ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 18 February 2022
doi: 10.3389/frsus.2021.675333
Frontiers in Sustainability | www.frontiersin.org 1February 2022 | Volume 2 | Article 675333
Edited by:
Tomohiko Sakao,
Linköping University, Sweden
Reviewed by:
Heather Moorefield-Lang,
University of North Carolina at
Greensboro, United States
Michael J. Tagler,
Ball State University, United States
Manuel Moritz,
Helmut Schmidt University, Germany
*Correspondence:
Ina Peters
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Sustainable Organizations,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Sustainability
Received: 02 March 2021
Accepted: 26 April 2021
Published: 18 February 2022
Citation:
Klemichen A, Peters I and Stark R
(2022) Sustainable in Action: From
Intention to Environmentally Friendly
Practices in Makerspaces Based on
the Theory of Reasoned Action.
Front. Sustain. 2:675333.
doi: 10.3389/frsus.2021.675333
Sustainable in Action: From Intention
to Environmentally Friendly Practices
in Makerspaces Based on the Theory
of Reasoned Action
Antje Klemichen, Ina Peters*and Rainer Stark
Department of Industrial Information Technology, Institute for Machine Tools and Factory, Technische Universität Berlin,
Berlin, Germany
The steady growth of makerspaces to decentralized production enables access to new
and previously unknown technologies for diverse users and thus equally promotes the
social-ecological change in society. First, such facilities offer a physical space where
ideas and innovations can be realized as prototypes or in small series. Secondly, they
are also considered social spaces where people come together, exchange ideas, work
collaboratively, and learn. The acquired knowledge is carried home and into peer groups
outside the makerspaces. Therefore, in theory the maker scene has great potential for
sustainable development especially in the educational and awareness raising context.
However, there is a strong heterogeneity among makers not only in their intentions to
use such places, but also in their educational background and experience in product
development as well as in dealing with technology in general. It has been shown
that makers certainly have an awareness of the need for sustainable development,
however, this is not reflected in their actual making practices. Rather, makerspaces
are characterized by high consumption of resources. A fundamental aspect here is the
self-image of makers, in which sustainability plays a subordinate role. It is thus important
to support individual production, which is associated with increasing consumption of
resources in the early design phase, and to consider environmental aspects–even before
3D printers and laser cutters are switched on. In order to meet knowledge gaps and
lack of motivation toward sustainable product creation in makerspaces, the ecoMaker
project developed a theoretical framework that builds the bridge from knowledge to
action. From this a concept for practical implementation is suggested that combines.
Engineering processes and sustainability knowledge with established methods from the
start-up scene transferred into tools and methods for the maker scene based on maker
requirements. Those tools and methods are to be visibly installed at various places in
the makerspace and target different stages of project ideas to help makers develop
greener products and raise awareness of the makerspace as a place that promotes
sustainable development. The elements have been co-developed with makers, applied
in makerspaces and are freely available according to the open-source approach.
Keywords: sustainable product development, makerspace, education, attitude-behavior, reasoned action
approach, self-identity, ecodesign
Klemichen et al. Sustainable in Action
INTRODUCTION
The commonly entitled “maker movement” is said to have the
potential of an industrial revolution, which is given additional
momentum by the rapidly growing worldwide network for
desktop machine tools (Anderson, 2012). People are gaining
access to means of production and are thus enabled to produce
goods for their own needs. These “makers” are increasingly
moving and networking in the digital space and are inspired
by countless example products on maker platforms. Production
is organized in a collaborative, decentralized manner at various
locations such as repair cafés, fab labs, and other forms of
makerspaces. These places are characterized by their public
accessibility, their associated shared network and the support
of individual production through their collective knowledge,
skills, and equipment such as 3D printers, laser cutters, soldering
stations, etc. They are places of collective learning and often
strive toward open knowledge and social commitments such
as empowerment of marginalized groups (Unterfrauner et al.,
2020).
