ABSTRACT

Title of Thesis: UNDERSTANDING SUSTAINABILITY
PRACTICES AND CHALLENGES IN MAKING
AND PROTOTYPING

Mrunal Dhaygude, Master of Science, 2024

Thesis directed by: Dr. Huaishu Peng
Department of Computer Science

Democratization of prototyping technologies like 3D printers and laser cutters has led

to more rapid prototyping practices for the reasons of research, product development and

individual interests. While prototyping is becoming a much easier and faster process, there

are many sustainability implications neglected. To investigate the current sustainability

landscape within the realm of making, we conducted a comprehensive semi-structured in-

terview study involving 15 participants, encompassing researchers, makerspace managers,

entrepreneurs, and casual makers. In this paper, we present the findings from this study,

shedding light on the challenges, knowledge gaps, motivations, and opportunities that influ-

ence sustainable making practices. We discuss potential future paradigms of HCI research

to help resolve sustainability challenges in the maker community.



UNDERSTANDING SUSTAINABILITY PRACTICES AND
CHALLENGES IN MAKING AND PROTOTYPING

by

Mrunal Dhaygude

Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science

2024

Advisory Committee:
Dr. Huaishu Peng, Chair/Advisor
Dr. Ge Gao
Dr. Stephanie Valencia



© Copyright by
Mrunal Dhaygude

2024



Acknowledgments

I extend my heartfelt gratitude to all those who have contributed to the completion of

this thesis, shaping my graduate journey into an unforgettable experience.

First and foremost, I extend my sincerest gratitude to Dr. Huaishu Peng. Collaborat-

ing with him broadened my horizons in the realm of HCI, deepening my understanding

in ways I never anticipated. His timely guidance and meticulous attention to detail have

undoubtedly refined my research abilities, paving the way for the completion of this thesis.

Dr. Peng’s encouragement to explore topics of personal interest has been invaluable to me.

I am equally grateful to the members of my committee, Dr. Ge Gao and Prof. Stephanie

Valencia, for their invaluable insights that undoubtedly enhance the quality of this work. I

would also like to thank Zeyu Yan, contributions were significant in both research and writ-

ing. I’m grateful for his assistance in leveraging his expertise for hardware prototyping. His

guidance was instrumental in deepening my comprehension of the topic.

I would also like to thank Dustin, Tatyana and the rest of the staff and faculty at the

iSchool for always answering all my questions and providing the required support at all

stages.

I’m incredibly grateful to my colleagues at the Small Artifacts Lab – Zeyu, Zining,

Ziasheng, and Biswaksen. Their expertise, support, and camaraderie have been invaluable

in my growth as a researcher. Beyond research methods, they’ve shared their specialized

knowledge, allowing me to learn so much.

Special thanks are due to my lovely friends and supportive housemates, whose unwa-

vering presence enriched every moment of the past two years. A massive thank you to my

partner, Pratinav, for being my rock throughout this journey and proofreading this docu-

ment at least a hundred times. To Varaali and Gauri, my dearest friends, you never fail to

lift my spirits and make me believe in myself especially when I don’t. Shoutout to my fam-

ily—my mom, dad, brother, and sister-in-law—who truly deserve the dedication for their

ii



unwavering support. Big thanks to my dog ’Momo’ for adding joy to my life, because,

well, why not?

iii



Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ii

1 Introduction 1

2 Related Work 4
2.1 Sustainable Fabrication Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Approaches for Promoting Sustainable Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3 Methods 7
3.1 Recruitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2 Research Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4 Positionality Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4 Findings 11
4.1 Types of Waste: Those Wasteful and Those Still Usable . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4.1.1 Material waste produced via various machining . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.1.2 Brand-new components, intermediate prototypes, and archived projects 13

4.2 Handling Waste: Trashing, Keeping, and Reusing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.1 “They are all going to the trash bin.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.2.2 “I wish I could keep them all.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2.3 “The motor got three more lives.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

4.3 Challenges in being sustainable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.3.1 Lack of procedures and equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.3.2 Sustainable actions may not be worth it . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.3.3 Knowledge gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4.4 Achieving Sustainable Making Through Implicit Means . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.4.1 Reducing design iteration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.4.2 Better organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

iv



5 Discussions 30
5.1 Putting Sustainability at the Forefront of Design Processes . . . . . . . . . 30
5.2 Developing Technologies to Streamline Sustainable Practices . . . . . . . . 33
5.3 Role of Community Engagement and Education in Promoting Sustainabil-

ity in Makerspaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5.4 Setting up Infrastructure to Support Sustainable Practices . . . . . . . . . . 37

6 Conclusions 40

Bibliography 41

v



Chapter 1: Introduction

Makerspaces popularized the idea of personal fabrication and small-scale manufactur-

ing, becoming widespread in public spaces, universities, and educational institutions such

as libraries and schools. Makers engage in personal fabrication for diverse reasons, rang-

ing from hobbies to research and entrepreneurial ventures. However, these fabrication

processes, which rely on machines and materials, often result in the generation of waste in

several different forms. Unfortunately, a significant portion of this waste is either poorly

managed or not fully utilized. The rapid expansion of personal fabrication, with almost

100 percent year-on-year growth in the number of maker spaces [23] in the last decade, has

sparked concerns regarding the sustainability of these processes with several researchers

anticipating the environmental sustainability of personal fabrication [23, 24, 35]. Major

waste is in the form of plastics(like PLA, PETG), plywood, and electronic waste which can

have hazardous impacts on the environment like soil contamination, microplastic contam-

ination, or marine pollution. According to research, almost 33 percent of all 3D prints go

to waste [32] and the most common 3D printing plastics like PLA and ABS take as long

as 1000 years to decompose in a landfill. Similarly, e-waste can take thousands of years

to degrade as well, and some components made of metals, may remain intact in the envi-

ronment forever. The environmentally harmful nature of generated waste, raises concern

and makes it necessary for us to investigate ways to promote more sustainable practices in

makerspaces.

To address the growing concerns around sustainability and personal fabrication, re-

1



searchers have pursued various approaches to address them. The concept of Sustainable

Interaction Design (SID) [4] initially proposed that sustainability should be central to in-

teraction design. Subsequently, the HCI community has conducted extensive research on

sustainability, including ethnographic studies looking into making with resource scarcity

and future unmaking ability in mind [10, 19], the development of environmentally friendly

prototyping materials [22, 26, 34], innovative approaches to reuse, recycle, and repair

[16, 20, 28] as well as ’unmaking’ [33] [19]. There exists a gap in comprehensive studies

that investigate existing practices in making and challenges in sustainable making while

considering the viewpoints of all stakeholders in the ecosystem, including both makers and

managers.

To bridge this gap, we conducted a qualitative study based in the United States. This

involved conducting in-depth semi-structured interviews with a diverse group of 15 individ-

uals, including makers who had different roles like researchers, hobbyists or entrepreneurs

and maker space managers. Additionally, we conducted on-site visits to maker spaces to

observe their functioning and gain a first-hand understanding of their operations, machin-

ery, techniques, and processes in context to sustainability. Based on first-hand accounts of

individuals involved in personal fabrication within maker spaces, spanning contexts like re-

search, entrepreneurship, and hobbyist pursuits, the research provides findings about mak-

ing practices and contributing factors leading to sustainable as well as unsustainable be-

havior within maker spaces. This in-depth study investigates and analyses - the processes

individuals undertake before beginning projects, selection of materials, considerations dur-

ing the selection, prototyping methods, post-completion traditions, and waste management.

It offers insights into the perspectives of both makers and maker space managers, shedding

light on opportunities and obstacles in achieving sustainability. Furthermore, it uncovers

indirect factors contributing to unsustainable behavior, such as design and prototyping prac-

tices, lack of resources, lack of knowledge, and lack of motivation and incentive to name a

2



few. The main contribution of this work is the formulation of actionable recommendations

based on these findings to guide future efforts in promoting the adoption of sustainable

practices in personal fabrication. These recommendations advocate prioritizing sustain-

ability in the design phase, streamlining the adoption of sustainable approaches, educating

makers through training and community engagement, and establishing infrastructure to fa-

cilitate conscientious waste management and resource optimization.

I’d like to acknowledge that this project was in collaboration with Zeyu Yan, a PhD candidate in the
Department of Computer Science at the University of Maryland.

3



Chapter 2: Related Work

2.1 Sustainable Fabrication Technologies

A growing body of research has explored sustainable approaches to personal fabrication

and making. One major area focuses on developing environmentally friendly materials as

alternatives to conventional plastics and foams used in 3D printing and other prototyping

processes. Wall et al. [39] introduced a method to reuse 3D printed objects as infill

material for new prints, reducing plastic waste. Spend coffee grounds [29] and various

bioplastics [3, 37] have been investigated as sustainable feedstocks. Mycelium composites

have been used for digitally fabricating objects and embedding electronics instead of plastic

enclosures [36]. Other biodegradable materials like biofoams have also been explored

[25].

