Environment strategy: behaviour changes needed to achieve Scotland's goals for circular economy

4. Rapid Evidence Assessment to Prioritise Circular Consumption Behaviours

The results of two searches comprising the REA are presented below. This follows with the description of the prioritisation process which included discussion and agreement with the project Steering Group.

4.1 Results of Search 1 Circular Behaviour Frameworks

The first search led to the identification of seven circular behaviour frameworks, which are summarised in Table 7 (Appendix 1). From these, the Macklin and Kaufman (2024) framework was selected as the basis for developing the comprehensive list of circular consumer behaviours used in this project. This framework was chosen primarily for its strong behavioural orientation, focusing specifically on the practices and decisions of consumers.

Several previous studies have attempted to inventory circular behaviours. Most notable is Reike et al. (2018), who developed the widely cited 10-R framework. However, while well-known, the 10-R framework blends consumer behaviours with product lifecycle stages and design interventions, making it less focused on individual behaviour. In contrast, the Macklin and Kaufman (2024) framework strikes an effective balance: it is abstract enough to support the categorisation of behaviours while remaining specific enough to capture a broad range of consumer practices. It also groups behaviours by behavioural category as well as aligning them with circular functions. This made it more suitable for the purpose of this research than higher-level frameworks such as Lindahl (2018) or Jourdain and Lamah (2024). Although the framework developed by Colley et al. (2024) also demonstrated an appropriate level of specificity, its primary focus is on measuring behaviours rather than identifying them.

Table 1 outlines key aspects of the Macklin and Kaufman (2024) framework in scope for this research. We found the circular function, function of behaviour and behaviour categories to be most useful. The circular function categories describe how the behaviour changes the material flow. Slowing means strategies to make items last longer, while narrowing means using fewer resources to produce the same product. Behavioural categories are ways of grouping similar behaviours according to what it is trying to achieve e.g. optimise item use groups together several behaviours that enable consumers to extend the life of objects they already own in various ways. Table 1 also provides examples of behaviours in different sectors and demonstrate its usefulness and relevance.

Table 1: Comprehensive list of circular behaviours with examples by sector

Circular function: Slow

Behaviour function: Optimise item use

Behaviour examples: Use existing item

Food example: Use up food in own kitchen

Textile example: Wear existing clothes more times / for longer

Transport example: Use existing private transport (car / bike)

Circular function: Slow

Behaviour function: Optimise item use

Behaviour examples: Repurpose own item

Food example: Use items intended for one meal for another

Textile example: Make new clothes from existing clothes

Transport example: Revamp existing transport e.g. paint

Circular function: Slow

Behaviour function: Optimise item use

Behaviour examples: Use item sparingly

Food example: Only make what you need e.g. portions, Plan meals

Textile example: NA

Transport example: Only use car when other options are not available

Circular function: Slow

Behaviour function: Optimise item use

Behaviour examples: Lend items (locally / via networks)

Food example: NA

Textile example: Lend clothes to friends and family

Transport example: Lend vehicle to others

Circular function: Slow

Behaviour function: Optimise item use

Behaviour examples: Share items (locally / via networks)

Food example: Share excess food

Textile example: Swap clothes with wardrobe sharing apps

Transport example: Share vehicles with others

Circular function: Slow

Behaviour function: Extend working life of item

Behaviour examples: Maintain item

Food example: Freeze food; Preserve food; Store food correctly

Textile example: Have carpets and sofas cleaned

Transport example: Take car for regular servicing

Circular function: Slow

Behaviour function: Extend working life of item

Behaviour examples: Repair items

Food example: NA

Textile example: Mend clothes

Transport example: Have car repaired

Circular function: Slow

Behaviour function: Extend working life of item

Behaviour examples: Upgrade

Food example: NA

Textile example: Add new zips to cushions

Transport example: Put new seat on bicycle

Circular function: Slow

Behaviour function: Extend working life of item

Behaviour examples: Upcycle

Food example: Make new meal with leftovers, Use leftover ingredients

Textile example: Make old clothes into new clothes or furnishings

Transport example: NA

Circular function: Narrow

Behaviour function: Minimise acquisition impact

Behaviour examples: Receive item second hand

Food example: Use food apps to pick up food others do not want

Textile example: Receive clothes previously worn by friends or family

Transport example: Receive vehicle from friends or family that they no longer use

