A transition to a circular economy depends on more than designing recyclable products or improving industrial systems. Consumers must also choose to buy less, purchase second-hand goods, repair what they own, share products, donate usable items and turn old materials into something new. New research suggests that the obstacles preventing these behaviours are not interchangeable, and that practical barriers can matter more than general environmental awareness.
A study published in Circular Economy and Sustainability on 1 October 2026 compared six forms of circular behaviour among residents of South Tyrol in northern Italy. The researchers found striking differences in what predicted each activity. Safety and trust were particularly important for second-hand purchasing, durability perceptions were strongly linked to repair, and lack of skills dominated the barriers to upcycling.
Across statistically significant barrier effects, the estimated reduction in the odds of engaging in a circular practice ranged from about 51% to 88%. The findings challenge the idea that a single sustainability campaign can reliably increase every form of circular consumption.
A representative survey of 994 residents
The researchers analysed data collected with the Provincial Statistical Institute of South Tyrol, known as ASTAT. The survey formed part of ASTAT’s probability-based population panel and was administered in German and Italian between September and October 2025 using online and telephone interviews.
The target population was residents aged 18 to 80. Panel participants had originally been selected using stratified probability sampling based on sex, geographic area and age, and they agreed to join the panel before knowing the subject of this particular survey. The study wave included 994 respondents and achieved an 83% response rate. Survey weights calibrated for sex, age, geography and educational attainment were used to improve population representativeness.
Participants reported how often they engaged in six behaviours covering different stages of a product’s life: reducing consumption, buying second-hand, repairing and maintaining products, sharing or collaborative consumption, donating items and upcycling. Responses ranged from never to often on a four-category scale.
The researchers also measured demographic characteristics, normative orientations, preferences for durable and sustainable products, and perceived barriers and motivations. Their primary analysis used survey-weighted ordinal logistic regression, which retained the ordered frequency categories. Complementary binary models distinguished respondents who said they engaged in a behaviour often from everyone else. Robustness checks included alternative binary specifications and, where sparse data could destabilise estimates, Firth bias-reduced logistic regression.
Different behaviours had different predictors
The six ordinal models were jointly statistically significant, but their explanatory power varied. McFadden pseudo-R² values ranged from 0.044 for upcycling to 0.109 for reducing consumption. This modest range is important because it indicates that a large share of real-world circular behaviour remains outside the variables measured in the survey.
Reducing consumption was particularly associated with minimalist values. Respondents who endorsed this orientation had about 2.77 times the odds of reporting a higher frequency of consumption reduction. Stronger durability perceptions were associated with roughly 1.96 times the odds, while higher education was associated with about 1.72 times the odds.
Second-hand purchasing followed a different pattern. Having children younger than 13 in the household was associated with about 2.10 times the odds of greater engagement, while lifestyle norms were associated with odds around 1.74 times higher. Adults aged 60 to 80, however, had substantially lower odds than those aged 18 to 39, with an odds ratio of approximately 0.318.
Repair was more strongly connected to how people thought about product longevity. A stronger durability orientation was associated with about 2.66 times the odds of greater repair and maintenance activity. Middle-aged adults had around 1.58 times the odds of greater repair engagement compared with younger adults, and people aged 60 to 80 had around 1.74 times the odds.
Sharing was associated more strongly with sustainability perceptions and social factors. Sustainability-related perceived behavioural control was associated with an odds ratio of about 1.69 and waste-related norms with about 1.49. Men had lower odds of sharing than women, with an odds ratio near 0.43.
Donation had fewer strong predictors. Households with young children and respondents with stronger sustainability-related product preferences each showed odds ratios of about 1.58. Men again reported lower engagement, with an odds ratio around 0.61. Upcycling was the least well explained of the six behaviours, although sustainability and durability perceptions were positively associated with participation.
Barriers were often more powerful than awareness
The most policy-relevant result emerged when the researchers examined specific barriers and motivations for second-hand purchasing, repair and upcycling.