In addition to sustainable materials, researchers have developed design strategies and

workflows intended to promote reuse, repair, and minimizing waste. Novel ”unmaking”

methods allow designing objects for future disassembly and component reuse [30, 33,

41]. Design for repair [16, 27, 43] and designing with waste streams [7, 9, 38] are other

complementary approaches. In the case of electronics, work has looked at decomposable

[34] and even edible circuit elements [22] to reduce e-waste, as well as up-cycling broken

devices into new products like e-ink displays [15].

Beyond technological innovations, qualitative research has examined sustainable prac-

tices in diverse settings. Ethnographic studies at e-waste sites in Australia identified op-

4



portunities for ”unmaking” in the HCI community [19]. Interviews with digital fabrica-

tion experts highlighted the potential of biomaterials like mycelium [26]. Participatory

design activities have explored the concept of ”salvage fabrication” - making new objects

by reusing and repurposing materials while considering their origins and destinations [10].

In a dedicated workshop [42], researchers collaborated to identify potential HCI research

directions, specifically aiming to cultivate a more sustainable ”making” environment within

and beyond laboratory settings.

Despite this prior work, there remains a lack of in-depth understanding about how sus-

tainable making methods and materials are actually being used in real-world settings like

makerspaces, labs, and entrepreneurial spaces. Identifying barriers to widespread adoption

and mapping the current landscape of sustainability practices among makers is an impor-

tant challenge. Our work aims to highlight these knowledge gaps and guide future work in

building sustainable personal fabrication technologies.

2.2 Approaches for Promoting Sustainable Practices

In our previous discussion, we delved into personal fabrication technologies that aid

in sustainable making practices. However, it is essential to recognize that sustainability

challenges are complex and consider options beyond technological solutions. This section

aims to shed light on topics like design methodologies and behavioral interventions that

can contribute to the pursuit of sustainability within personal fabrication spaces such as

makerspaces.

The field of Sustainable Human-Computer Interaction (SHCI) has evolved to tackle sus-

tainability from a multitude of perspectives, recognizing the intricate interplay between de-

sign decisions, human behavior, and environmental impact. Sustainable Interaction Design

(SID) [4] pioneered the integration of environmental considerations and human behavioral

5



factors into the design process of interactive technologies. Researchers have undertaken

efforts to analyse design decisions across a spectrum of sustainability-focused projects,

proposing frameworks such as the ”Should do, Can do, Can know” model [40] to guide de-

sign choices. Furthermore, the SHCI community has dedicated significant attention to the

development of design patterns, principles, and strategies [21] that emphasise the impact

of the design process on sustainability outcomes. These efforts aim to establish a com-

prehensive repository of best practices, serving as a valuable resource for designers and

practitioners alike.

Behavior change interventions have also emerged as a potent tool in the pursuit of sus-

tainability within SHCI. Researchers have explored the potential of sensing and data visu-

alization techniques [2, 6, 8, 14] to encourage responsible actions, particularly in domains

such as energy consumption. Within this, studies have investigated the leveraging of dig-

ital mobile technologies [12, 13, 18] to facilitate self-reflection and provide eco-feedback,

fostering sustainable behaviors through increased awareness and engagement. While the ar-

eas mentioned do not encompass the entirety of SHCI research, they exemplify the diverse

range of topics and approaches being explored by HCI researchers to address sustainability

challenges. As personal fabrication spaces like makerspaces continue to gain prominence,

design decisions, analysis, behavior change interventions, and educational initiatives will

play a pivotal role in cultivating sustainable practices within these creative environments.

6



Chapter 3: Methods

The aim of the research was to investigate the methods and approaches used by makers

and managers, with a focus on sustainability. We opted for semi-structured interviews

as this method enables us to guide the conversation in line with our research objectives

while still allowing for open dialogue. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 15

participants. Participation in our study was voluntary and the study protocol was approved

by the Institutional Review Board at the institution.

3.1 Recruitment

To recruit the participants we used a combination of purposive and convenience sam-

pling. An eligibility criteria was established to recruit suitable participants. Eligible par-

ticipants had to be makers with at least two years of experience in hardware prototyping.

Their prior projects and experience provided insights into their workflow, offering valu-

able data for analysis. A total of 15 participants were recruited. All participants shared

a common identity as makers, but they had diverse roles, including Researchers, Mak-

erspace members, Makerspace managers, Lab managers, Hobbyists, or a combination of

these roles. Purposive sampling was predominantly used to recruit researchers from the

our networks leveraging contacts in the research community. They were directly contacted

and briefed about the study requirements. Given the proximity to public makerspaces, con-

venience sampling was used to recruit participants from public makerspaces. We made

7



recurrent visits to several different maker spaces and also put up recruitment advertise-

ments in makerspace mailing lists. Interested participants were reached out for further

communication and recruitment. To build rapport with makerspace managers and makers,

we introduced ourselves as fellow makers during visits to their makerspaces and partic-

ipated in their events before conducting the interviews. This allowed us to become part

of their community and ask focused and informed questions about their maker activities

during the interviews. Refer to Table 3.1 for a comprehensive overview of the participants’

demographic details.

Participants Role Work space Experience
P1 Researcher Research Lab 5-10 years
P2 Makerspace member Public Makerspace 10+ years
P3 Makerspace manager University Makerspace 10+ years
P4 Researcher Research Lab 2-5 years
P5 Makerspace manager Public Makerspace 10+ years
P6 Researcher Research Lab 2-5 years
P7 Makerspace member Public Makerspace 5-10 years
P8 Researcher Research Lab 2-5 years
P9 Researcher Research Lab 2-5 years
P10 Makerspace member Personal Makerspace 10+ years
P11 Makerspace member Public Makerspace 10+ years
P12 Researcher & Lab manager Research Lab 5-10 years
P13 Hobbyist & Makerspace manager Personal Workspace 5-10 years
P14 Student maker University Makerspace 2-5 years
P15 Student maker University Makerspace 2-5 years

Table 3.1: Participant demographic data

3.2 Research Studies

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the 15 participants[Table 3.1]. We

conducted interviews through a combination of in-person meetings during onsite visits and

remote sessions using the video-conferencing tool Zoom. Additionally, we carried out on-

site observations in conjunction with these interviews during our visits. Each interview had

8



an approximate duration of 120 minutes, and participants were compensated at a rate of 20

USD per hour. We conducted the interviews to gain insights into the participants’ making

practices. The primary goal was to understand both sustainable and unsustainable prac-

tices within their creative processes. To tailor our questions appropriately, we adjusted the

interview questionnaires based on the specific roles of the participants. For academic re-

searchers and maker space members, the questionnaires covered topics such as their design

processes, iteration methods, materials usage, collaboration processes, challenges faced,

sustainability practices and final outcomes. These interviews often delved deeply into the

participants’ work to explore their processes. For maker space managers and lab managers,

we included additional questions related to their management strategies and the challenges

they encountered in overseeing spaces. All interviews were recorded and later transcribed.

These transcripts served as the basis for further data analysis.

3.3 Data Analysis

We extracted 25 hours of interview data from the recordings, which were then tran-

scribed for further analysis. Using inductive thematic analysis [31], all the collaborators

engaged in multiple rounds of open coding without any predetermined codes. Codes were

generated freely throughout the analysis process. We consistently met to review emerging

codes, create a codebook, and make continuous updates. The code generation continued

until no more new codes emerged from all the interview transcripts. Once we saturated

generating new codes over several iterations, the effort culminated in a final codebook

comprising 29 codes. These codes were subsequently organized into a hierarchical struc-

ture of themes, and a consensus was reached regarding the overarching findings, which will

be discussed below.

9



3.4 Positionality Statement

The author is a member of a research lab focused on interactive technologies and pro-

ficient in hardware prototyping methods to accomplish our research objectives. We also

identify strongly with the maker community. Reflecting on our own work and practices

as makers, we were motivated to contribute to the promotion and integration of sustain-

able practices within the maker community. The author with an educational background in

Electronics Engineering and Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), specializes in qualitative

research methods. These variations helped in having different perspectives about research

methodologies. Hands-on involvement in making provides us with valuable insights and an

intimate understanding of the processes involved. This firsthand experience proved instru-

mental in crafting the interviews and analyzing the data, enabling us to extract meaningful

insights from the research.

10



Chapter 4: Findings

In this section, we elaborate on three aspects of our findings to provide a comprehensive

view of how waste is produced, handled, and processed—before, during, and after the

stages of making and prototyping.

4.1 Types of Waste: Those Wasteful and Those Still Usable

Drawing from interviews with practitioners across diverse specializations and on-site

observations, we uncovered two common types of wastes: material waste produced as

byproduct during various machining processes in making, and artifacts, intermediate pro-

totypes, and archived projects that may still be functional but are not in use.

4.1.1 Material waste produced via various machining

All participants identified processed raw material, created through making and proto-

typing, as a significant source of waste. For example, a common type of waste observed

across all the sites we visited involves plastics like PLA, ABS, and PETG from Fused Fila-

ment Fabrication (FFF) 3D printing. As the most widely-used rapid prototyping machines

in makerspaces and research labs, FFF 3D printers are“pretty much at the heart of any

project where you’re making a physical prototype.” Their inherent bottom-up printing pro-

cess requires the generation of support structures, which become waste once the printing is

complete. Additionally, failures in FFF 3D printing are very common and can result in a

11



great amount of plastic waste.

