Despite widespread awareness of circular construction, implementation remains limited. This study makes three contributions: first, demonstrating how practitioner cognitive frameworks, normative expectations, and regulative structures actively maintain linear practices; second, reconceptualising the say-do gap as regime-level design–use misalignments (technology-push assumptions, value misalignments, and knowledge infrastructure gaps) rather than individual behaviour failures; third, demonstrating the DLA methodology as a dual-purpose tool that simultaneously collects empirical regime data and facilitates niche development.
The Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) and Strategic Niche Management (SNM) frameworks guide Dynamic Learning Agenda (DLA) workshops with 75 stakeholders in Barcelona (41 participants) and Brussels (34 participants), enabling comparative regime analysis.
The results demonstrate that barriers manifest as mutually reinforcing cognitive, normative, and regulative elements generating systemic lock-in. Cognitive frames associate circular materials with uncertainty and unfamiliarity, normative expectations privilege established methods and risk avoidance, while regulative structures institutionalise linear construction advantages through building codes and procurement systems that embed cost differentials favouring conventional approaches. Regional analysis reveals different regime configurations: Barcelona stakeholders prioritise supply chain coordination, standardisation, and economic competitiveness, reflecting a regime where technical performance concerns are no longer the primary obstacle, but deployment infrastructure and market conditions remain underdeveloped. Brussels stakeholders emphasise performance validation and regulative operationalisation of secondary materials, reflecting a regime where established niche activity needs to translate into sector-wide market adoption.
Effective transitions require coordinated, multi-dimensional interventions that address the cognitive, normative, and regulative dimensions simultaneously, with context-specific sequencing and integration-focused approaches.
This study makes three original contributions. First, it empirically documents user-side regime dynamics as stabilising mechanisms as powerful as supply-side technological lock-in, demonstrating how practitioner-embedded rules across cognitive, normative, and regulative dimensions actively resist circular innovations, a dimension that transitions studies have insufficiently theorised by prioritising landscape-level shocks and supply-side processes. Second, it extends Akrich's design–use misalignment concept from artefact-level to regime-level analysis, reframing the say–do gap as a structural phenomenon rather than an individual behaviour failure. Third, the DLA methodology is demonstrated as a dual-purpose tool that simultaneously collects empirical regime data and facilitates niche development, offering a replicable approach for transition research.
