily addresses RQ2. To contextualize variation in circular practices and governance interfaces, we distinguish four makerspace types that recur across the Czech makerspace field: craft makerspaces, digital fabrication makerspaces, polytechnic makerspaces, and educational makerspaces. Craft makerspaces foreground manual and craft competences and typically depend on localized communities of practice. Digital fabrication makerspaces emphasize equipment-intensive production (e.g., laser cutters, 3D printers) and build their legitimacy through innovation narratives. Polytechnic makerspaces combine making with technical education and structured skill-building, frequently in partnership with schools, universities, or municipalities. Educational makerspaces are primarily organized learning activities and workshops.

This typology was derived from the combined interpretation of mapping descriptors, interview accounts, and observational material, rather than from any single data source alone. It serves as a heuristic organizing device for cross-case comparison and shows how implicit and explicit forms of circularity can coexist, yet become visible depending on institutional embeddedness, resource bases, and programming logics. Due to the variety of institutional structures in the Czech setting, which range from nonprofit associations and informal community groups to makerspaces located in schools, libraries, and youth centers, as well as facilities established by municipalities and private companies, we created a descriptive typology based on dominant missions and common practices rather than legal forms. Boundaries between types are permeable and hybrid cases are common; nevertheless, the typology clarifies recurring configurations of circular practices and the constraints that shape their development.

Table 3. Overview of the four makerspace types: dominant characteristics and circularity orientation.

Makerspace Type	Dominant Orientation	Typical Activities	Typical Organizational Base	Technology Profile	Circularity Orientation
Craft makerspaces	Manual skill development; product life extension	Repair, maintenance, upcycling; sewing, woodworking, bicycle repair, shoemaking	Community, non-profit associations; informal groups	Hand tools and basic workshop equipment	High implicit (routine repair, reuse of offcuts); selective explicit (repair cafés)
Digital fabrication makerspaces	Innovation, prototyping, experimentation	3D printing, laser cutting, CNC; electronics/IoT; hackathons; prototyping	FabLabs, hackerspaces, biolabs, incubation hubs	Digital fabrication + electronics platforms	Implicit (spare parts production, open-source designs); explicit (prototyping with reuse themes)
Polytechnic makerspaces	Technical literacy through making	Courses, clubs, project-based learning; blending craft and digital; student self-organized sessions	Schools, universities, libraries, municipal youth centers	Mixed (craft + digital fabrication)	Implicit (repair and modification during courses); explicit (CE-linked project modules in some settings)
Educational makerspaces	Structured learning; curated programming	Thematic workshops (upcycling, sustainability education); public events; curriculum-linked activities	Cultural institutions, libraries, schools, NGOs	Light tools; accessible and safety-oriented equipment	Mixed; sustainability framing more explicit than in other types

Note: Boundaries between types are permeable; hybrid cases are common in the Czech setting. The classification is based on dominant missions and prevalent practices rather than legal organizational forms.

provides a summary overview of the four types and their key characteristics before the detailed subsections that follow. The typology is organized around dominant mission, typical activities, organizational base, technology profile, and prevailing circularity orientation, enabling systematic cross-case comparison.

Table 4. Distribution of the 40 purposively selected makerspaces across typological categories and key sampling dimensions.

Makerspace Type	N Selected	% of Sample	Regional Coverage	Dominant Institutional Provenance	Dominant Access Model
Craft makerspaces	14	35%	Metropolitan + non-metropolitan	Community, non-profit	Open, community-based
Digital fabrication makerspaces	11	28%	Predominantly metropolitan; mid-size cities	Mixed (non-profit, commercial, institutional)	Membership-based
Polytechnic makerspaces	9	22%	Metropolitan + non-metropolitan	Institutional (schools, universities, libraries, youth centers)	Educational program-based
Educational makerspaces	6	15%	Metropolitan + non-metropolitan	Mixed (cultural institutions, NGOs, libraries)	Mixed

shows the distribution of the 40 purposively selected makerspaces across the four typological categories, along with key sampling dimensions. The distribution reflects the iterative heterogeneity-maximizing logic of purposive sampling rather than proportional representation of the field.