You see a lot of the prints we were doing were not these little baby prints we

were doing you know 20-28 hour prints and we’ll kick a print off before we

leave for the evening. And just let it roll all night and we need it to work and

if we had a problem or like suddenly 20-30 percent of our prints were failing,

that’s a problem. We have to do the whole 20hr print again.[P10-makerspace-

member]

In addition to 3D printing, subtractive manufacturing methods like CNC machining and

laser cutting are also popular at the sites we visited. Both types of machines create shapes

by removing material from sheet materials such as wood, acrylic, or thin metal, and the

leftovers become a major source of waste. In the case of CNC machining, the sawdust

generated during woodworking jobs is often considered a difficult byproduct waste to man-

age. For laser cutting, the corner pieces of a sheet of material are frequently discarded. P7

stated:

So, the one thing that I think is most wasteful in my shop is when I do acrylic

prototyping using lasers to cut the acrylic. There’s no way to recycle it, so you

try to use as much of it as you can. Eventually, the corner pieces get too small

to be useful for anything, and they’re just not viable. [P7-makerspace-manager]

A final category of by-product waste that we uncovered includes chemical solutions

used in either the pre- or post-processing of certain materials. Examples include the alcohol

used for cleaning 3D-printed models made of resin, and the liquid used in desktop waterjet

cutters.

12



4.1.2 Brand-new components, intermediate prototypes, and archived projects

While byproducts generated through machining are mostly wasteful, participants noted

that functional components and prototypes can also become waste. These include brand-

new components purchased before the start of a project to test new approaches—these may

become unnecessary if the project’s direction changes; intermediate prototypes created dur-

ing the making and design process to verify specific features—these are no longer needed

after testing; and finished projects that are not being maintained and thus become obsolete.

P10 showed us a few brand-new custom PCB boards. These boards are put in a small

cardboard box next to his working desk as where he “put parts that not needed”:

I designed these PCB boards for this robot project because I needed them to be

small and breadboard is too big. These PCBs are made by another manufac-

turer, but all these companies have a minimum order for PCBs. So, I ordered

10 of them and used 2 to test the design. The remaining 8 are still good, but

now I don’t need them. [P10-lab-member]

Similarly, P9 reported how he often orders what he needs during prototyping, but does

not revisit them afterward:

I usually buy different parts during prototyping because I don’t know which

one works. I need to do my experiment. If they don’t work out, you’re like,

‘Okay, returning it is too much work, so I guess I’ll just keep it here.’ And

then nobody uses it, right? It ends up being a waste of money and it takes

up space. Eventually, you’re like, ’Okay, let’s either toss this or give it away.’

[P9-lab-member]

At one makerspace, we observed a wall filled with project storage boxes, most of which

were already occupied. P3 discussed how the space is utilized:

13



Figure 4.1: (A) Organized collection of beer caps repurposed into various products; (B) Repur-
posed filament boxes transformed into labeled component shelves; (C) A precisely organized
and labeled rack from a community makerspace; (D) Electronics waste including chargers,
CPUs, machines etc.

These storage boxes are designed for members to put their ongoing projects

in. You know, a lot of these projects take a long time to complete, so people

need places to store them. But some of these boxes have been sitting here

for a long time, and we don’t really know if the projects inside are finished or

unfinished. I don’t want to throw away anyone’s project before confirming with

them, so for now, they’re still here. But eventually they may just become trash.

[P3-makerspace-manager]

14



4.2 Handling Waste: Trashing, Keeping, and Reusing

Participants discussed various ways of handling waste generated in making and proto-

typing.

4.2.1 “They are all going to the trash bin.”

Most machining byproducts and daily consumables, whether potentially recyclable or

not, are directly discarded, making up a large portion of the overall waste. At several sites,

we observed large trash bins installed within the space. Material scraps, such as corner

pieces of acrylic or support structures from 3D printing [Fig. ??], are thrown directly into

these bins.

We wanted to have a record of all our 3D printed iterations and what we did

and what happened, we would just take them all out, set them on a table nicely

organized, and what versions they were in whatever, take some pictures just for

like a visual record. And then they all go in the trash, because we had buckets

and buckets and buckets of this stuff. I mean, you can imagine what prints from

40,000 kilometers of filament would look like . [P10-makerspace-member]

It should be noted that not all 3D printing materials are the same from a recycling

standpoint. PLA and PETG, two of the most commonly used 3D printing plastic filaments,

are easier to recycle than other materials such as ABS. However, a majority of participants

have confirmed with us that all plastic materials are treated the same. They are not sorted

by type during 3D printing, nor are they handled separately after printing is complete.

Instead, they are indiscriminately discarded in the same trash bin. One lab managers P11

commented about this:

15



You can recycle PETG filament, but most places won’t take it. And I try not

to be that person who throws everything into the recycling bin to let them sort

out. I think it’s very few places that will actually recycle PETG parts, because

they don’t know what kind of plastic it is.[P11-makerspace-member]

Besides 3D printing wastes, scraps from CNC are also handled in the same manner,

although some scraps may be more recyclable than others. P8 talked about CNC waste

being disposed off directly in the trash because the CNC shop is used by a diverse group of

people working with various materials. It’s hard to sort out a mixture of small pieces made

of different materials. She mentioned:

In the CNC shop, we have this rule where everyone has to vacuum after they

finish their job. but the suction isn’t 100% efficient, you know? There are

always bits lying around. It’s just basic cleaning stuff. But I think all that

waste just ends up in the landfill because you can’t really recycle it. Mixing

different materials makes it hard to recycle. [P8-lab-member]

The last group of waste that we identified as being thrown away consists of components

or prototypes that are still functioning. It’s worth noting that not all prototypes end up in

the trash bin. As we will explain in Section 4.2.2, a number of makers choose to keep as

many prototypes as possible with them, or until their storage reaches its capacity. However,

we also found that at different cases, makers and researchers may directly throw functional

components, or even prototypes away. In one example, P6 discussed the early assembly he

made for his research, which involved metal components such as bolts and nuts to put two

3D printed shells together with wires and a few LEDs embedded. The entire assembly was

thrown away in a trash bin without being disassembled:

I know it has small bolts and nuts, and also wires. Now that when you ask, it’s

16



better to remove them from the plastic before trashing them. But most of the

time, I don’t think about it but just throw them all together. [P6-lab-member]

4.2.2 “I wish I could keep them all.”

For finished projects and large intermediate prototypes, storing them on site seems to be

a common practice. Several participants reported that they keep all their project iterations

and intermediate prototypes even after the project has ended. For them, these iterations

signify the hard work that went into the project, and they would like to have a memory of

it. P7 said:

I keep them as long as I can bring myself to do so. I also number all my proto-

types. Sometimes, it’s nice to look at all of them. [P7-makerspace-member]

P1 also expressed similar sentiment. When asking about how he handle the prototypes

he developed, P1 said:

I kept some prototypes for the very reason, to have them on my desk, because

they were nice. And this was all my blood, sweat, and tears in there. [P1-lab-

researcher]

Besides archiving finished projects for documentation purposes, participants also men-

tioned that they may store items in the hope of using them someday. They reported keeping

various intermediate prototypes and broken machines, in hopes of salvaging hardware or

spare parts as needed in the future. P6 said:

It depends on whether we can scavenge parts from it. So for example, we have

this color thermal printer that we bought off eBay. It’s broken and doesn’t

work, but we keep it around because we think there might be some interesting

components in it. [P6-makerspace-manager]

17



From the interviews, it became evident that participants tend to stop storing items or

dispose off stored projects only when they run out of space. “If it were up to me, I would

store everything I ever make, but only if I had that much space.” When the amount of stored

items exceeds the available space, it leads to a deep cleaning. Lab members or makerspace

members will quickly sift through the parts. Since the primary goal is to free up space, this

cleaning process can be rushed, and parts that were saved for future use may eventually

end up in the trash bin.

P7, who tent to keep all his prototypes, admitted that this can be very challenging.

When talking about the prototypes that he currently has, he said:

I mentioned being on the 35th revision of this project, but I don’t actually

have 35 of them. There is no space for me to keep all of them so some are

gone during cleaning. I have about 5 left, 5 major iterations that represent

successful key stages of the project. [P7-makerspace-member]

4.2.3 “The motor got three more lives.”

While a great amount of waste is discarded, we did come across a few unique ap-

proaches that practitioners have employed to find new uses for the wastes.

P6, who works in a well-equipped university lab, discussed their university’s practice

of directly recycling PLA filament, in contrast to most places we discussed previously. In

his lab, they have a strict rule that only allows the use of certain brands of PLA. After

printing, all the PLA scraps must be sorted by color then being send to on-site, central-

ized professional recycling equipment to be re-extruded into new filament that can be used

again. Because sorting the plastic and maintaining the equipment is complicated, they have

assigned dedicated employees to manage the recycling process.