Makerspaces are assumed to have the potential to contribute
to environmental sustainability by raising awareness for
sustainable product development and sustainable products
(Unterfrauner et al., 2019). However, studies show that although
values regarding environmental sustainability are widespread
among makers, they find little application in maker practice
(Kohtala and Sampsa, 2015; Klemichen and Roeder, 2018). In this
article, we identify causes for the lack of practical implementation
based on literature review as well as own data. Employing social
and environmental psychological theories, we develop a
theoretical framework to overcome this “attitude-behavior-gap”
(Kohtala, 2016) specifically for the setting of makerspaces, and
also present a concept for practical implementation of which
several elements have been prototypically tested in two Berlin
makerspaces under real conditions. However, the final evaluation
of the overall concept had to be postponed due to the shutdown
of makerspaces following the pandemic regulations of 2020/2021
and remains to be conducted.
To explore how the topic of eco-friendliness can be
integrated into makerspaces’ learning environments, we
will first look at makerspaces’ and makers’ characteristics in
general as well as regarding attitudes and behavior targeting
environmental sustainability, thus narrowing down promising
settings. Subsequently we examine social and environmental
psychological theories that deal with preconditions for
environmentally friendly behavior, followed by an overview
of principles of sustainable product development. From all
this we derive our theoretical framework before we present
the prototypical realization of different parts of the ecoMaker
concept for promoting environmentally friendly practices
in makerspaces.
SCIENTIFIC STARTING POINTS:
MAKERSPACES, MAKERS, AND
BEHAVIORAL DECISION MAKING
With the rapidly growing number of makerspaces popping up all
over the world, the hybrid role of the “prosumer” (Toffler, 1980)
has gained momentum within the economic field. The term refers
to people who are producers and consumers in one. From this
new role the assumption is derived that making is particularly
suited to create awareness among makers of issues such as
renewable materials, resource consumption and product lifespan,
that is sustainable product development (e.g., Millard et al.,
2017; Schoneboom, 2018). People come together in makerspaces
to share ideas, tools and knowledge and transform them into
artifacts. There they find both physical spaces, equipped with
more or less high-tech tools, and social spaces in which
collaboration and exchange take place on a personal level between
individual thinkers and hobbyists as well as an institutional level
e.g., between makerspaces and companies. The basic idea of such
spaces is to allow an uncomplicated public access to expensive
machine tools as they were previously only used in industry by
sharing. However, sharing as a business model in this context is
not limited to machines and tools, but also to knowledge and
skills (Toombs et al., 2015). Collaboration is the standard way
of doing things in makerspaces although often informally and
spontaneously. However, makerspaces follow different business
forms, business models, and modes of operation, focusing e.g.,
on innovation or empowerment. The specific public that is
granted access to machinery and networks might differ from
tinkerers to professional designers. Thus, the communities that
form around makerspaces are shaped accordingly. Community
in this context should not necessarily be understood in the
classical sociological sense of a tightly woven social network,
but refers to a connection that can be independent of spatial
proximity or even an active social relationship and is rather
established through shared practices (Grabher and Ibert, 2014).
But regardless of the level of expertise and professionalization
all those communities are bodies of collaborative learning and
collective knowledge (Zamiri and Camarinha-Matos, 2019).
Makerspaces are therefore, to a large extent places of learning
and usually indeed see themselves as such (Sheridan et al.,
2014; Unterfrauner et al., 2020). Continuous exchange among
makers forms the indispensable basis for those learning but
also joint creativity processes. This is taken up in the design of
the places that often promotes spontaneous collaborative work
(Osorio et al., 2019), with shared workstations arranged as isles,
machinery placed well-visibly in open spaces and a just as open
area that serves as a kitchenette and social exchange point.
While such values of social sustainability are rather obvious
in many makerspaces, the environmental values are far less
explicitly visible. Building and maintaining the community is
essential to the success of a makerspace. While new members
are recruited with access to machines and tools, they are retained
through successful integration into the makerspace community.