3.1.1. Craft Makerspaces

Craft makerspaces are primarily oriented toward developing manual skills and extending product lifespans through repair, maintenance, and upcycling. They typically focus on sewing and textiles, shoemaking, woodworking, blacksmithing, bicycle repair, and related crafts. Skilled experts and mentors play a central role because they provide hands-on guidance, diagnose problems with items brought by users, and share tacit knowledge. Craft makerspaces allocate dedicated time blocks to repair and servicing activities and work extensively with scraps and secondary materials that are sorted, stored, and creatively reused. As a result, implicit circular practices, such as routine repairs, everyday maintenance, and intensive reuse of offcuts, are woven into normal operations without being explicitly labelled as circular. Peer learning is intensive, as users learn by observing and assisting more experienced practitioners.

3.1.2. Digital Fabrication Makerspaces

Digital fabrication makerspaces focus on innovation, experimentation, and prototyping using technologies such as 3D printers, laser cutters, CNC machines, electronics/IoT platforms, and coding environments. This category includes fablabs, hackerspaces, biolabs, and prototyping or incubation hubs. Their missions emphasize developing and testing new solutions, producing prototypes or small series, and sharing open designs. Circularity appears, for example, in producing spare parts and modifying existing products to extend their usefulness. These makerspaces rely on mandatory introductory and safety training sessions, shared repositories of instructions, code and design files, and event formats such as hackathons and project sprints. Governance varies along a spectrum: hackerspaces frequently rely on community self-management, whereas incubation hubs are more strongly oriented toward projects and markets. These arrangements shape how repair and reuse activities are prioritized and how they connect to wider circular networks.

3.1.3. Polytechnic Makerspaces

Polytechnic makerspaces are anchored in institutions such as schools, universities, libraries, and municipal youth centers, with a primary mission of learning-through-making and the development of technical literacy. Activities typically take the form of courses, clubs, and project-based teaching that blend craft and digital technologies. Within these programs, repair, modification, and creative reuse of materials occur as part of assignments or self-initiated projects, even when they are not the formal focus of the curriculum. These makerspaces are typically schedule-driven and embedded in institutional rules concerning access, supervision, and safety. They also may contain grassroots elements such as student groups organizing open sessions within the institutional framework, making them a hybrid environment in which formal learning and everyday circular practices can intersect.

3.1.4. Educational Makerspaces

Educational makerspaces are primarily oriented toward structured learning activities and workshops, targeting specific learner groups (e.g., children, youth, families) and operating through curated programming. In these settings, circularity tends to emerge through teaching formats such as repair-oriented modules, upcycling workshops, or themed projects. Compared with other types, circular practices are more likely to be explicitly framed, for instance, as part of sustainability education, although many day-to-day material and learning practices remain implicit.

3.2. Circular Practices

This subsection primarily addresses RQ1. With respect to circular practices, we structured the results across three practical domains: repair and maintenance, material flows, and learning/education. In each domain, spontaneous everyday practices coexisted with deliberately organized and institutionalized activities; we describe both, together with the motivations reported by participants.

Table 5. Practical domains, practices and reported motives illustrating the implicit circularity.

Practical Domains	Implicit Practices	Implicit Motives	Explicit Practices
Repairs & maintenance	Ad hoc repair of user-brought items; ongoing maintenance and adjustments; production of simple spare parts; refurbishment of donated equipment for internal use	Operational (ensuring functionality, minimizing downtime); safety (OHS, fault prevention); economic (avoiding service costs and replacements); pragmatic creativity	Repair cafés; renovation makerspaces (e.g., furniture, bicycles); systematic recording of repaired/saved items
Reuse, redistribution, & material circulation	Reuse of offcuts and leftovers (wood, textiles, electronic components); use what is at hand; local storage and sorting (shelves, boxes); informal redistribution of surpluses	Economic (cost savings, stock stabilization) and operational (availability, time/space efficiency); environmental rationales are secondary	Material banks and scrap warehouses; libraries of things (tool lending); formal sorting (incl. e-waste, composting); partnerships with municipal reuse centers and reverse logistics; advanced recycling
Learning & education	Peer learning; learning-by-doing; tinkering (disassembling, reassembling, iterative problem-solving); diffusion of best practices	Social identity (community cohesion, joy of making, maker identity); operational/safety (error reduction, smooth operation); economic (saving time/materials)	Thematic makerspaces and courses (repairs, textile upcycling); public lectures; open-source documentation (instructions, plans, code); participation in swaps and sustainability festivals

Note: “Implicit” denotes practices not explicitly framed by participants as CE or sustainability; it does not necessarily denote informal governance.

summarizes circular activities observed, distinguishing between implicit practices and explicit ones, alongside the principal motivational logics reported by participants. These translations were produced through first-cycle descriptive and process coding of interview excerpts, fieldnotes, and documentary material, followed by iterative comparison and grouping into analytically higher-order themes.