It’s really nice that we can recycle PLA, but it really took them a long time to

18



get to a consistent process, even with the setup they already have. They also

need to do regular maintenance, like taking out the nozzle, bringing it to the

workshop, and hitting it with a blowtorch just to burn off all the PLA. Then

they clean the nozzle and put it back in. This is something they have to do

every couple of weeks. The whole recycling process, it’s taken them about a

year to fine-tune it and get to a point where they can make consistent filament

from just PLA, nothing else. [P6-lab-member]

As is evident, recycling PLA is currently a resource-intensive process, and only a few

facilities, at best, may have the capability to implement it.

While recycling material scraps systematically is not an affordable option, there are

makers who have attempted to make at least partial use of these scraps to create new

projects. As one example, P10 once converted 3D printed waste found from his site into an

art piece that he was very proud of:

These waste is from my work, and I tried to convert them into some art pieces.

So, for example, in my own home, I created a small transparent bag and filled

it with failed 3D printed materials. Next to the bag, I think I labeled a packet

and printed something on it, and the whole thing will be like a poster. It’s a 3d

poster. And I hang it on my wall. [P12-lab-manager]

P11 shares a similar sentiment about turning material waste into art pieces. He consid-

ers himself both a maker and an entrepreneur, specializing in making coasters from beer

caps and cans. He discussed his plans to create art from metals like bottle caps and cans:

I’ve got boxes full of them, and I’ll probably end up recycling them. They have

lots of cool colors and are pretty much all the same. I’m thinking of making a

mosaic out of them. [P11-makerspace-maker]

19



Apart from managing material waste, makers and practitioners have more experience

and willingness to repurpose or reuse still-functional components. This is especially true if

the components have a relatively high value or are otherwise difficult to find. P10 shared a

story with us about how he salvaged a fully functional motor from a broken machine and

repurposed it in different projects:

I had a window regulator in my car that went bad. You know, I had to buy a

new one cause the pulley was all messed up. But the motor was awesome, so I

saved it. Two years later, it ended up in a gantry [of a DIY robot]. And then,

as the robot grew, it wasn’t big enough for that anymore. So that same motor

got repurposed into something to spin a rotary test tool we’re using. So yeah,

that motor that came out of a car actually had three more lives after the car.

[P10-makerspace-member]

As mentioned earlier in Section 4.1.2, intermediate prototypes and even finished projects

may end up gathering dust on a shelf. At some sites, managers and members make extra

effort to disassemble them and reuse their parts. P5, a makerspace manager, mentioned

how the high school robotics team, who are their members, improvises on their robot every

year to meet the requirements of new design challenges:

They don’t keep all the robots. They dismantle the previous one and use the

same motors from the old one to build a new one. I also dismantle things that

I know no one will use. If somebody needs an Arduino, I’m not going to buy

a new one; I’ll give them one I found from an old project. [P5-makerspace-

manager]

Functional components may also circulate within the local community. P5 reported that

almost all of the things in their space were donations by “scientist and friends”, including

20



3d printers, CNC machines, sensors etc. Not all donations work as they showed up, but P5

has hosted several workshop called “Fix it and its yours” to “giving them a new life”:

Often times people end up buying personal 3D printers and when it stops

working smoothly they get super frustrated and end up giving it to our maker

space. Sometimes when I have such machines in the space I arrange some-

thing called ‘Fix it and its yours’. Anyone who fixes the machine first gets to

keep it. This way the machines don’t go out of use. We find them new home.

[P5-makerspace-manager]

4.3 Challenges in being sustainable

All participants in our study recognized the significance of sustainable making but

found it challenging to apply sustainable practices in their work. Through our interviews,

many expressed concerns about frequently producing material waste. ”I feel guilty about

all the wood I use and waste in the process, so I try to plant trees equivalent to my usage”.

However, we note that embedding the notion of sustainable making into daily making and

research activities can be challenging for three main reasons: the lack of appropriate pro-

cesses and equipment for handling waste material, the high cost associated with sustainable

practices, and the missing know-how.

4.3.1 Lack of procedures and equipment

Many participants discussed their attempts or intentions to be more sustainable, such

as by trying to recycle printed plastic themselves. However, they cited a lack of practical

guidance and tools within the community as obstacles to doing so. For example, during our

visit to P3’s cite. He referred to an entire pile of plywood and said:

21



We use large amounts of plywood in the woodshop. And those are frustrat-

ing for us because I don’t have a good recycling solution. All these sawdusts

generated through CNC or laser cutting. We’ve talked to different people on

campus, we’ve asked amongst other university makerspaces what ideas they

have. We haven’t really gotten very far with it. [P3-Makerspace-Manager]

Same concerns are seen on how printed plastic cannot be recycled. P3 showed us their

efforts to convert 3D printed waste into molds so that they could be reused. However, the

entire process requires P3 to have a specialized device to melt or dissolve the plastic and

then prepare a separate mold each time. The process is not streamlined; and due to the need

for careful temperature control during the melting phase, they haven’t achieved completely

satisfied results. P11 shared similar concern. When talking about the daily waste produced

through 3D printing process, P11 commented:

That’s a lot of plastic. I really don’t want to throw them away if I can have a

way of using them, but there’s not much you can do with with scrap 3d printed

parts. Unless, I mean, you’ve got to have, like I was saying, gotta have a

grinder and an extruder turn it back into usable filament. But these are not like

the cheap printer that you can just buy.[P11-makerspace-member]

The grinder and the extruder that P11 referred to are specialized devices capable of

breaking down 3D printed plastic parts into smaller pellets, which can then be melt, and

remade into new filament. As discussed earlier in Section 4.2.3, a very few well-equipped

makerspaces may have access to such machines. However, compared to the overall number

of makers or the prevalence of 3D printing services within these makerspaces, these devices

are not accessible to the majority.

22



4.3.2 Sustainable actions may not be worth it

The cost of sustainable actions is another practical reason why makers and researchers

don’t always give them the priority when making decisions. Being more sustainable often

requires extra steps, additional labor, or increased expenses, all of which can pose a burden

for many.

For example, properly disassembling an intermediate prototype is a reasonable ap-

proach for reclaiming functional components, as we have identified in Section 4.2.3. How-

ever, in practice, the process may be demanding, as it may require pausing and interrupting

ongoing design iterations, and dedicate time and effort just to unscrewing different parts or

desoldering electronics from an old board. people may choose to recycle components only

when they consider it worthwhile. P8 said:

I think we try to balance between the time we spent on, like recycling or any of

that, versus the actual research outcome. So, as a research lab, our times are

valuable. Being more sustainable is not one of our brand, so if throwing away

a very cheap thing is gonna save you a lot of time on research, then just do it.

[P8-lab-member]

Makerspace managers resonate. When asked about how they decide what to disassem-

ble or reuse, P10 responded:

Depending on their value. But the screws? Typically not. Because we can

buy a box of 100 screws for like $4. It’s just way easier to buy new ones than

spend more time or hire someone to dismantle and reuse existing ones. [P10-

Makerspace-Manager]

Similarly, P7 who used to collect an extensive amount of metal chips for his own

project, commented on why he didn’t want to bring them to a dedicated recycle facility:

23



I’m not gonna get any money for this from the scrap yard. It’s literally not

worth my gas to get there and get back. And I don’t want to damage the planet.

I’m doing in my opinion worse by just wasting gas. [P7-Makerspace-Member]

4.3.3 Knowledge gap

One additional concern is the insufficient level of knowledge and understanding about

sustainability. The democratization of digital fabrication tools has made design and proto-

typing more accessible than ever. However, individuals new to the field of making may not

possess an understanding of appropriate methods for material handling or waste manage-

ment. For example, at one site we visited, we observed a member of the site improperly

disposing of isopropyl alcohol—used for washing resin printed parts—by pouring it di-

rectly into the on-site sink. The individual was unaware of the issue until we pointed it out.

P5 indicated:

Whenever someone is dealing with things incorrectly, and someone who knows

about it would try to point it out. But I think like things definitely slip under the

radar. And it’s difficult to keep track of all of this.[P5–Makerspace-Manager]

P3, who has been a full-time makerspace manager for several years, reported the same

difficulty of passing on the knowledge of recycling:

One of the overall more general problems at a makerspace is people see a

recycling bin, and they think they can put anything plastic in the recycling

bin, right? Even though our recycling bins are pretty well labeled for what’s

supposed to go in there. And I have to constantly remind them, if it doesn’t

have a recycling stream number on the bottom, you don’t put it in there. [P3-

Makerspace-Manager]

24



In other cases, the missing knowledge of handle material or components may also dis-

courage the actions of recycling. For example, makers may hope to recycle electronic

components but may not possess the required skills or knowledge to do so. P6, an expert

electronic engineer, observes:

Sometimes if things are soldered, for instance, a motor was soldered, right? So

in this case, if we want to reuse the motor our only option is to de-solder it, but

not everyone in the lab knows how to de-solder. So a lot of times people do just

buy new things because they don’t know how to de-solder.[P6-lab-member]

4.4 Achieving Sustainable Making Through Implicit Means

While we have so far discussed the types of waste, current handling practices, and

the challenges of maintaining a sustainable making process, we should note that there are

also existing, common practices that directly contribute to more sustainable ways of mak-

ing—even if sustainability is not the primary goal. We argue that these practices are easily

adaptable and should be encouraged community-wide.