Circular function: Narrow

Behaviour function: Minimise acquisition impact

Behaviour examples: Buy item second hand

Food example: NA

Textile example: Buy clothes or soft furnishings from second-hand platforms

Transport example: Purchase a second-hand car

Circular function: Narrow

Behaviour function: Minimise acquisition impact

Behaviour examples: Buy item made from reclaimed material

Food example: Buying wonky vegetables

Textile example: Buy clothes made from deadstock fabric

Transport example: Buy a car made with reclaimed materials

Circular function: Narrow

Behaviour function: Minimise acquisition impact

Behaviour examples: Buy item made using recycled material

Food example: Buy food made using recycled materials e.g. insect-based protein

Textile example: Buy clothes made from recycled fibres

Transport example: Buy a car made with recycled materials

Circular function: Narrow

Behaviour function: Buy item built to last

Behaviour examples: Buy item that is durable

Food example: Buy dried or tinned goods

Textile example: Buy clothes from material that will last a long time

Transport example: NA

Circular function: Narrow

Behaviour function: Buy item built to last

Behaviour examples: Buy item that is repairable

Food example: NA

Textile example: Buy clothes or soft furnishings that can be repaired

Transport example: Buy car where all components can be repaired easily

Circular function: Narrow

Behaviour function: Buy item built to last

Behaviour examples: Buy item that is recyclable

Food example: NA – True of all food

Textile example: Buy clothes from fibres that can be recycled

Transport example: NA

4.2 Results of Search 2 Impacts of Circular Behaviours

This section presents an overview of the results from the second search on the environmental and social impacts of circular behaviours, followed by a narrative review of the evidence for three key sectors: textiles, food, and transport.

The second search on the impact of circular behaviours resulted in 176 relevant studies. These were labelled to describe the behaviour, the sector and their impact. We used the function and purpose categories from the Macklin and Kaufmann (2024) framework as well as a description of the behaviour using the same terms as the study to provide more detail on the behaviours studied at a granular level.

To give a sense of what evidence is available on the impact of changing various circular behaviours, two cross tabulations were produced for the co-occurrence of:

• Sector and behaviour function
• Impact and behaviour function

At the intersection of sector and behaviour function level (Table 2), the largest number of studies that researched the impact of consumer behaviour were on minimising the consumption impact of energy (63 occurrences) and food (56 occurrences). Studies on the impact of extending the working life of items were the least researched in terms of the impact of consumer behaviour.

Table 2: Co-occurrence of sector and behaviour function in the results

Sectors	Avoid consuming	Minimise Consumption Impact	Optimise item use	Extend working life of item
Food	36	56	7	5
Textiles	3	10	3	5
Transport	23	35	10	3

At the intersection of impact and behaviour function (Table 3) we found that minimising the consumption impact and environmental impact were areas where we found the most studies, in fact most studies touched upon this intersection in some way. On the other hand, there were very few studies that looked at the impact of extending the working life of an item.

Table 3: Co-occurrence of impact type and function

	Avoid consuming	Minimise Consumption Impact	Optimise item use	Extend working life of item
Economic	8	20	2	1
Environmental	67	136	20	9
Social	17	43	3	1

Next, we provide a narrative review of the evidence for the textile, food, and transport sectors.