Across the three domains, implicit circularity was more prevalent than programmatic circular activity. Circular outcomes were mostly generated through routine practices embedded in day-to-day operations, such as repairing tools, reusing materials, troubleshooting with peers, and sharing practical knowledge. In contrast, explicitly framed CE or sustainability activities tended to appear in more formal and visible formats, such as repair cafés, themed courses, and partnership-based initiatives.

Table 6. Illustrative coding examples (data → code → theme).

Illustrative Excerpts (Anonymized)	First-Cycle Code	Theme (Analytic Role)
“on the fly” (repair decisions made during making)	Situated improvisation	Repair and maintenance as embedded routine (implicit circularity)
“save your grandmother’s chair” (repair motivation framed as heritage/identity)	Affective value of objects	Quiet/implicit sustainability through meaning rather than green intent
“use what is at hand” (substituting materials)	Resourceful substitution	Material flows through reuse and repurposing
“When someone gets stuck, another member usually helps”	Peer troubleshooting	Learning as circular infrastructure (skills enabling repair and reuse)
“We cannot take everything people bring; we keep usable things that we have space for”	Boundary work at intake	Gatekeeping of useful materials and waste handling
“Without funding, we can remain open, but we cannot sustain courses and maintain the equipment”	Funding dependency	Capability gap and institutional fragmentation

illustrates how empirical observations were translated into first-cycle codes and grouped into higher-order themes that structured the analysis.

3.2.1. Repair and Maintenance

Repair and maintenance were routine, informally organized components of day-to-day operations, particularly in craft makerspaces and, although less prominently, in polytechnic settings. Typical activities included ad hoc repair of user-brought items (e.g., small appliances, furniture, bicycles, clothing/footwear) and ongoing upkeep of makerspace equipment usually conducted “on the fly” without dedicated programming or public visibility. In digital fabrication makerspaces, 3D printers, laser cutters, and CNC machines were frequently used to produce simple replacement parts, thereby extending product lifespans and sustaining equipment usability.

Participants primarily framed motivations as operational and economic: reducing service expenditures and replacement purchases; ensuring the availability and functionality of tools, and minimizing downtime. Safety-related considerations were also salient, as was pragmatic creativity (repair as enjoyable, improvisational making). Environmental motivations were typically secondary, although participants acknowledged that repairing items prevented disposal.

Explicit repair programming was not common. A limited number of cases reported systematically organized initiatives (most often repair cafés in reuse-oriented craft makerspaces). These events were open to public and combined functionality restoration with informal education; visitors brought broken items and repaired them with the assistance of skilled practitioners. Where such initiatives existed, they were justified primarily on educational and community grounds and for reputational or partnership benefits. Operators also positioned repair cafés as a form of public service by cultivating repair skills and extending product lifespans. Respondents explicitly linked these practices to the broader right to repair debate and argued that public authorities should support accessible repair infrastructure through funding, coordination, or institutional anchoring.

Refurbishment of donated items for internal use was observed across all makerspace types. Refurbishing furniture and technological equipment primarily served operational needs and was motivated by economic and organizational considerations. In smaller craft makerspaces, refurbished items often constituted a substantial share of initial infrastructure. Organized refurbishment events operated with limited capacity. In these formats, rationales such as skill development and care for product quality were foregrounded; heritage-oriented framings explicitly emphasized life extension.

3.2.2. Material Flows

In most makerspaces, materials used for repairs or new projects circulated through informal arrangements. Sharing and reuse of leftovers, coupled with a pragmatic “use what is available” approach, reduced reliance on new purchases. Across all makerspace types, they served as informal collection points: shelves or boxes held leftover materials that members could withdraw. Participants framed these practices mainly in economic and operational terms (cost savings, supply stabilization, time efficiency, and storage management), while environmental rationales were secondary.

Implicit circulations produced informal supply channels, i.e., collection of empty spools or leftover filament for further use. Alongside such everyday practices, several makerspaces reported more formalized inflows and outflows through cooperation with local firms or institutions. Examples included craft makerspaces collecting offcuts from carpentry shops or metal waste, and digital fabrication makerspaces acquiring surplus electronic components from local IT/electrical companies or hobby markets. Links to furniture banks and municipal reuse centers were also reported, particularly in reuse-oriented craft settings, supported by municipal communication channels. The most advanced arrangements involved coordinated reverse logistics with municipal services and quantified material flows, but these were capacity-intensive and therefore relatively rare.