4.4.1 Reducing design iteration

Almost all the participants talked about how their projects require design iterations

and prototyping. These processes naturally generate a number of intermediate prototypes,

which, as explained in Section 4.1.2, are a natural source of waste. Thus, reducing the

number of design iterations or using fewer prototypes without diminishing the design goal

will lead to less material use, fewer physical artifacts on the shelf, and more sustainable

actions.

In our interviews, several participants discussed their practices on reducing trial-and-

errors, printing smaller parts for testing, or reusing the same prototypes multiple times as

25



a way for time saving. For example, P1 talked about how he uses design software and

simulation to reduce the need of making multiple physical prototype:

We would have had more tries without the simulations. I can’t really say like,

how much of an increase that would have off the top of my head. But I am

confident that it will be way more iterations that we actually had to do. [P1-

lab-member]

P12, among several other participants, talked about utilize partial printing, rather than

a printing of an entire model, to validate his design:

For the prismatic joint, we need to test out the tolerance inside the joints. I just

print out the joint itself. I don’t print the rest and I just test out this, the joints.

It saves time this way. Print the entire thing will take much longer and I only

need to test part of it so this is more effective. [P12-lab-manager]

In a similar vein, P6 talked about how 3D modeling and planning before making the

physical prototype will reduce the mistakes for him:

For 3D printing, a lot of thinking will happen during the 3d design process. If I

put more thought in the design, it will hopefully leads to less problems later on.

I don’t want to reprint the same thing just to fix small errors. [P6-lab-member]

While saving materials and reducing component use may not be the primary consider-

ation for all participants during the design and prototyping process, the fact that multiple

participants, especially those with extensive design experience, tend to reduce the num-

ber of design iterations and reuse the same prototype contributes to practical methods of

sustainable production.

26



Figure 4.2: (A) Organized collection of beer caps repurposed into various products; (B) Repur-
posed filament boxes transformed into labeled component shelves; (C) A precisely organized
and labeled rack from a community makerspac.

4.4.2 Better organization

I think one thing that makes a huge difference on whether things are put back

and like reused or not, is how organized things are and how sensitive the com-

ponents are. So if there is a definite place for something to go, like people are

more likely to, you know, like, once they unplug it, people are more likely to put

it into the workplace.[P6-lab-member]

Several subtractive processes like laser cutting or CNC machines generate left overs

27



like cut out pieces of wood sheets, acrylics or metal. These cut-outs are very well usable

by others. We observed spaces setting designated spots to put these left over materials for

others to use[Fig. 4.2]. What is more important than storing these materials for reuse is

making it visible and accessible to the users of the space to all users to prevent unnecessary

purchases. It is also integral to be conscious of expenses, P3 spoke about how misplacing

expensive tools can lead to frustrations:

Particularly with tools that’s aggravating because the tools are very expensive,

you know, you’ll eventually find that piece of plywood that someone put back

in the wrong place, and you can always use it. But you know, I’ve seen places

that end up with like, you know, 25, 10 millimeter wrenches. [P3-Makerspace-

Manager]

Participants reported, labeling things as their go to way of organizing the space, be it

tools, projects, shelves or consumables. Labeling things helps people find it even though

they were not necessarily the one who put it there. One of the makerspace managers re-

ported having dedicatedly labeled shelves and also a instruction sheet explaining the labels

in further detail. P3 had a unique way of labeling things with both textual and pictorial

representations:

We made this tool wall early on, this is one of the first things we did when I

first came here, you know, we had these toolboxes, these tools. And I thought,

well, that’s we’ll just put all the tools in those and we’ll label the drawers.

That’ll work. And the volunteer students at the time said, Well, you know,

that’s kind of frustrating for us, because we don’t really, you know, we’ll look

at the label that says whatever reciprocating saw, and what’s a reciprocating

saw all these saws reciprocate, right? So instead, we decided that we would

28



do these tool boards where, you know, there’s a picture of the tool behind it.

[P3-Makerspace-Manager]

In another example, P8 mentioned that inexpensive, small components like jumper

wires are effectively reused in their lab due to good organization.

Surprisingly, so like everything is labeled every drawer has like a function. So

there’s a drawer for jumper wires that we have. So like it’ll just go into that

drawer and like people pick it up. [P8-Lab-Reseacher]

Labeling not only helped folks in keeping track of resources and effectively finding

things when necessary but also in version control of prototypes. Design process is non-

linear you always circle back and forth, it is important to look back at things at times. P1

spoke about it by saying:

So, like if I had a prototype, for example, for AirTouch, that had a 3.2-millimeter

increase in each of the outlets, instead of me just guessing and printing, I would

either design a label to be printed with the prototype or simply write with a

Sharpie immediately after it’s done. [P6-lab-member]

29



Chapter 5: Discussions

In the preceding section we documented the findings from the interviews we conducted

with the different participants in our study. In this section we discuss some actionable

recommendations that could help in promoting sustainable practices in makerspaces.

5.1 Putting Sustainability at the Forefront of Design Processes

The design process in personal fabrication involves an iterative cycle of ideation and ex-

ecution, with makers continuously going back and forth, making design decisions through-

out. This process encompasses all steps from conceptualization to execution. Sustainable

Interaction Design [4] emphasizes the importance of sustainability being at the forefront of

the design process. However, our studies have found that makers often overlook sustain-

ability considerations. In this section we want to emphasize on the importance of imbibing

sustainability in maker’s design process at each step, mainly: prototyping, material choices

and design decisions.

To begin with, translating an idea to a tangible working output involves several in be-

tween steps like low-fidelity prototyping and 3D modeling using digital tools. While the

iterative design approach is valuable for problem-solving and improvement, excessive it-

eration can lead to waste, as many intermediate prototypes are not reused or recycled. To

address this, it is crucial to be mindful of how much is produced during iterations. The

number of iterations can be reduced through proper design practices, such as low-fidelity

30



prototyping or spending more time refining CAD models. Our findings reveal alterna-

tive prototyping approaches implemented by participants, aimed at limiting the production

of numerous prototypes, proving to be sustainable and efficient in terms of time. These

strategies include adopting incremental development rather than constructing the entire

prototype at once, which allows for early error detection and avoids having to recreate the

whole thing. It is important for makers to consider if their approach leads to unnecessary

iterations.

In addition to following the right modeling and low-fidelity methods to reduce er-

rors, it is equally important to use materials that cause the least harm to the environment

while serving the desired purpose. Empirical evidence shows a significant reliance on

non-biodegradable materials like foam or plastic during prototyping, with only 23 percent

undergoing recycling[26]. However, research suggests that when presented with sustain-

able alternatives like mycelium that serve their needs, makers are generally willing to adopt

them [26]. In our interviews, makers highlighted that material choices are mostly guided

by the specific requirements of the project as well as availability and affordability. This

indicates that increasing access to and knowledge of sustainable options could make sus-

tainability considerations more prevalent in material choices.

The design of a product also largely impacts the ability to reuse it after it has served

its purpose or has broken down. Most intermediate and final prototypes are not reused or

recycled, as they are not easy to disassemble without specialized tools or skills. Similarly,

commercially manufactured items are often not designed for easy repair, contributing to a

shorter lifespan. A major reason products are difficult to repair, reuse, or disassemble is

that they are not designed with those factors in mind from the outset. A participant who

managed a makerspace oversaw a kids’ robotics team that utilized the space annually to

prepare for a competition. Each year, the team repurposed components from the previous

year’s robot, fostering an awareness of designing with the intent that future teams would

31



inherit and reuse their parts. Alternatively, they might only need to replace specific com-

ponents as they iteratively enhanced their robots. This practice highlighted the potential

to streamline processes aimed at extending product lifespans by considering such design

principles from the outset. Researchers have also investigated impact of design on ability

to “unmake”, particularly for electronic devices [19]. Maker’s can make an effort to think

about future use cases of their prototypes or the components used in their prototypes. This

could guide them to design their prototypes for future reuse.

Embedding sustainability considerations throughout the design process is crucial for

promoting more environmentally conscious practices in personal fabrication and making.

By adopting mindful prototyping approaches that reduce excessive iterations and waste,

exploring sustainable material alternatives, and intentionally designing for disassembly,

reuse, and repair, makers can significantly reduce the environmental impact of their cre-

ations. The challenge at hand involves spreading this knowledge and developing a culture

of sustainable practices. Managers can play an important role in encouraging these prac-

tices as well. We noted that the dynamic between makers and managers varied signifi-

cantly across different types of makerspaces. In research laboratories, managers had direct

influence over makers’ practices, given the clear hierarchy of authority, often assuming a

mentor-mentee role. In certain entrepreneurial settings, managers frequently participated

in making activities. In these spaces as well managers had direct influence on practices

followed by makers, the underlying goal in most of these spaces was to be more efficient

and cost effective. Conversely, in public spaces, managers had some influence over mak-

ers’ practices; however, makers tended to follow their own methods more freely, potentially

due to the payment for space usage and the less firmly established authority compared to

educational environments.