4.2.1 Textiles

Levanen et al. (2021) conducted a life cycle assessment to assess the global warming potential (GWP) of different ownership and end-of-life scenarios for a pair of jeans. They found that the lowest reduction in emissions was achieved by the reduce scenario where the same pair of jeans is worn for an extended period of time and the second lowest was the reuse scenario where the jeans were resold. The sharing scenario where the jeans are rented from a company had a higher impact than the reuse scenario. While renting and therefore not acquiring is higher up in the hierarchy of circular behaviours, due to the transport and infrastructure required to deliver the rental system, it turned out here that its GWP was higher than the jeans being sold / given away for second hand. It is important to note that for the reuse scenario to be effective production of durable or repairable clothes is necessary, which was not accounted for in the model but could result in slightly different GWP impacts. Li et al. (2024) also compared the GWP of fast fashion items in incinerate (baseline) vs rent vs recycle vs second hand trading. Second-hand trading has the highest emission mitigation benefits, especially the offline Consumer-to-Business-to-Consumer second-hand trading model^[5], which reduces emissions by 90 % compared to baseline consumption.

Abagnato et al. (2024) conducted a review of life cycle assessment applications to the reuse, recycling and circular practices for textiles. In addition to Levanen et al. (2021) described above, they also found Zamani et al. (2017) (prior to the scope of the REA search period) who combined different lifespans of a garment (x2 or x4 compared to the baseline), different number of customers (11, 22, 44), two types of exchange methods (online with pick-up point or offline with physical shop) and three types of transport between users (100 % car, 50 % car – 50 % bus, 100 % bike/walking/bus). According to this study, impacts are lower when the garment lifespan is longer, when the garment is bought online and collected from a pick-up point and when the distance from home to the pick-up point is covered by bike or walking. Again, this emphasised the importance of transportation and infrastructure involved in the different reuse / sharing behaviours.

An important point to note from Abagnato et al. (2024) and another systematic review by Luo et al. (Luo et al., 2023) is that the practices adopted during the use phase ensure the life service extension of a garment and lower the lifecycle impacts (Horn et al., 2023, Wiedemann et al., 2022, Levanen et al., 2021). The reviewed publications identified several best practice behaviours for reducing life cycle impacts during the use phase of garments. These include increasing the number of wearing events per garment, avoiding tumble drying, and reducing water and detergent use during washing. Some of the practices are in scope as circular behaviours e.g. use of existing item measured by wearing frequency/occasions, whereas others may move into energy use efficiency and might be considered out of scope e.g. wears before wash, how the product is washed (out of scope), how the product is dried (out of scope) and whether it is ironed (out of scope).

Finally, Amicarelli et al. (2022) noted from their review that studies on the life cycle impact of textiles were lacking in distribution and consumption phases compared to production and use and highlighted that much more data was needed on the impact of sharing and renting platforms.

4.2.2 Food

The results of the literature search returned many studies on avoiding consumption of foods that have a large negative environmental impact and/or minimising consumption impact of food by switching to foods that had lower negative environmental impact, with most of these studies discussing the environmental benefits of adopting more sustainable diets (Bonnet and Coinon, 2024). The adoption of sustainable diets can be understood as a circular economy behaviour when framed in terms of reducing resource waste. Foods with high environmental impacts, particularly those associated with high greenhouse gas emissions, tend to require more intensive use of land, water, and energy. Shifting towards diets with lower resource intensity reduces upstream waste and inefficiency in the food system, aligning with circular economy principles of minimising waste and maximising the value extracted from resources. Helander et al. (2021) found that making dietary changes reduced biomass and cropland footprints by 61% and 48% respectively while reducing food waste only generated reductions of 11% and 15%. Most of the recommended dietary changes also have positive social impacts for health (Paris et al., 2022).

No studies were identified that directly link food waste reduction behaviours to broader impacts. This is unsurprising for two reasons. First, studies assessing the impacts of food waste are typically conducted at a macro level due to data requirements (e.g. Scherhaufer et al., 2018). As such, the inclusion of terms like “household” likely excluded these studies, which do not provide sufficient granularity to assess the impact of individual consumer behaviours. Second, studies that focus on consumer food waste behaviours rarely assess impacts beyond the food waste itself. The only study retrieved that mentioned “impact” in its title, van Rooijen et al. (2024), illustrates this point, as its assessment of impact was limited to reductions in food waste, not broader environmental, social, or economic effects.