Where explicit initiatives existed, they included material banks and scrap warehouses governed by rules for sorting, storage, and access. Makerspaces described tool lending and formal recycling.

Open-source practices were especially widespread in digital fabrication makerspaces and polytechnic settings. Publishing instructions, procedures, drawings, and source code under open licenses enabled replication and modification beyond the makerspace and was described as integral to maker culture. Participants also reported practical benefits, especially reduced errors, accelerated learning, and lowering material waste.

The spatial and infrastructural origins of makerspaces shaped material flows. Smaller craft makerspaces frequently emerged in repurposed urban spaces (e.g., former garages, disused municipal buildings, former industrial premises, or ground-floor units in housing estates), responding to local deficits in access to tools and suitable facilities. Equipment was commonly self-provisioned through refurbished, recycled, or donated components, enabling relatively low entry costs and a degree of self-sufficiency.

Implicit circulation predominated over formal programs. While everyday practices were primarily driven by operational and cost rationales, explicit reuse and recycling initiatives more often emphasized environmental and social objectives, educational value, and partnership or reputational benefits. A subset of digitally oriented or polytechnic makerspaces also prioritized quality and precision and deliberately avoided secondary materials for safety or performance reasons.

3.2.3. Learning-by-Doing, Education

Across makerspace types, informal peer learning was central. Employees and experienced members guided newcomers in situ, advised on machine operation, shared procedures, and exchanged material knowledge (including sourcing strategies). In craft makerspaces, peer learning involved the transfer of tacit knowledge through demonstrations and supervised practice (e.g., stitching, welding, tool adjustment, and safe use of machinery).

Tinkering was especially prevalent in digital fabrication makerspaces and polytechnic settings. Devices and components were routinely disassembled and reassembled to understand function, test modifications, and cultivate capacities for maintenance and repair. In polytechnic makerspaces, tinkering followed structured curricula with explicit learning outcomes, particularly for children and youth, positioning makerspaces as project-based learning environments. Respondents reported that these activities not only developed competencies but also strengthened attachment to objects by making their construction and modifiability visible. Motivations were primarily didactic and developmental (aimed at understanding how things work, building practical skills), exploratory (focused on curiosity and discovery), and communal (supporting sharing knowledge and reinforcing maker identity). At the same time, pragmatic considerations remained important. These considerations kept equipment operational and extended its lifespan, ensuring that learning translated into everyday technological practice.

In digital fabrication makerspaces that served as testbeds for validating ideas, generating products or processes, and incubating entrepreneurial intentions, learning was oriented toward innovation and prototyping. Motivations were career- and innovation-oriented (e.g., student development, start-up formation, technical verification). Direct environmental goals were less frequently foregrounded, although repairs and the production of custom spare parts produced environmental co-benefits by prolonging device lifetimes.

Across makerspace types, a subset of projects explicitly targeted environmental outcomes. These initiatives connected technical learning to environmental themes and generated community-facing benefits. Several makerspaces, especially reuse-oriented craft spaces, offered upcycling courses complemented by lectures on sustainable lifestyles or responsible production. Special programs were developed in cooperation with founding institutions (schools, libraries, youth centers, and universities), and some makerspaces participated in swaps and sustainability festivals to introduce repair and reuse principles to broader publics. Respondents described explicit environmental framing as serving both internal purposes and external functions.

3.3. Barriers to Expanding Circular Potential

This subsection primarily addresses RQ3. Across cases, barriers did not operate as isolated problems but as a reinforcing system shaping what makerspaces could sustain over time, what they could scale, and which practices remained implicit rather than being developed into explicit programs. We identified four barrier clusters: institutional fragmentation and coordination deficits; capability gaps and uneven professionalization; infrastructural and resource constraints; and autonomy, public legitimacy, and inclusivity tensions. Importantly, these clusters compounded one another.

3.3.1. Institutional Fragmentation and Coordination Deficits

Makerspaces interacted with multiple policy domains such as education, culture, waste management, innovation, and social services without a stable coordinating interface. This institutional fragmentation complicated access to funding, generated uncertainty about where makerspaces belong, and limited opportunities to integrate repair and reuse activities into municipal CE agendas. It also contributed to duplication and weakened continuity in building city-wide reuse networks.