For second-hand purchasing, 38.4% of respondents identified safety concerns as a barrier, 33.5% reported insufficient trust in product quality and durability, and 30.9% pointed to a lack of nearby services or opportunities. In the adjusted binary model, perceived lack of security was associated with an odds ratio of about 0.12. In practical terms, that corresponds to an estimated 88% reduction in the odds of active second-hand purchasing. Limited availability and effort each had odds ratios near 0.20, while low trust had an odds ratio around 0.29.
Repair faced a different obstacle profile. Lack of required skills was the most commonly reported barrier at 34%, followed by limited service availability at 25% and cost at 16.9%. In the adjusted model, lack of trust had an odds ratio around 0.34, limited availability around 0.49 and perceived effort around 0.62. Durability perceptions remained a strong positive predictor, with odds around 2.6 times higher.
Upcycling showed the clearest capability problem. More than half of respondents, 53.4%, reported insufficient skills, the highest single barrier prevalence among the behaviours examined. Another 25.8% cited lack of time. In the model, time and effort barriers had odds ratios of approximately 0.22 and 0.23 respectively, equivalent to reductions in the odds of active engagement of roughly 78% and 77%.
Economic barriers were comparatively uncommon in the descriptive responses for second-hand purchasing and upcycling, reported by 3.7% and 7.2% respectively. This matters because it suggests that simply making circular options cheaper may not address the constraints that many consumers actually experience.
Why a single circular-consumer campaign may miss the target
The study’s central message is that circular behaviour is a portfolio of different actions rather than one general tendency. Someone willing to repair a durable product may not necessarily buy second-hand or participate in a sharing system. Likewise, environmental concern may motivate an individual without giving them the skills, time, trust or infrastructure needed to act.
This distinction has practical consequences for businesses and policymakers. Second-hand markets may benefit from stronger quality assurance, product verification and safety guarantees. Repair participation may respond more to accessible services, spare parts, technical information and practical skills. Upcycling initiatives may need workshops, training and convenient access to tools or materials rather than another awareness campaign.
Segmentation also matters. The study found that household composition, age and gender operated differently across behaviours. That makes broad descriptions such as “the sustainable consumer” potentially misleading. A family with young children may have strong reasons to participate in second-hand markets, while an older consumer may be more inclined to repair but less inclined to buy used products.
Important limits to the findings
The results should not be interpreted as proof that the identified barriers cause changes in behaviour. The analysis is cross-sectional and observational, so the odds ratios describe associations after statistical adjustment rather than causal effects.
The behaviours were also self-reported, creating potential recall and social-desirability bias. Respondents may overstate environmentally desirable activities, and the survey could not verify their answers against repair transactions, sharing-platform records or physical waste data.
The questions were deliberately product-agnostic. Yet the barriers to repairing a smartphone can differ substantially from those involved in repairing furniture, while trust in second-hand children’s equipment may differ from trust in used clothing. More product-specific research could therefore produce different effect sizes.
Finally, South Tyrol is a specific institutional and cultural setting with a population of roughly 550,000 and relatively detailed local public infrastructure. The findings cannot automatically be generalised to countries or regions with different markets, income structures, norms or access to circular services.
From persuasion to practical enablement
The research does not suggest that environmental attitudes are irrelevant. Instead, it shows why motivation alone can be insufficient. Circular choices often require consumers to overcome concrete frictions at the moment they try to act.
For organisations seeking to increase circular participation, the more useful question may therefore be less about whether people understand sustainability and more about what stops them from completing a specific behaviour. Removing a safety concern in a second-hand market, improving access to repair services or teaching an upcycling skill may produce a more direct route to participation than a generic message about the environmental value of circularity.
Source Information
Study: How Do Consumers Engage With Circularity? Differences Across Six Circular Economy Behaviours
Authors: Jonathan Edgardo Cohen, Jessica Balest, Silvia Tomasi and colleagues
Journal: Circular Economy and Sustainability
Published: 1 October 2026
DOI: 10.1007/s43615-026-01147-z
Study type: Cross-sectional probability-panel survey with survey-weighted regression analysis