Given this gap, we must instead draw on studies that examine the relationship between specific behaviours, such as meal planning, and their effect on household food waste. These include WRAP’s tracking surveys (2022) and academic work (e.g. Stancu et al., 2016; Stancu et al., 2023; Boulet et al., 2023). Such behaviours correspond to two categories within the Macklin Kaufmann framework: optimising the use of food and extending its working life. The former includes planning and portioning behaviours, while the latter refers to practices that maximise the usable lifespan of food after it has been opened, prepared, or partially used, for example, storing leftovers appropriately rather than discarding them. Examples are provided in Table 1.

4.2.3 Transport

Compared to textiles there were few studies that assessed the impact of different circular transport behaviours that consumers could engage in. A review of the role of circular transport to mitigate climate change identified several options to reduce the amount of new material entering the economy and improving material circularity in the sector such as eco-design of vehicles or refurbishment of existing vehicles (De Abreu et al., 2022). However, most of the options listed in this review were not behaviours that consumers can directly engage with now, instead opportunities for businesses with the sector. Of the options listed by De Abreu et al. (2022), only two were actions consumers could currently engage in. These were: maintaining their current vehicle and using it for as long as possible or sharing vehicles.

Chapman et al. (2020) found that while car-sharing did reduce car use it did not discourage car-ownership. This means that journeys and therefore emissions were saved but that a reduction in the number of cars owned was not implied. More recently Narayanan et al. (2025) found that car-sharing and bike-sharing have the potential to reduce private car-ownership. The finding that these services reduced ownership is important because this supports the policy objective of reducing the demand for raw materials being brought into the economy, as well as reducing the quantity of waste.

While mobility solutions can help to support the transition to a circular economy (through reducing material usage), from an overall emissions perspective rebound effects of car sharing should also be considered. Velez at al. (2023) found that users who gave up private car ownership in favour of car sharing reduced their carbon footprint. However, they also observed that previously car-free individuals who began using car sharing services experienced an increase in their carbon footprint, primarily due to additional consumption-related activities, such as shopping trips enabled by access to shared vehicles.

From a circular economy perspective, car sharing services can reduce car ownership and therefore cut the demand for raw materials and waste. However, it is also important to consider the overall climate impact, since for some people car sharing may mean an increase in car use. The impact will not be the same for everyone: for some it can replace owning a car, while for others it may just reduce how often they use the car they already have.

There were no studies identified on the extent to which using and maintaining current vehicles effectively displaces new vehicle purchases. To some extent this is self-evident, but whether households that are keeping vehicles for longer are also buying new vehicles and overall increasing the number of vehicles per household should be considered. More pilot schemes and research are needed to understand how best to promote car sharing to the right groups, and to test whether it really displaces car ownership.

4.3 Results of Prioritising Circular Behaviours

This section presents the results of the behaviour prioritisation process, which aimed to identify the circular economy behaviours with the greatest potential for impact in Scotland. As described in 3.1.3 we used the evidence on impacts from search 2 and considered it alongside other factors to determine which behaviours could be prioritised by the Scottish Government. These factors are described here followed by a description of how they were applied to the behaviours in the textiles, food, and transport sectors to provide recommendations.

4.3.1 Priority Factors

Environmental impact

While circular economy strategies aim to reduce waste and improve resource efficiency, they do not inherently guarantee sustainability. Many circular practices may extend product life but fail to reduce overall consumption (Tunn et al., 2019) and fail to keep us within safe environmental boundaries. To avoid reinforcing unsustainable systems, scholars such as Velenturf and Purnell (2021) argue that the circular economy must be grounded in the principle of sufficiency, which prioritises absolute reductions in material and energy use.