Makerspace operators and established community members
spend a lot of time and energy creating an atmosphere of
belonging among their members (Toombs et al., 2015). The
“tactics of care” applied for this purpose result in a maker culture
that emphasizes an “ethos of empowerment.” This includes ideals
of independence and individualism, but also a role model of the
maker as interdependent community member.
While they all see themselves as “makers,” the members of
different communities can pursue very different goals. Members
can be students that use makerspace as part of their studies, but
Frontiers in Sustainability | www.frontiersin.org 2February 2022 | Volume 2 | Article 675333
Klemichen et al. Sustainable in Action
also DIY hobbyists or self-employed people and start-ups with
economic interests. To many makers the process of creating the
product is almost as important as the product itself. They enjoy
the process and see the path to the finished product as a learning
opportunity. For the self-employed and startups, makerspaces
provide access to rapid prototyping tools, which can be existential
for their business. In addition, such spaces provide them with a
local network with access to potential partners, subcontractors
and users of their products. Another reason for the economic-
oriented use are business models based on highly individualized
products or small batch production for a local need. However,
makers and their communities differ not only in terms of their
goals, but also in terms of their values and beliefs, especially with
regard to the relationship of makerspaces to the classical market
but also regarding the purpose of makerspaces. Unterfrauner
et al. (2020) differentiate three cultural fields (openness, market,
making) to which they allocate five types of makers according
to their values: (1) “Utopian makers” clearly distance themselves
from the values of the market, advocate openness and are driven
by an enthusiasm for the process of making itself. (2) “Pragmatic
makers” do not necessarily see openness and the traditional
market as opposites, but consider there to be potential for further
models. (3) “Social Makers” stand for social values, identify
strongly with their community, and see making and openness
as opportunities for participation and empowerment also in
the economic field. Their projects often target environmental
protection issues. (4) “Making to market makers” is about the
marketability of products from makerspaces, contrary to the
idea of openness. The membership in the makerspace serves
commercial or career goals. (5) “Mainstream makers” try to make
use of openness as competitive advantage under the condition
that it relies on a strong community. This type is very common
and integrates makers from all three cultural fields. Obviously
type 3 “Social makers” are most likely to adapt sustainability
criteria in their making strategies even if this would add to the
costs. For type 4 “Making to market makers” on the other hand
eco-friendly product development is likely to be neglected as
long as it does not offer an economical advantage. All other
types can be seen as potentially open to ideas of environmental
sustainability, depending on the single case. Therefore, the
assumption that makers are in principle pro-ecological and
drivers for sustainable product development as promoted by
media regularly (Hartmann et al., 2016), must be rejected as
unjustified simplification.
In the scientific field the effect of makerspaces and making on
environmental sustainability is indeed controversially discussed
(Kohtala, 2016). On the one hand rebound effects are often
observed in makerspaces (Petschow et al., 2014). In particular,
3D printing with its low material and operating costs leads to
a strong increase in plastic waste due to misprints and the lack
of possibility to disassemble printed products, e.g., to replace
only individual parts. The common trial-and-error approach to
product development in makerspaces (Klemichen and Roeder,
2018) as well as the frequent practice of making for the
fascination of making rather than the need of artifacts contribute
to resource load. In addition, it is argued that a lot of projects
in makerspaces tackle challenges of environmental sustainability
TABLE 1 | Environmental impacts of makerspaces, adapted from Kohtala and
Sampsa (2015).