32



5.2 Developing Technologies to Streamline Sustainable Practices

Our findings highlight the challenges that makers face in implementing sustainable

practices, even though they are aware of their importance. Due to the time-consuming

nature of sustainable methods and the additional effort required, efficiency often takes pri-

ority over sustainability. Makers may overlook sustainability considerations unless sus-

tainable alternatives are convenient or cost-effective. Additionally, the lack of resources in

makerspaces to upcycle, reuse, or properly dispose off materials hinders the adoption of

sustainable practices. In this section, we explore how digital or physical technology can

support makers in adopting sustainable personal fabrication practices.

Our study revealed several problems that pose barriers to sustainable actions, which

could potentially be addressed through technology and the availability of tools. One of the

most common issues is the lack of knowledge about materials and their properties. It is

often difficult for makers to determine which materials are recyclable and which are not.

For example, within 3D printing, some plastics are recyclable while some are not. A tool

that helps identify materials and informs users about their properties could be beneficial

before they decide to work with it. In a different context, a similar ”material-aware” tool

was developed for laser cutters [11]. In addition to this, clear and accessible information

about proper waste disposal processes would be helpful as some materials like ABS plastic

might require special recycling services. Makers expressed concerns about wrongly dis-

posing off non-recyclable materials in recycling bins or improperly collecting waste due

to a lack of knowledge regarding the correct disposal methods. Knowing material proper-

ties can also aid in effective waste sorting, in larger makerspaces with numerous members,

waste materials like failed 3D prints made of different materials are frequently discarded

together, making it difficult to identify and separate the various materials for proper dis-

posal. Even in spaces with proper recycling infrastructure in place, they reported needing

33



designated people to make sure material is sorted by material type as well as colour in case

of plastics. Technology for easy identification of material and to guide in disposal could

help streamlining this process.

Conscious material choices are crucial, but it is also important to reduce the amount of

waste created during the making process. The right design practices can help in this regard.

At the same time, machines and tools can also contribute to waste reduction. A participant

who was an entrepreneur, highlighted the challenge of running lengthy prints that consume

substantial material, where any errors result in the loss of both time and resources invested

in the failed print. Early identification of errors holds the potential for significant savings in

time and resources. Various tools are available in the market, including those designed to

detect real-time 3D printing failures as the printing process starts, allowing for immediate

suspension of printing upon error detection, preventing further waste. Another example in-

volves developing plugins or add-ons for slicing tools, facilitating the selection of optimal

parameters like infill percentage and other variables, tailored to functional and structural

demands for efficient material utilization. An example mentioned earlier involved, de-

signing modified 3D printers which accept failed prints as infill, to reduce the amount of

material used [39].

Even with conscious material choices and efforts to minimize waste generation, some

waste will inevitably be produced. Numerous participants were unaware of the existence

of machines designed to facilitate better waste management, such as those capable of gen-

erating filament from failed 3D prints. While these machines are available, they are often

expensive and therefore not widely accessible. Despite the concern over plastic waste, there

is a lack of awareness and accessibility to potential solutions. Easier alternatives to recycle

some of the commonly produced waste could encourage wider adaptability. One partici-

pant mentioned shredding and melting 3D prints to create a reusable tray. Supporting such

small-scale interventions with appropriate machinery could facilitate waste reuse in cre-

34



ative forms. While reducing costs and enhancing accessibility of recycling infrastructure

would be the most efficient, developing tools for smaller-scale recycling practices could be

beneficial. Another crucial aspect involves salvaging prototypes or repairing broken ma-

chines, tasks that demand a certain level of skill and effort. However, users often express

reluctance to invest time in manual activities like sorting screws or desoldering components

for reuse. For instance, to repurpose small and inexpensive parts like screws, nuts or bolts

makers must first disassemble prototypes and then meticulously sort through them to find

suitable components for future projects. Yet, these additional steps are often deemed un-

worthy of the time investment, particularly when new screws are readily available at low

cost. Automating these processes could potentially incentivize makers to embrace the reuse

of smaller, affordable parts like screws.

Developing technologies that support makers can greatly simplify sustainable personal

fabrication. Dew et al. [10] highlight the valuable role that tooling plays in encouraging

makers to think more critically about who and what is involved in the larger networks of

technology production. By providing makers with tools and streamlined methods, they are

more likely to engage in sustainable actions that they may otherwise avoid due to the high

effort for minimal perceived return. This discussion aims to inspire new ideas and identify

opportunities where technological interventions can make a significant impact.

5.3 Role of Community Engagement and Education in Promoting Sustain-

ability in Makerspaces

This section emphasizes the importance of enhanced education and community engage-

ment in promoting sustainable personal fabrication practices. While makers are aware of

the unsustainable nature of some of their practices, a notable gap remains in the effec-

tive implementation of sustainable practices, primarily due to a lack of knowledge among

35



participants. We observed that, they could take better action on their willingness to be

sustainable if they were more aware of possible alternatives, processes and the resulting

environmental impact.

The current practices followed by makers mostly depend on existing practices estab-

lished within the makerspace by the managers. The influence of managers on individual

makers’ actions towards sustainability emphasises the importance of educating managers.

Organizing more training sessions for managers, with an emphasis on sustainability, can

facilitate the transfer of knowledge to the maker community they engage with. In ad-

dition to establishing best practices by managers, it is important for makers to individu-

ally to be knowledgable about sustainable practices for effective implementation. There

could be several ways of knowledge sharing in makerspaces. Within more established

organizations, mandatory training sessions are commonplace before individuals can uti-

lize machinery. These sessions present opportunities to incorporate sustainability-focused

material and equip individuals with the necessary knowledge. Managers could also facili-

tate knowledge sharing through workshops or seminars. Experienced makers could share

insights and strategies, helping others to explore innovative approaches that minimize envi-

ronmental impact. To encourage passive learning, easily accessible material on sustainable

alternatives or considerations related to the machines being used could be placed at major

checkpoints within the spaces, such as near the 3D printers or laser cutters.

While direct methods like structured modules or informative sessions are effective, their

implementation may be constrained by resource availability. An alternative to this could

be community engagements and events. For instance, one participant highlighted the value

of hosting repair and disassembly sessions within makerspaces, involving all members and

community participants. People would drop off broken down machines they no longer

want and anyone who successfully repairs it could own it. Similar kind of event was re-

ported involving high school kids, with simpler tasks like sorting components or screws.

36



Such communal engagements not only facilitate knowledge exchange but also emphasise

the importance of waste reduction and the efficient use of materials. Leveraging social

practices and community engagements can promote a sustainable making culture. Other

papers also talk about how social practices and community engagements can be leveraged

to promote sustainable making culture[10] [19].

In addition to efforts by makers and managers, educational initiatives undertaken by

machine companies can play a crucial role in facilitating unintentional learning. Common

machines like 3D printers, CNC machines, and laser cutters are prevalent in all spaces.

Manufacturers can contribute to sustainability by educating users about commonly used

materials and proper handling methods, as well as suggesting alternative options. As we

discussed earlier, makers struggle in finding the right services for disposing waste which

is not commonly recycled at local recycling centres, companies can take the initiative of

partnering with recycling services and passing the information with their products. Some

major 3D printer manufacturing companies have started acknowledging the unsustainable

nature of the materials commonly used on their machines and have started talking about

alternatives and educating their users about them [5]. Although the path to mass adop-

tion may be long, initiatives such as selling filaments made from recycled plastics signal

promising steps towards sustainability[1].

5.4 Setting up Infrastructure to Support Sustainable Practices

In addition to fostering knowledge about sustainable practices, investing in infrastruc-

ture that supports sustainability is crucial. This infrastructure encompasses several crucial

elements, including waste management streams such as recycling services, access to waste

processing machinery like filament recycling machines, and mechanisms for sharing arti-

facts like machines, tools, and spare parts.

37



Our findings revealed that many makers and managers faced challenges in finding ways

to dispose off waste responsibly. They lacked access to supporting infrastructure, such as

recycling facilities or waste processing services. One participant expressed, ”We are ea-

ger to find the right way of handling waste, but lack access to supporting infrastructure.”

While some academic labs had dedicated recycling services and even filament recycling

machines, these services were often financially burdensome and required significant man-

agement and maintenance efforts to ensure smooth operation. Notably, the availability of

such infrastructure influenced makers’ behavior. When waste management services were

in place, makers were more conscious about sorting waste into assigned categories and put

more thought into ensuring conscious disposal. Conversely, the lack of these services in-

creased negligence, as it required conscious effort and time dedication on the makers’ part

to ensure sustainable behavior. Access to these services should not be limited to universities

and larger organizations and should be made more accessible.

In addition to proper waste disposal, having a system to share tools, machinery, equip-

ment and spare parts within and across maker communities could greatly reduce waste and

maximize resource use. We found that one type of waste was broken or old machines.