3.3.2. Capability Gaps and Uneven Professionalization

Makerspaces relied on founders’ competences, volunteer labor, and ad hoc partnerships. While such arrangements supported autonomy and experimentation, they also created bottlenecks in administrative capacity (grant writing, reporting, compliance), service design (safety procedures, quality assurance), and long-term maintenance of equipment. Capability gaps became particularly constraining when makerspaces attempted to formalize repair services, maintain regular educational programming, or coordinate material inflows and outflows with external partners.

3.3.3. Infrastructural and Resource Constraints

Circular practices required stable infrastructures, especially affordable space, sufficient storage, appropriate tools, and enough time for skilled guidance. Yet many makerspaces faced precarious leases, limited storage for reusable materials, and high maintenance costs for equipment. These constraints incentivized selective intake and limited the extent to which reuse could be offered. Resource constraints also shaped who participated; where access depended on unpaid time, volunteer capacity, or membership fees, inclusivity goals were harder to sustain.

3.3.4. Autonomy and Inclusivity Tensions

This barrier cluster emerged from repeated interview and observational accounts concerning access, safety, public visibility, reporting burdens, and the perceived social boundaries of makerspaces. A recurring tension concerned balancing grassroots autonomy with public legitimacy. Formal partnerships could provide resources and visibility, yet they could also introduce reporting burdens, pressures toward measurable outputs, or alignment with external agendas. Inclusivity tensions arose when makerspaces unintentionally reproduced skill-based or gendered boundaries, when safety and liability concerns restricted access, or when local communities perceived makerspaces as niche rather than as shared infrastructure.

Identified barriers mutually reinforced one another. Fragmented governance increased transaction costs for partnerships and stable funding, deepening capability gaps and encouraging founder-dependent arrangements. Capability gaps, in turn, reduced the ability to secure resources and comply with institutional requirements, reproducing precarity in space and equipment. Resource constraints fed into inclusivity tensions by limiting open access and increasing reliance on selective membership models. As a result, circularity remained implicit because conditions for developing explicit repair and reuse services were not consistently available.

Weak ties to local stakeholders constrained material inputs, participation, and collaboration. Entry for newcomers was hindered by psychosocial barriers (e.g., beginners’ shyness and perceptions of closed communities). Respondents suggested that deeper linkages with public institutions could mitigate these barriers by expanding access to spaces and technologies, enabling systematic mentoring, embedding programs within educational pathways, and strengthening connections to municipal material flows.

Table 7. Typology of makerspaces and illustrative barriers to developing circular practices.

Makerspace Type	Dominant Mission and Activities	Typical Circular Practices (Implicit/Explicit)	Illustrative Barriers (Governance, Infrastructure, Capacity, Reach)
Craft makerspaces	Developing manual skills; extending product lifespans through repair, maintenance, and upcycling	Implicit: routine repairs, maintenance services, use of scraps and secondary materials, leftover shelves Explicit: repair cafés, upcycling courses in a minority of cases	Limited ongoing funding; fragmented links to municipal reuse systems; spatial constraints for material storage; dependence on a few key mentors; limited outreach beyond core communities
Digital fabrication makerspaces	Innovation, experimentation, and prototyping (3D printing, CNC, electronics, coding)	Implicit: fabrication of spare parts, ad hoc repair of devices, open-source designs that extend product lifetimes Explicit: organized prototyping and hackathons with reuse/repair themes	High equipment and maintenance costs; strong safety and documentation requirements; project-based funding cycles; tension between open experimentation and market/innovation pressures
Polytechnic makerspaces	Technical literacy for children, youth, and adults	Implicit: everyday repair and modification during courses and clubs Explicit: repair projects	Variable recognition of circularity in curricula; restricted access for broader public
Educational makerspaces	Learning-through-making	Implicit: circulation of offcuts and donated materials Explicit: curriculum-linked sustainability in some institutions.	Dependence on institutional rules and timetables; limited autonomy of student initiatives
Cross-cutting (all types)	—	—	Institutional fragmentation; weak strategic anchoring in municipal CE plans; gaps in coordination and material-flow integration; internal capacity and competence gaps; limited reach to new user groups

synthesizes the typology introduced above and links each makerspace type to both typical circular practices and the main constraints identified in the barrier analysis. It highlights that circularity can be produced implicitly through routine activities such as repair, reuse, peer learning, and material circulation, whereas explicit circular programming remains less common and context-dependent. At the same time, it shows that barriers appear at multiple levels from governance and strategic recognition to infrastructure, internal capacity, and outreach. Moreover, several constraints cut across makerspace types.