Aspects
Material
Fabrication
Distribution
End of life
Consumption
(↑) positive impacts
(↓) negative impacts
(↔) unstudied
Current practices
Biodegradability ↑
Durability ↑ ↑
Renewable sources ↔ ↔
Toxicity ↓
Packaging ↑ ↑
Emissions ↑ ↔
Energy ↓
Dematerialisation ↔ ↔
Reparability
Recyclability ↑ ↓
and that there is a strong identification with practices of repair,
recycle and upcycle in the maker scene (Unterfrauner et al.,
2019). Kohtala and Sampsa (2015) have mapped positive and
negative impacts in makerspaces as summarized in Table 1.
citetbib15 also describes the contradiction that makers
from the Global North experience when trying to implement
ideologically driven product ideas within the “gentrified and
limiting everyday routine” in makerspaces. From this, she
derives the concept of an “attitude-behavior-gap” of makers
when it comes to environmental sustainability. However, like
Unterfrauner et al. (2020),Kohtala (2016) also emphasize
that there are numerous subcultures in the maker scene,
some of which differ greatly in terms of their sustainability
orientation and also knowledge. While existing knowledge about
environmentally friendly materials, manufacturing processes and
business models is shared among makers, they often lack detailed
information about the environmental impact of materials or
products to share and assess the greenness of their products
(Unterfrauner et al., 2019). However, makers are usually not
too interested in determining the environmental friendliness
of their products. In general, it can be said that the focus in
makerspaces regarding environmental sustainability is rather,
if at all, producing artifacts that help meet environmental
challenges than implementing sustainability measures in the
process of making (ibid.) and even that only applies to certain
maker types.
In order to develop mechanisms that promote environmental
sustainability in makerspaces and among makers, we must first
understand what factors actually determine human behavior.
The idea that actions result directly from a person’s values
and attitudes, much the less from simple awareness, has been
outdated since Wicker’s (1969) attempts to predict actions
Frontiers in Sustainability | www.frontiersin.org 3February 2022 | Volume 2 | Article 675333
Klemichen et al. Sustainable in Action
based on attitudes in the 1960s. Since then, it is primarily the
continuously developed and widely tested Theory of Reasoned
Action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), its successor Theory of
Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1988) and, resulting from it, the
Reasoned Action Approach (Fishbein and Ajzen, 2010), that has
been found useful when it comes to fathoming the variables
influencing human decision behavior. According to Fishbein
and Ajzen (2010), human behavior depends on at least three
factors as shown in Figure 1: (1) behavioral beliefs, (2) normative
beliefs, and (3) control beliefs. Behavioral beliefs describe the
consequences that someone expects to result from a certain
action. Normative beliefs refer to the assumed expectations of
others regarding one’s own behavior. Control beliefs revolve
around expected barriers and facilitators that might affect the
feasibility of a behavior. If a person expects the consequences of
a behavior to be mostly positive, his or her peers or role models
endorse the behavior or even practice it themselves, and he or
she expects more support than obstacles in practicing it, he or
she will develop a positive attitude toward the behavior, and is
likely to take it on. Thus, the first factor relates to a win-loss
consideration, the second to social pressure and social norms,
and the third to self-efficacy assumptions. It is only from the
weighing of these factors that a person develops the intention to
act or not to act and will behave accordingly as far as external
constraints allow it. Assumptions or beliefs are thus the basis
for intentions and ultimately action. Beliefs, in turn, are always
influenced by cultural and subcultural socialization processes as
well as by a person’s personal traits as shown in Figure 2.
Social psychology is continuously searching for additional
factors that influence behavioral decisions, many of which have
been incorporated into the approach because of their proven
statistical significance. One construct whose significance has been
proven many times, especially in studies on environmentally
conscious behavior (Chen, 2016, 2020), but which has not
yet found its way into the Reasoned Action Approach due
to methodological disagreements, is self-identity (Snippe et al.,
2021). The concept of self-identity is based on the constructivist
assumption that people perceive the world in specific ways,
depending on the representations of it they have created in their
minds. People construct images of everything that surrounds
them, mostly influenced by the expressed representations of
other people from their environment as well as by their own
experiences. Part of this mental image of the world in a
person’s mind is the image of himself or herself. This image
is called self-identity in psychology. This basically means that
we attribute certain characteristics to ourselves. Self-identity, in
itself, is composed of a variety of such attributed characteristics.