At the behavioural level, sufficiency is likely to involve actions that avoid, reduce, and displace resource-intensive consumption. The Macklin and Kaufman (2024) framework incorporates the behavioural hierarchy developed by Maitre-Ekern and Dalhammer (2019), which is based on sufficiency principles. This behavioural hierarchy suggests that behaviours which avoid consumption altogether (e.g. refusing or delaying acquisition) typically offer greater environmental benefit than those which extend the life of products (e.g. reuse or repair) and so on down the hierarchy.

However, Macklin and Kaufman (2024) emphasise that the environmental impact of circular behaviours must be assessed empirically, as their effectiveness is highly context dependent. In this study, this evidence was gathered through the second search and was used as a key factor in prioritising behaviours.

Policy alignment

Selected behaviours should directly support the objectives related to the circular economy prioritises of the Environment Strategy, Circular Economy and Waste Route Map, and Climate Change Plan. It should limit duplication of behaviours targeted under existing public engagement campaigns such as the Net Zero Engagement Strategy. This was informed by analysing relevant Scottish Government policy documents and input from the Steering Group on this evolving policy area.

As a result, the priority behaviours focussed on material-related behaviours, excluding those centred primarily on energy use or broader interpretations of circularity. This ensured that selected behaviours were clearly aligned with Scottish circular economy objectives related to waste prevention, while remaining distinct from energy-focused Net Zero strategies. Several of the overlapping behaviours were related to avoidance behaviours e.g. avoiding car use or avoiding red meat.

Sector alignment

Related to the point about policy alignment selected behaviours should relate to one of the priority sectors identified based on discussion and inputs from the project steering group. We agreed that from the consumer perspective to prioritise behaviours in textiles, food, and transport. While initially we also considered energy, we identified that from a consumer perspective there were few behaviours that could reduce or prevent material waste and therefore we excluded behaviours related to this sector from the selection of priority behaviours.

Behavioural feasibility

Consideration is given to how likely individuals are to adopt behaviours, including issues of social acceptability, capability, and practical opportunity. This is informed by the relevant literature.

When prioritising behaviours from the broad inventory, it is important to recognise that individuals are generally more willing to adopt new behaviours (approach behaviours) than to give up existing ones (avoidance behaviours). This tendency is explained in part by loss aversion (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979), whereby actions framed as a loss, such as buying fewer clothes, may provoke greater resistance than alternatives with similar outcomes, like wearing existing garments for longer.

Approach behaviours are also more effective for disrupting habitual actions, which are often driven by cue–response associations (Gardner, 2015). For example, instead of asking individuals to resist the urge to buy a snack, offering a lower-impact alternative, such as bringing fruit, can help reshape habits by forming new associations.

While avoiding new purchases is, the goal, it may not be practical or acceptable in all contexts. In these cases, it can be more effective to promote behaviours that indirectly reduce consumption without explicitly asking people to go without. As such, we prioritised behaviours within the ‘optimise use’ category of the Macklin and Kaufman (2024) framework, over those framed as ‘avoid need for item’, particularly where the latter involves foregoing products entirely. Promoting replacement or extended-use behaviours is more likely to resonate with consumers and still contribute meaningfully to circular economy outcomes.

4.3.2 Textiles

For textiles we recommend prioritising behaviours around optimising use of current items whether they be clothes, or other textiles such as soft furnishings (Figure 3).

Promoting this behaviour aims to displace new purchases and is further supported by the next behaviour in the Circular Behaviours hierarchy in Figure 3, which is to extend the life of existing items. As outlined by the evidence there is a balance to be struck when new purchases are required. Borrowing / sharing items has a lower impact, but only if done locally as the travel and infrastructure implied by centrally located borrowing services do not have a net benefit compared to buying second hand. If the item cannot be sourced second hand locally, then durable purchases should be considered as these are likely to displace more new purchases in the future, and then products containing circular materials. However, the number of wears vs the impact of the product with circular materials needs to be carefully weighed, and it becomes necessary to know more about the products and production processes to identify which to promote from an impact perspective. However, from a circular perspective, the durable good is preferred.