4. Discussion

The findings respond to the three research questions by identifying the main domains of circular practice, showing how these practices vary across makerspace types, and clarifying the interacting barriers and governance conditions that shape makerspaces’ circular potential. This study indicates that makerspaces could serve as an important, yet insufficiently recognized, component of urban circular infrastructure. Across the cases examined, circular outcomes were generated primarily through routine practices such as repair, maintenance, reuse of offcuts, ad hoc redistribution of materials, and peer learning, rather than through formalized CE programs. In this respect, the results extend existing CE scholarship by drawing attention to forms of circularity that are embedded in everyday practice, socially organized, and only partially visible to policy frameworks oriented toward formal programs, measurable outputs, or technological innovation.

The results also support the value of distinguishing between implicit and explicit circularity. While makerspaces produced environmentally relevant outcomes, participants usually framed these activities in practical, educational, economic, or community-oriented terms rather than through explicit environmental terms. This pattern resonates with the logic of quiet sustainability [20], but the present study adapts that insight to the urban circular economy context by showing how materially consequential practices may remain weakly recognized precisely because they are not publicly articulated as circular-economy interventions.

4.1. Implicit Circularity and the Strategic Role of Environmental Framing

Although environmental motivation was rarely the primary driver of participation, environmental framing still matters strategically. It shapes external legitimacy because makerspaces may adopt “green” language to access funding streams, municipal programs, or partnerships, even when their day-to-day practices remain grounded in craft values, thrift, learning, and community. Furthermore, it influences coordination because when circular economy (CE) policy is translated into branding and formal reporting categories, it can enable alignment or misrecognition. Therefore, recognizing implicit circularity is practically consequential for how cities identify, evaluate, and support circular infrastructures.

4.2. Circularity Despite the System and the Need for Hybrid Governance

Where formal CE policy is framed as a top-down project driven by technological innovation, business models, and market instruments [2,5,17,27,70], the implicit circularity reflected a bottom-up socio-technical configuration rooted in operational necessities, economic pragmatism, and community norms. The study makes three related contributions to CE research. First, it develops the notion of implicit circularity to identify circular outcomes that arise through ordinary practice without being explicitly framed as circular economy or sustainability action. Second, it shows that makerspaces may sustain repair, reuse, and learning even under fragmented institutional conditions, thereby illustrating how circular practices can persist without strong strategic anchoring. Third, it points to the importance of governance arrangements that do not simply formalize grassroots activity, but rather connect it to broader urban systems while preserving its practical flexibility, social embeddedness, and capacity for experimentation.

The barrier analysis indicated a governance deficit of grassroots sustainability initiatives. Institutional fragmentation, weak strategic recognition, and coordination shortfalls limited the mobilization of existing circular capacities [30,33,37,58]. Importantly, these barriers interacted; for instance, fragmentation increased transaction costs for collaboration and funding access, which deepened capability gaps and reinforced founder-dependence. In turn, resource and space constraints intensified selective intake practices and restricted inclusivity.

4.3. Autonomy, Formalization, and Support

A key structural dilemma is how to preserve grassroots autonomy while enabling systemic integration. The tension between community openness and formalization mirrors broader debates on the institutionalization of civic initiatives [29]. Over-standardization risks undermining experimentation and the informal learning cultures that enable repair, reuse, and tinkering; yet the absence of formal support limits durability, reach, and equitable access. Our evidence therefore supports soft-governance approaches in the form of lightweight standards, brokerage and coordination functions, and infrastructural backstops that reduce transaction costs while protecting experimentation and bottom-up norm-setting [55,56]. In practice, this implies prioritizing stability (space, maintenance, facilitation capacity) and interoperability (referrals, shared protocols where needed) over narrow projectization focused only on equipment purchases or one-off events.