Some machines and tools don’t get used as much in individual makerspaces since they are

underutilized when only one space or person owns them. The ”Library of Things” concept

proposed by Jones et al. [17] provides a model for this - a shared collection of physical

items that can be borrowed. While sharing within one makerspace or university is common,

extending this across multiple spaces and a wider maker network is challenging.

Widespread sharing requires more than just logistics of managing inventory and en-

abling transactions. It needs a mindset shift to value sharing over personal ownership. By

sharing resources, makers can avoid duplicate purchases. Several makers reported that not

everyone has the skills to repair machines, so when one breaks down, it sometimes gets

trashed without repair. With a larger sharing network, there also would be more people

38



available to maintain and repair machines, preventing them from ending up as waste. A

system to share tools and equipment could reduce unnecessary spending, ensure better

maintenance of resources, and cut down on machine waste. Although setting up systems

for sharing tools and equipment is challenging, the possible benefits of reducing waste and

saving money make it really worthwhile.

39



Chapter 6: Conclusions

Our research investigates making practices within makerspaces from the perspective of

both makers and makerspace managers. Our findings uncover the kind wastes generated in

makerspaces, how the waste is handled, the challenges with sustainable making and how

implicit measures lead to sustainable behaviors within maker spaces.

Our recommendations focus on integrating sustainability into design, developing user-

friendly tools, bridging the knowledge gap, and fostering a culture of sustainable making.

We hope this research guides future work in promoting sustainable making practices.

Any text within this document has not been generated by AI. Instead, we utilized AI tools such as Chat-
GPT and Claude for occasional proofreading and error checking, in addition to other tools like Grammarly.

40



Bibliography

[1] UltiMaker Marketplace — marketplace.ultimaker.com. https://marketplace.

ultimaker.com/app/cura/materials?material_characteristics=

recycled&page=1&_gl=1*uwv50k*_ga*Nzk2OTk2OTA0LjE3MTM2MzkzNjc.*_ga_

JHX8W909G8*MTcxMzYzOTM2Ni4xLjEuMTcxMzYzOTcxNy40Ny4wLjEyMTIyNTYwMTA.

*_ga_CJM2DTBWYF*MTcxMzYzOTM2Ni4xLjEuMTcxMzYzOTcxNy40Ny4wLjEwOTY3NDUwODQ.

[Accessed 20-04-2024].

[2] Magnus Bang, Anton Gustafsson, and Cecilia Katzeff. Promoting new patterns in
household energy consumption with pervasive learning games. In Yvonne de Kort,
Wijnand IJsselsteijn, Cees Midden, Berry Eggen, and B. J. Fogg, editors, Persuasive
Technology, pages 55–63, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[3] Fiona Bell, Netta Ofer, and Mirela Alistar. Reclaym our compost: Biodegradable
clay for intimate making. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’22, New York, NY, USA, 2022. Association for
Computing Machinery.

[4] Eli Blevis. Sustainable interaction design: Invention & disposal, renewal & reuse.
In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
CHI ’07, page 503–512, New York, NY, USA, 2007. Association for Computing Ma-
chinery.

[5] Felipe Castaneda. Thinking about the environment — ultimaker.com. https://

ultimaker.com/learn/thinking-about-the-environment/. [Accessed 20-04-
2024].

[6] Nico Castelli, Sebastian Taugerbeck, Martin Stein, Timo Jakobi, Gunnar Stevens, and
Volker Wulf. Eco-infovis at work: Role-based eco-visualizations for the industrial
context. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., 4(GROUP), jan 2020.

[7] Kyung Yun Choi and Hiroshi Ishii. Therms-up!: Diy inflatables and interactive ma-
terials by upcycling wasted thermoplastic bags. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth In-
ternational Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, TEI ’21,
New York, NY, USA, 2021. Association for Computing Machinery.

41

https://marketplace.ultimaker.com/app/cura/materials?material_characteristics=recycled&page=1&_gl=1*uwv50k*_ga*Nzk2OTk2OTA0LjE3MTM2MzkzNjc.*_ga_JHX8W909G8*MTcxMzYzOTM2Ni4xLjEuMTcxMzYzOTcxNy40Ny4wLjEyMTIyNTYwMTA.*_ga_CJM2DTBWYF*MTcxMzYzOTM2Ni4xLjEuMTcxMzYzOTcxNy40Ny4wLjEwOTY3NDUwODQ.
https://marketplace.ultimaker.com/app/cura/materials?material_characteristics=recycled&page=1&_gl=1*uwv50k*_ga*Nzk2OTk2OTA0LjE3MTM2MzkzNjc.*_ga_JHX8W909G8*MTcxMzYzOTM2Ni4xLjEuMTcxMzYzOTcxNy40Ny4wLjEyMTIyNTYwMTA.*_ga_CJM2DTBWYF*MTcxMzYzOTM2Ni4xLjEuMTcxMzYzOTcxNy40Ny4wLjEwOTY3NDUwODQ.
https://marketplace.ultimaker.com/app/cura/materials?material_characteristics=recycled&page=1&_gl=1*uwv50k*_ga*Nzk2OTk2OTA0LjE3MTM2MzkzNjc.*_ga_JHX8W909G8*MTcxMzYzOTM2Ni4xLjEuMTcxMzYzOTcxNy40Ny4wLjEyMTIyNTYwMTA.*_ga_CJM2DTBWYF*MTcxMzYzOTM2Ni4xLjEuMTcxMzYzOTcxNy40Ny4wLjEwOTY3NDUwODQ.
https://marketplace.ultimaker.com/app/cura/materials?material_characteristics=recycled&page=1&_gl=1*uwv50k*_ga*Nzk2OTk2OTA0LjE3MTM2MzkzNjc.*_ga_JHX8W909G8*MTcxMzYzOTM2Ni4xLjEuMTcxMzYzOTcxNy40Ny4wLjEyMTIyNTYwMTA.*_ga_CJM2DTBWYF*MTcxMzYzOTM2Ni4xLjEuMTcxMzYzOTcxNy40Ny4wLjEwOTY3NDUwODQ.
https://marketplace.ultimaker.com/app/cura/materials?material_characteristics=recycled&page=1&_gl=1*uwv50k*_ga*Nzk2OTk2OTA0LjE3MTM2MzkzNjc.*_ga_JHX8W909G8*MTcxMzYzOTM2Ni4xLjEuMTcxMzYzOTcxNy40Ny4wLjEyMTIyNTYwMTA.*_ga_CJM2DTBWYF*MTcxMzYzOTM2Ni4xLjEuMTcxMzYzOTcxNy40Ny4wLjEwOTY3NDUwODQ.
https://ultimaker.com/learn/thinking-about-the-environment/
https://ultimaker.com/learn/thinking-about-the-environment/


[8] Maxime Daniel, Guillaume Rivière, and Nadine Couture. Cairnform: A shape-
changing ring chart notifying renewable energy availability in peripheral locations.
In Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded,
and Embodied Interaction, TEI ’19, page 275–286, New York, NY, USA, 2019. As-
sociation for Computing Machinery.

[9] Kristin N. Dew and Daniela K. Rosner. Designing with waste: A situated inquiry
into the material excess of making. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Inter-
active Systems Conference, DIS ’19, page 1307–1319, New York, NY, USA, 2019.
Association for Computing Machinery.

[10] Kristin N. Dew, Samantha Shorey, and Daniela Rosner. Making within limits: To-
wards salvage fabrication. In Proceedings of the 2018 Workshop on Computing within
Limits, LIMITS ’18, New York, NY, USA, 2018. Association for Computing Machin-
ery.

[11] Mustafa Doga Dogan, Steven Vidal Acevedo Colon, Varnika Sinha, Kaan Akşit, and
Stefanie Mueller. Sensicut: Material-aware laser cutting using speckle sensing and
deep learning. In The 34th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and
Technology, UIST ’21, page 24–38, New York, NY, USA, 2021. Association for Com-
puting Machinery.

[12] Jon Froehlich, Tawanna Dillahunt, Predrag Klasnja, Jennifer Mankoff, Sunny Con-
solvo, Beverly Harrison, and James A. Landay. Ubigreen: Investigating a mobile tool
for tracking and supporting green transportation habits. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’09, page 1043–1052,
New York, NY, USA, 2009. Association for Computing Machinery.

[13] Jon Froehlich, Leah Findlater, and James Landay. The design of eco-feedback tech-
nology. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Comput-
ing Systems, CHI ’10, page 1999–2008, New York, NY, USA, 2010. Association for
Computing Machinery.

[14] Anton Gustafsson and Magnus Gyllenswärd. The power-aware cord: Energy aware-
ness through ambient information display. In CHI ’05 Extended Abstracts on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA ’05, page 1423–1426, New York, NY, USA,
2005. Association for Computing Machinery.

[15] Ollie Hanton, Zichao Shen, Mike Fraser, and Anne Roudaut. Fabricatink: Personal
fabrication of bespoke displays using electronic ink from upcycled e readers. In Pro-
ceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI
’22, New York, NY, USA, 2022. Association for Computing Machinery.