Accordingly, our perceived self is multifaceted. Which facet is
dominant in our self-attribution at a given moment depends
on our role in the respective social setting (Stryker and Serpe,
1982). Therefore, self-identity does not exist by itself but is always
also connected to the social surrounding. Mental constructs
can furthermore be activated to a certain degree by external
stimuli (Bargh et al., 2010), e.g., nudging a person to interpret
information in preselected ways by offering other information
beforehand that directs the persons’s thoughts in the targeted
direction. This is called priming. Applied to self-identity this
could mean that certain identity aspects could be raised by
reminding a person of his or her corresponding role in which
this very self-identity becomes salient. For example, if a person
is reminded of his or her role within the local makerspace’s
maker community and that person associates this role with values
of market independence, a subsequent offer to purchase cheap
materials of a market leader might be recognized as identity-
incongruent (Oyserman, 2015) and opposed to the communities’
social norms. This might trigger that person to reject the offer
in favor of buying from a smaller yet probably more costly
supplier. If the same person had been reminded of his or her
role as low earner and breadwinner of a family instead, his or
her choice might have been different. Therefore, the question
which self-identities are active in a maker when making decisions
is important.
The social setting with its social norms, associated roles
and values thus has a determining effect on people’s self-
identity (Turner et al., 1987) and their behavioral decisions.
Memberships in explicit social groups and categories have a
particularly high potential to lead to such effects (Terry et al.,
1999), since membership is always constructed in distinction
to non-membership and images exist of a prototypical member
against which one can measure oneself or to which one can
adapt. Makerspace communities are such explicit social groups.
Therefore, if changes in makers’ behavior are targeted, it seems
a good idea to take the social setting of the makerspace into
consideration, namely its community, the community’s values,
and its role models.
But what does environmental sustainability mean in the
context of makerspaces? According to many authors (e.g.,
Prendeville et al., 2017; Unterfrauner et al., 2019), the activities
of makerspaces are already tangential to many principles of
the circular economy, e.g., by extending product life through
repair and sharing resources by collaborative commons. In
addition, the aspect of education can be perceived as a
tentative move toward a general participation in the sharing
industry (Newlands et al., 2018). In contrast to engineers
concentrating primarily on the specific product properties and
functionalities (Halstenberg et al., 2019) and following strictly
pre-defined processes, designers develop concepts implemented
in the approach of eco or sustainable design (Sherwin, 2004)
to improve the environmental performance of products. They
are supported by a broader framework integrating qualitative
techniques such as checklists and superior guidelines (e.g.,
MET Matrix, Ten Golden Rules, eco Design checklist) as
well as quantitative techniques considering product life cycle
assessments (Luttrop and Lagerstedt, 2006; Bovea and Pérez-
Belis, 2012). Furthermore, Rossi et al. (2016) incorporate
overarching approaches such as Design for X (e.g., Design
for disassembly or recycling) as well as computer-aided design
integrated tools. In particular, the methods and methodologies
mentioned above can be understood as general-purpose tools
that do not require a high level of expertise and therefore
do not contradict the paradigm of making, that is to realize
projects low-cost and fast (Roeder and Klemichen, 2019).
Rather, it considers the fact of the in-depth makers knowledge
and project motivation heterogeneity, especially on rapid
prototyping and experimentation of designs especially for profit-
orientated start-ups that have to “anticipate and prepare for
Frontiers in Sustainability | www.frontiersin.org 4February 2022 | Volume 2 | Article 675333
Klemichen et al. Sustainable in Action
FIGURE 1 | Behavioral decision making as seen by Fishbein and Ajzen’s (Fishbein and Ajzen, 2010) reasoned action approach.
