Anticipated environmental sustainability of personal fabrication

Abstract

Distributed manufacturing is rapidly proliferating to citizen level via the use of digital fabrication equipment, especially in dedicated "makerspaces". The sustainability benefits of citizens' personal fabrication are commonly endorsed. However, to assess how these maker practitioners actually deal with environmental issues, these practitioners and their practices need to be studied. Moreover research on the environmental issues in personal fabrication is nascent despite the common perception that the digital technologies can become disruptive. The present paper is the first to report on how practitioners assess the environmental sustainability of future practices in this rapidly changing field. It does so through an envisioning workshop with leading-edge makers. The findings show that these makers are well able to envision the future of their field. Roughly 25% of the issues covered had clear environmental implications. Within these, issues of energy use, recycling, reusing and reducing materials were covered widely by environmentallyoriented participants. In contrast, issues related to emerging technologies, materials and practices were covered by other participants, but their environmental implications remained unaddressed. The authors concluded there is a gap between different maker subcultures in their sustainability orientations and competences. Further research on the environmental aspects of real-life maker practices and personal fabrication technologies now could help avert negative impacts later, as the maker phenomenon spreads. This knowledge should also be directed to developing targeted environmental guidelines and solutions for personal fabrication users, which are currently lacking. Potential also lies in seeking to enhance dialogue between pro-environmental and new-technology-oriented practitioners through shared spaces, workshops and conferences.

Making “Making” Critical: How Sustainability is Constituted in Fab Lab Ideology

“…On their side, the Fab Lab organizers were unable to maintain Waste-lab's engagement, even if their strengths in ad hoc, experimental processes were desired (see Figure 2). This would appear to confirm emerging research that indicates maker communities are divided in their sustainability orientations and knowledge, and they may need scaffolding to be able to engage robustly with important sustainability issues (Fleischmann, Hielscher, and Merritt 2016;Kadish and Dulic 2015;Kohtala and Hyysalo 2015).…”

Circular Cities: Mapping Six Cities in Transition

“…Therefore, bottom-up innovation encompasses the business community as well as networks and groups creating innovative solutions for sustainable development that respond to local scenarios (Smith & Seyfang, 2007). Examples include community-driven energy programs (Forrest and Wiek, 2014;Seyfang et al, 2014;van der Schoor and Scholtens, 2015), civic low carbon labs (Heiskanen et al, 2015), creative maker-networks like Fab Labs (networks of workshops that provide (public) access to tools and skills) (Kohtala and Hyysalo, 2015;Stacey, 2014); or repair and reuse networks (where people can share goods or help one another fix goods) shows community competence for energy and waste management. Relevant to the concepts of a circular city is that of the grassroots global community Open Source Circular Economy 3 .…”

Circular Makerspaces: the founder’s view

“…sustainable. In addition, the literature on sustainability within makerspaces acknowledges the need for more leadership and guidance to come from within it (Fleischmann, Hielscher, and Merritt 2016;Kohtala and Hyysalo 2015).…”