42



[16] Lara Houston, Steven J. Jackson, Daniela K. Rosner, Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed, Meg
Young, and Laewoo Kang. Values in repair. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Con-
ference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’16, page 1403–1414, New
York, NY, USA, 2016. Association for Computing Machinery.

[17] Lee Jones, Alaa Nousir, Tom Everrett, and Sara Nabil. Libraries of things: Under-
standing the challenges of sharing tangible collections and the opportunities for hci. In
Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
CHI ’23, New York, NY, USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery.

[18] Genovefa Kefalidou, Anya Skatova, Vicky Shipp, and Ben Bedwell. The role of
self-reflection in sustainability. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference
on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct, Mobile-
HCI ’15, page 1030–1033, New York, NY, USA, 2015. Association for Computing
Machinery.

[19] Awais Hameed Khan, Samar Sabie, and Dhaval Vyas. The pragmatics of sustainable
unmaking: Informing technology design through e-waste folk strategies. In Pro-
ceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, DIS ’23, page
1531–1547, New York, NY, USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery.

[20] Sunyoung Kim and Eric Paulos. Practices in the creative reuse of e-waste. In Proceed-
ings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’11,
page 2395–2404, New York, NY, USA, 2011. Association for Computing Machinery.

[21] Bran Knowles, Adrian K. Clear, Samuel Mann, Eli Blevis, and Maria Håkansson. De-
sign patterns, principles, and strategies for sustainable hci. In Proceedings of the 2016
CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI
EA ’16, page 3581–3588, New York, NY, USA, 2016. Association for Computing
Machinery.

[22] Marion Koelle, Madalina Nicolae, Aditya Shekhar Nittala, Marc Teyssier, and Jürgen
Steimle. Prototyping soft devices with interactive bioplastics. In Proceedings of the
35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST ’22,
New York, NY, USA, 2022. Association for Computing Machinery.

[23] Cindy Kohtala. Making “making” critical: How sustainability is constituted in fab
lab ideology. The Design Journal, 20(3):375–394, 2017.

[24] Cindy Kohtala and Sampsa Hyysalo. Anticipated environmental sustainability of per-
sonal fabrication. Journal of Cleaner Production, 99:333–344, 2015.

[25] Eldy S. Lazaro Vasquez, Netta Ofer, Shanel Wu, Mary Etta West, Mirela Alistar,
and Laura Devendorf. Exploring biofoam as a material for tangible interaction. In
Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, DIS ’22,
page 1525–1539, New York, NY, USA, 2022. Association for Computing Machinery.

43



[26] Eldy S. Lazaro Vasquez, Hao-Chuan Wang, and Katia Vega. Introducing the sus-
tainable prototyping life cycle for digital fabrication to designers. In Proceedings of
the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, DIS ’20, page 1301–1312,
New York, NY, USA, 2020. Association for Computing Machinery.

[27] Leah Maestri and Ron Wakkary. Understanding repair as a creative process of every-
day design. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition,
C&C ’11, page 81–90, New York, NY, USA, 2011. Association for Computing Ma-
chinery.

[28] Rayhan Rashed, Mohammad Rashidujjaman Rifat, and Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed. Pan-
demic, repair, and resilience: Coping with technology breakdown during covid-19.
In Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGCAS Conference on Computing and Sustainable
Societies, COMPASS ’21, page 312–328, New York, NY, USA, 2021. Association
for Computing Machinery.

[29] Michael L. Rivera, S. Sandra Bae, and Scott E. Hudson. Designing a sustainable
material for 3d printing with spent coffee grounds. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM
Designing Interactive Systems Conference, DIS ’23, page 294–311, New York, NY,
USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery.

[30] Samar Sabie, Katherine W Song, Tapan Parikh, Steven Jackson, Eric Paulos, Kristina
Lindstrom, Åsa Ståhl, Dina Sabie, Kristina Andersen, and Ron Wakkary. Unmak-
ing@chi: Concretizing the material and epistemological practices of unmaking in
hci. In Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com-
puting Systems, CHI EA ’22, New York, NY, USA, 2022. Association for Computing
Machinery.

[31] Robert W Service. Book review: Corbin, j., & strauss, a.(2008). basics of qualitative
research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory . thousand oaks,
ca: Sage. Organizational Research Methods, 12(3):614–617, 2009.

[32] Yousaf Shah. Why we don’t take back 3d printing
waste for recycling yet. https://www.filamentive.com/

why-we-dont-take-back-3d-printing-waste-for-recycling-yet/#:~:

text=Just%20how%20big%20of%20an,printing%20in%20the%20UK%20alone.

[33] Katherine W Song and Eric Paulos. Unmaking: Enabling and celebrating the creative
material of failure, destruction, decay, and deformation. In Proceedings of the 2021
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’21, New York, NY,
USA, 2021. Association for Computing Machinery.

[34] Katherine Wei Song and Eric Paulos. Vim: Customizable, decomposable electrical
energy storage. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in

44

https://www.filamentive.com/why-we-dont-take-back-3d-printing-waste-for-recycling-yet/#:~:text=Just%20how%20big%20of%20an,printing%20in%20the%20UK%20alone.
https://www.filamentive.com/why-we-dont-take-back-3d-printing-waste-for-recycling-yet/#:~:text=Just%20how%20big%20of%20an,printing%20in%20the%20UK%20alone.
https://www.filamentive.com/why-we-dont-take-back-3d-printing-waste-for-recycling-yet/#:~:text=Just%20how%20big%20of%20an,printing%20in%20the%20UK%20alone.


Computing Systems, CHI ’23, New York, NY, USA, 2023. Association for Computing
Machinery.

[35] Elisabeth Unterfrauner, Jing Shao, Margit Hofer, and Claudia M. Fabian. The environ-
mental value and impact of the maker movement—insights from a cross-case analysis
of european maker initiatives. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(8):1518–
1533, 2019.

[36] Eldy S. Lazaro Vasquez and Katia Vega. From plastic to biomaterials: Prototyping
diy electronics with mycelium. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Interna-
tional Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Proceedings of
the 2019 ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers, UbiComp/ISWC
’19 Adjunct, page 308–311, New York, NY, USA, 2019. Association for Computing
Machinery.

[37] Eldy S. Lazaro Vasquez and Katia Vega. Myco-accessories: Sustainable wearables
with biodegradable materials. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM International Sympo-
sium on Wearable Computers, ISWC ’19, page 306–311, New York, NY, USA, 2019.
Association for Computing Machinery.

[38] Dhaval Vyas and John Vines. Making at the margins: Making in an under-resourced
e-waste recycling center. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., 3(CSCW), nov 2019.

[39] Ludwig Wilhelm Wall, Alec Jacobson, Daniel Vogel, and Oliver Schneider. Scrappy:
Using scrap material as infill to make fabrication more sustainable. In Proceedings of
the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’21, New
York, NY, USA, 2021. Association for Computing Machinery.

[40] Huaxin Wei, Jeffrey C. F. Ho, Kenny K. N. Chow, Shunying An Blevis, and Eli Blevis.
Should do, can do, can know: Sustainability and other reflections on one hundred and
one interaction design projects. In Proceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Computing
within Limits, LIMITS ’19, New York, NY, USA, 2019. Association for Computing
Machinery.

[41] Shanel Wu and Laura Devendorf. Unfabricate: Designing smart textiles for disas-
sembly. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems, CHI ’20, page 1–14, New York, NY, USA, 2020. Association for Computing
Machinery.

[42] Zeyu Yan, Tingyu Cheng, Jasmine Lu, Pedro Lopes, and Huaishu Peng. Future
paradigms for sustainable making. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM
Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST ’23 Adjunct, New
York, NY, USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery.

45



[43] Zeyu Yan, Jiasheng Li, Zining Zhang, and Huaishu Peng. Solderlesspcb: Reusing
electronic components in pcb prototyping through detachable 3d printed housings. In
Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
Association for Computing Machinery, 2024.

46


	Acknowledgements
	Introduction
	Related Work
	Sustainable Fabrication Technologies
	Approaches for Promoting Sustainable Practices

	Methods
	Recruitment
	Research Studies
	Data Analysis
	Positionality Statement

	Findings
	Types of Waste: Those Wasteful and Those Still Usable
	Material waste produced via various machining
	Brand-new components, intermediate prototypes, and archived projects

	Handling Waste: Trashing, Keeping, and Reusing
	``They are all going to the trash bin.''
	``I wish I could keep them all.''
	``The motor got three more lives.''

	Challenges in being sustainable
	Lack of procedures and equipment
	Sustainable actions may not be worth it
	Knowledge gap

	Achieving Sustainable Making Through Implicit Means
	Reducing design iteration
	Better organization


	Discussions
	Putting Sustainability at the Forefront of Design Processes
	Developing Technologies to Streamline Sustainable Practices
	Role of Community Engagement and Education in Promoting Sustainability in Makerspaces
	Setting up Infrastructure to Support Sustainable Practices

	Conclusions
	Bibliography