FIGURE 2 | Cultural socialization processes and personal traits that influence behavior decision making.
alternative economy” (Andrews, 2015). In this context the
methodology of Design Thinking (DT) has been established
within the designer community and does not represent a
strict set of rules, but provides a comprehensive framework of
analytical and creative tools and methods (Liedtka, 2015). It is
supplemented with aspects for sustainable product and business
development e.g., the integration of a multiple stakeholder
perspective (Andrews, 2015; Geissdoerfer et al., 2016; Buhl
et al., 2019) and has its focus on the consumer in product
development. In addition to the technical design of products,
both production and consumption characteristics influence
the design of future products and enable the integration of
product and service offerings through the paradigm of “shift of
ownership” (e.g., Tukker and Tischner, 2006).
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR
SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
IN MAKERSPACES
Previous studied literature showed primarily experience-based
reports, but little actual research on makers’ practice and impact
had been conducted so far. Considering the highly diverse
motivation and knowledge base for using the physical (e.g.,
spaces, machines) and virtual artifacts (e.g., collaboration and
communication platforms) of makers’ practice, the following
questions can be identified in the context of promoting
sustainable development practices: (I) How can knowledge about
the development of sustainable products be integrated into
makerspaces in such a way that users are motivated to learn more
Frontiers in Sustainability | www.frontiersin.org 5February 2022 | Volume 2 | Article 675333
Klemichen et al. Sustainable in Action
FIGURE 3 | Theoretical framework of pro-environmental decision-making process in makerspaces.
about these approaches independently or to apply this knowledge
in their own development projects? (II) How can makerspaces
be increasingly used as hands-on experimental environments for
educating learners in formal educational processes to increase
the general interest in sustainability impacts in the context
of technology?
Recognizing the above introduced social and environmental
psychological approaches to human decision making processes
we followed the hypothesis: H1: Sustainable product
development in makerspaces can be promoted by adding
environmental considerations to the image of the prototypical
maker following the Reasoned Action Approach; and H2:
Transferring environmental considerations to the image of the
prototypical maker can be achieved by creating a surrounding
in which sustainable product development is omnipresent
and thus reflects the makerspace’s commitment to sustainable
product development and primes the perception of the makers
for sustainability.
Applying the theoretical basics of decision making to
promoting sustainable product development in makerspaces
leads to the theoretical framework of pro-environmental decision
making in makerspaces as shown in Figure 3. By creating
Frontiers in Sustainability | www.frontiersin.org 6February 2022 | Volume 2 | Article 675333
Klemichen et al. Sustainable in Action
FIGURE 4 | Holistic ecoMaker concept for sustainable product development in makerspaces considering different lifecycle phases.
pro-environmental makerspace surroundings together with the
makerspace’s operators, the perceived social role of the maker
as part of the makerspace’s community is shifted toward being
part of a community that identifies with environmental aspects
of its daily practice. This social role triggers the makers to choose
such characteristics of their self-identity as being dominant
that go well with the perceived slightly shifted role. Since
other community members also undergo the same process, they
animate each other further by exhibiting commitment to the
necessity of sustainable product creation and thus strengthening
the collective perception of sustainable product development
as integral part of maker identity. With this shifted maker
identity at work community members who identify themselves
as makers consider acting accordingly by developing more
sustainable products. The intention is formed by assessing
behavioral, normative and control believes which come to an
overall positive conclusion thanks to the favorable perspective
on the topic within the community and the pro-environmental
makerspace surroundings that include supporting methods and
tools for sustainable product development. It is also due to
those supporting structures that the intention can be turned into
action successfully. This personal experience will then gain help
to further strengthen the maker’s perception of himself, making
and the prototype of a maker as being connected to sustainable
product development. This is of course just a schematic view
on the complex processes that take place within people and
social groups but they are capable of providing orientation when
making an effort to shift every day practices within makerspaces
toward environmental sustainability.
FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE: CONCEPT
DEVELOPMENT
Before starting developing things one must know one’s target
group. A literature review had been fruitless regarding detailed
information on makerspace user’s attitudes, working modes and
so on for the German context. Therefore, the diverse users of
makerspaces rough user groups were defined and an individual
survey design was developed depending on access to each group.
First, a cross-sectional study–an online questionnaire for 47
German makerspaces–was conducted, mainly supported by the
community of FabLab Berlin [for more detail see Klemichen
and Roeder (2018)]. The participants were surveyed on attitudes,
routines and needs as a door opener for the development
of assisting tools. Another item set clustered around makers’
understanding of sustainability. This was additional reinforced by
the requested demonstration of their last considered key aspects
of sustainability in their own projects as well as their experience
with methods and tools that they had used. Moreover, the online
survey was appended by qualitative guideline interviews with five
start-ups situated at Fab Lab Berlin and workshops held with
Frontiers in Sustainability | www.frontiersin.org 7February 2022 | Volume 2 | Article 675333
Klemichen et al. Sustainable in Action
actors from the educational landscape–university students, pupils
and teachers at different qualification levels.
It became clear that while in all user groups awareness for
the need for environmentally sustainable development existed,
the maker’s own potential contribution was considered too small
to be worth the effort. Therefore, lack of knowledge regarding
tools and methods or materials and processes as suggested by
Unterfrauner et al. (2019) is only part of the explanation of
the attitude-behavior-gap. Even more important it seems is the
basic attitude of makers during their work in the makerspace,
in which sustainability factors often take a back seat. In the
view of many makers, these factors play a subordinate role
for their maker identity. This corresponds with Toombs et al.
(2015) who identified market independence, individualism and
openness for mutual support as major aspects of maker’ self-
identity. Therefore, simply providing tools and methods does
not lead to more ecofriendly behavior in makerspaces as long as
ecological sustainability is not an integral part of makers’ self-
image or community norms. In order for tools and methods to
have a chance of acceptance, the image of the maker must first be
opened up to the concept of ecological sustainability.
A Two-Stage Approach to Connect the
Image of Makers to Sustainable Product
Development
There are several principles around environmental issues leading
to a shifting mindset (Berglund and Kohtala, 2020). These
are closely related to the maturity of knowledge due to tools,
technologies, and techniques arising by themselves through
creativity and experience processes. These practices represent the
prime asset of the maker community, further strengthened by
peer support. We believe that an expanded range of methods
and tools with a special focus on ecological design combined
with resource-efficient production can favorably affect individual
performance. However, as discussed above methods and tools
only might have such an impact on makers’ practices when
community norms and maker identity have already experienced
a shift toward sustainable product development. Availability
of tools by itself does not shift mindsets. Nevertheless, they
are essential to support this shift when makers are tentatively
starting to check their capability of developing products
more environmentally friendly. To put it in Fishbein and
Ajzen’s (Fishbein and Ajzen, 2010) words, even when makers’
expect sustainable product development to have positive effects
(behavioral beliefs) and apply to their community’s norms
(normative beliefs), they will still consider their expectations
regarding barriers and facilitators before engaging in sustainable
product development (control beliefs). Those expectations will
also be formed by the availability of facilitating methods or tools.
The ecoMaker concept therefore follows a two-stage
approach. In the first step, sustainable product development has
to be put on the agenda in makerspaces and their communities
in order to increase the association of maker surroundings
and sustainable product development. A commitment
to sustainability needs to become physically visible in the
makerspace. This does not have to be done by means of some
makerspace charter being pinned to the wall but can happen
more subtle and thus more convincing e.g., by integrating
sustainability tools into the tool kit provided by the makerspace,
establishing a storage of leftover materials for free use, offering
environmentally friendly materials and marking them as such,
marking bins for separating waste and include sustainable
product development into existing workshop series. Such actions
represent commitment by the makerspaces’ operators who
are also role models within the makerspace’s community and
therefore have a strong impact on the community’s norms. In the
second step, it has to be made easy for those makers who, as early
adopters within the communities, begin to look for opportunities
for ecofriendly product design to also find those opportunities
easily to allow for a feeling of control and keep them on track.