4.4. Makerspaces as Hybrid Circular Infrastructure

The results point to the promise of a hybrid circular infrastructure in which makerspaces perform as distributed nodes that couple technical capacities with social capital. We use the term hybrid because makerspaces combine features that are usually analytically separated: technical production and social learning, formal and informal coordination, grassroots initiative and institutional interface, and material experimentation and public-service functions. In such a model, makerspaces represent interfaces between civil society and municipal systems that translate CE ambitions into everyday practice while feeding back operational intelligence (e.g., what materials circulate, what skills are missing, what logistics bottlenecks recur) into city strategies. This framing aligns with proposals to connect makerspaces to city-wide circular networks [6,17] and suggests that their contribution extends beyond technical innovation to social transformation based on cultivating practices, identities, and norms consistent with repairability, longevity, and shared use.

4.5. Learning-by-Doing as a Lever for Circular Literacy

The educational potential of makerspaces appears especially strong through informal learning. Peer mentoring, tinkering, and learning-by-doing can deepen users’ understanding of how products work, build repair competence, and strengthen attachments to objects. Because this learning occurs through practical problem-solving rather than abstract sustainability messaging, it may generate more durable capabilities and routines. From an urban transition perspective, makerspaces thus represent an underutilized lever for building circular literacy among citizens through competence-based learning.

4.6. Territorial Embeddedness and the Problem of Scale

Makerspaces are territorialized. They often emerge in response to local deficits and are established in repurposed local spaces, such as garages and disused buildings. They also integrate local resource streams. This territorial embeddedness can generate context-appropriate practices and strong community ties. However, it also limits systemic reach. Without linkages to broader circular networks and alignment with other municipal systems, impacts remain fragmented. The practical challenge lies in supporting local embeddedness while enabling networked linkages that can scale effects across the city.

4.7. Policy and Practice Implications

From a policy perspective, the results suggest that the contribution of makerspaces to urban circularity is most likely to grow where public support focuses on enabling conditions. A first priority is coordination: lightweight brokerage structures can reduce fragmentation, connect makerspaces to municipal actors, and facilitate learning across organizations. A second priority is continuity of operation, especially access to affordable and technically suitable premises, storage capacity, equipment maintenance, and modest long-term support for facilitation and safety. A third priority is better integration into local material systems, for example through links to reuse centers, collection points, repair initiatives, and educational programs. These measures would not transform makerspaces into formal service providers in any simple sense, but they could make existing circular practices more stable, more visible, and more accessible to broader publics [2,5,11,12,46]. The feasibility of these recommendations depends on real-world institutional constraints. Local governments differ substantially in administrative capacity, budget flexibility, political priorities, and their ability to coordinate across sectors such as waste management, education, culture, and innovation. Public procurement and accountability rules may also make long-term, flexible support for small grassroots infrastructures difficult to implement. For this reason, the governance options outlined here should be understood less as a single policy template than as a scalable menu of interventions, ranging from low-cost brokerage and referral functions to more resource-intensive support for premises, storage, and program continuity.

4.8. Governance Implications

The results align with governance perspectives that treat local sustainability transitions as coordination problems across heterogeneous actors rather than as linear implementation of singular instruments. Makerspaces operate as multi-actor networks that require a fit between grassroots experimentation and institutional support. From a network-governance viewpoint, fragmentation indicates a need for coordination functions. From an adaptive-governance perspective, makerspaces can be understood as local laboratories generating situated knowledge, provided that governance arrangements support iteration, learning, and the stabilization of basic infrastructures. A mixed model combining autonomy with light-touch coordination and enabling public support appears most consistent with preserving experimentation [11,39].

4.9. Context Specificity and Transferability

Some mechanisms observed here are plausibly context-specific, particularly the cultural legitimacy of repair and “making-do” associated with post-socialist trajectories. At the same time, many mechanisms appear transferable, especially because repair and reuse tend to remain implicit under fragmented governance [12,59,71,72]; early-stage infrastructures depend heavily on founders’ competences [10,15,73,74,75]; space and storage constraints structure the feasibility of reuse [19,31,76,77]; and autonomy–embeddedness tensions recur when civic initiatives intersect with formal systems [49,55,78]. We therefore interpret the Czech case as theoretically informative for understanding how grassroots circularity can persist even when CE discourse, coordination, and funding lag practice, and what governance conditions help such practices become more stable, accessible, and equitable.