Graphic text below:

Vertical flowchart showing a decision process for sustainable purchasing. It begins by asking if an existing item is suitable to wear or use; if yes, the actions are to wear or use it and maintain it. If not, the next steps ask whether the item can be repaired or repurposed, whether access can be gained without ownership, whether a second‑hand item can be bought, whether a more durable item can be bought, and finally whether a lower‑impact item made from circular or recycled materials can be chosen. Each ‘yes’ branch leads to the corresponding recommended action

4.3.3 Food

As described in Table 2, avoiding consumption and minimising acquisition impact were the two behaviour categories with the highest frequency of studies on environmental impact. These findings pointed to a large body of evidence that avoiding meat consumption (avoiding consumption) or switching to a diet with less animal-based foods (minimising acquisition impact) would be one of the most effective ways to reduce environmental impact of the food sector e.g. (Aleksandrowicz et al. 2016; Burke et al. 2023; Scarborough et al. 2023). Reducing red meat consumption or adopting vegetarian diets was also one of the key recommendations made by the Circularity Gap Report (Circle Economy, 2022) as ways to reduce Scotland’s material footprint and GHG emissions.

These behaviours might at first glance be considered as net zero, since they focus on reducing emissions in the sector. However, the emissions associated with food waste are important for the circular economy’s contribution to emissions reduction. When meat and other animal-based foods are wasted, they result in greater emissions per unit wasted than plant-based foods (Munesue et al. 2015). Therefore, reducing meat waste offers disproportionately greater GHG savings than reducing waste of other food types. And one of the ways to do that is to change the type of food that is purchased Amicarelli et al. 2021). The behaviour prioritisation diagram is in Figure 4.

The second group of behaviours to promote are those associated with food waste reduction which fall into the categories of optimising food use and extending the life of food. Examples are provided from the additional sources identified and described in section 4.2.2. As with all sectors we are seeking to prioritise approach behaviours and therefore recommending prioritising promoting diets with a higher proportion of protein from plants (Figure 4).

Graphic text below:

Flowchart showing decisions for reducing environmental impact when choosing food. It begins with the question ‘Can I buy a lower impact food?’ If yes, the action is to buy more plant‑based protein foods such as beans and lentils. If no, the chart branches into two options: ‘Optimise food use’ and ‘Extend life of food.’ Optimising food use includes buying preserved foods, using leftovers, sharing excess food, checking cupboards before shopping, and following a food plan. Extending the life of food includes freezing or preserving items, storing food correctly, and checking fridge and freezer temperatures to maintain shelf life.

4.3.4 Transport

Many of the transport behaviours we considered in the broad inventory of behaviours overlap significantly with the net zero policy area. This included transport based on renewable fuel sources and switching to public transport (the original vehicle sharing). However, in the Scottish policy context these are considered net zero behaviours and not circular behaviours as they are not contributing to a reduction in physical waste.

We therefore recommend a focus on private vehicle sharing (Figure 5), which can include cars, campervans, bikes, e-bikes, scooters, motorbikes. This will displace the purchase of new vehicles and thereby reduce the quantity of new material brought into the economy. We also suggest an emphasis on finding ways to share existing vehicles, particularly those that might be used irregularly such as campervans. This policy was also supported by the findings of the Scottish Circularity Gap report (Circle Economy, 2022), which also highlighted the applicability of vehicle sharing in rural areas of Scotland which are underserved by public transport.

Graphic text below:

Flowchart showing decisions about vehicle ownership. It begins with the question ‘Do you already own the vehicle?’ If yes, the recommended actions are to share the vehicle with others, such as renting out a campervan when not in use, and to maintain and repair the vehicle. If no, the recommended action is to use sharing and rental schemes for cars, bikes, e‑bikes, and campervans.