4.10. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This study has several limitations. First, it foregrounded founders’ and operators’ perspectives; although observations and documents partially identified user-facing practices, the voices of users, neighboring residents, and municipal actors were not systematically included. Future research should broaden stakeholder coverage to test whether implicit circularity is experienced similarly across groups. Second, despite the mapping protocol and well-documented sampling, makerspaces with stronger visibility might have been more easily identifiable and thus overrepresented. Because the design prioritized maximum variation over statistical representativeness, the contribution of this study is best understood as analytic generalization specifying practice domains, the distinction between implicit and explicit, and interacting barriers. Third, environmental benefits were inferred from documented practices but were not quantified in material or energy terms. Future work should combine qualitative study with material-flow tracking and life-cycle approaches (e.g., categories of items repaired, replacement avoidance, diversion volumes) to estimate environmental impacts while retaining sensitivity to social organization. Finally, the analysis provides a cross-sectional snapshot of a rapidly evolving field. Longitudinal and comparative studies would be valuable for tracing how implicit circularity, institutional linkages, and degrees of formalization develop over time across different urban and national contexts.

Table 4 links each barrier cluster to governance options and the expected mechanism through which circularity could become more stable, visible, and inclusive.

Table 8. Challenges and policy recommendations (linking barriers to governance options).

Barrier/Challenge	Mechanism Disrupted	Recommendation (Actors)	Expected Effect on Circularity
Institutional fragmentation and coordination deficits	No stable interface across policy domains; high transaction costs	Create a municipal-level coordination node (broker) for makerspace; CE collaboration; shared calendar/referral system	Lower coordination costs; enable network effects
Capability gaps and uneven professionalization	Founder-dependence; limited admin/service- design capacity	Provide capacity grants for facilitation, safety procedures, equipment maintenance; back-office support	Stabilize services; enable scaling of explicit repair/reuse
Infrastructural constraints	Reuse requires space; intake becomes selective	Provide subsidized space/storage in municipal properties; micro-grants for storage infrastructure	Expand feasible reuse; reduce leakage into waste streams
Resource constraints	Short cycles discourage long-term planning	Multi-year core financing tied to learning/service goals; simplified reporting	Enable sustained programming and partnerships
Autonomy	Partnerships add burdens; risk mission drift	Use light-touch MOUs; learning-oriented evaluation; co-designed metrics	Preserve experimentation while enabling accountability
Inclusivity tensions	Access models exclude; skill boundaries persist	Fund outreach formats (intro workshops, community repair days); inclusive facilitation training	Broaden participation; strengthen social dimension

does not present a new classification of barriers; instead, it translates the empirically identified barrier clusters into a policy-oriented mechanism map linking each challenge to a governance response and its expected effect.

Future research should build on this mechanism map in four directions: (1) examining the conditions under which grassroots actors are effectively connected to urban strategies and material systems; (2) tracing makerspace trajectories longitudinally across institutional forms (community/non-profit, municipal/public, institutional, commercial) to understand how different governance arrangements affect durability, inclusivity, and innovation; (3) developing robust mixed-method approaches to quantify environmental and social benefits of implicit circular practices; and (4) the mechanism map provides a foundation for subsequent quantitative estimation, e.g., participation volumes, material flows, and environmental impacts.

5. Conclusions

This study examined Czech makerspaces, which often engage in circular practices without explicitly naming them as CE activities. In diverse organizational settings, makerspaces promote product life extension, material recirculation, and practical learning through activities such as repair, maintenance, reuse, tinkering, and peer-to-peer guidance. Rather than appearing as formal environmental programming, these contributions were embedded in ordinary operational routines and community practices.

The study posits that makerspaces can be understood as a form of distributed circular micro-infrastructure, relevant not only in technical production but also in the social organization of competencies, materials, and learning. The concept of implicit circularity reveals a set of circular outcomes that might otherwise be overlooked analytically and politically because participants frame them in pragmatic, educational, or communal terms rather than explicitly environmental ones.

The results also show that the development of makerspaces’ circular potential is shaped by interacting barriers, especially fragmented governance, uneven internal capacities, infrastructural constraints, and tensions between autonomy, legitimacy, and accessibility. These conditions help explain why circular practices remain low-visibility and difficult to stabilize as more durable, public-facing services.

The main practical implication is that cities should not only look for circularity in large-scale technical systems or formal CE programs. They should also recognize and support the grassroots infrastructures that sustain everyday urban life through repair, reuse, and learning. Support is likely to be most effective when it strengthens coordination, improves operational stability, and connects makerspaces to wider municipal material and educational systems without undermining their local embeddedness and experimental character.

In this sense, the study contributes to CE debates by demonstrating how relevant circular practices can remain implicit in everyday urban life and by identifying governance conditions under which these practices can become more visible, durable, and inclusive.