However, in practice there were synergies between those
methodologically separated steps within the ecoMaker project.
An important component in changing makers’ practice, it has
been argued, is to influence the image of makers was to change
the image of the makerspace as a physical and social environment
for action and a place of identification for makers. Visible
omnipresent symbols for a commitment of the makerspace to
its responsibility for environmental sustainability served as the
basis for this. Yet, the very tools and methods that were developed
to provide the early adopters with easy access to knowledge and
techniques in the second step were developed and designed to
also serve as these same symbols by being presented and offered
at various places within the makerspace in the first step.
BECOMING PRACTICAL:
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ECOMAKER
CONCEPT
A number of different solutions for environmentally friendly
product development was developed that can be easily installed
in makerspaces to promote its sustainability commitment
while at the same time facilitating environmentally friendly
practices. Since the two partner makerspaces (FabLab Berlin
and VINN:Lab Wildau) were already following basic measures
of environmental protection (separating waste and collecting
scrap materials) as is usually the case in Germany, we
concentrated on concrete challenges of environmentally friendly
product development.
Since we wanted early adopters to find assistance for their
projects for whatever design phase they were going through at
that time, we decided to develop solutions for all design phases
from the project idea through conceptualization, evaluation
and finally to dissemination within the network (see Figure 4).
The solutions are based on approaches from engineering
practice (e.g., simplified life cycle assessment, design for x),
combined with established methods from the start-up scene
(e.g., design thinking) as described above in the framework for
sustainable product development. They are freely available on
the project’s website, following an open-source approach. The
ecoMaker methods and tools set includes an online knowledge
sharing platform, the ecoMaker Design Sprint, the ecoMaker
Check, best practice animations, and a learning path concept
all targeting environmentally friendly product development
specifically in makerspaces.
Frontiers in Sustainability | www.frontiersin.org 8February 2022 | Volume 2 | Article 675333
Klemichen et al. Sustainable in Action
Platform for Inspiration and Sharing Ideas
Platforms offer a space for users to implement their own projects,
to learn new things, but also to pass on knowledge gained
during project implementation (Voigt et al., 2018). The open
and collaborative exchange also allows for iterative evolution,
as each participant develops a design according to his or her
needs. This creates a process of learning from each other and
learning by doing. The learning process thus has a primarily
informal character. Existing platforms such as instructables.com
already provide makers with an option for making knowledge
available, but offer such an abundance of projects and project
ideas (Voigt et al., 2018) that it is difficult to filter environmentally
friendly or environmentally designed projects. However, the
facilitated access to technologies equally results in rebound effects
in the form of increased production of individual products. The
fostering of an open community for specifically environmentally
friendly product design is thus one of the unique selling points
of the developed platform, along with the additional offer
of the knowledge hub whose focus has emerged through the
previous survey (Klemichen and Roeder, 2018). The platform
is composed of the following core elements: (1) The project
gallery offers a platform for presenting one’s own finished projects
and the opportunity to receive feedback as well as suggestions
and recognition from the community. The benchmark is either
the use of environmentally friendly materials, environmentally
friendly production and the reference for a sustainable everyday
life; (2) Detailed documentation of the projects is presented
in the replicas’ section, where the maker can share step-by-
step descriptions of project implementation, tools and materials
used, and lessons learned with the community. The instructions
can be made understandable by embedding images, videos and
PDF documents (see Figure 5); (3) In addition to learning
about applied project practice, knowledge along the product
development process will be provided in the knowledge hub.
The content is strongly oriented toward the needs and the
level of knowledge of the Maker community. Due to the strong
diversity of possible maker projects, an universal knowledge
space was created that provides links to existing knowledge
for a wide variety of topics as a primary support measure
for the community, which is flooded with information and
tools. For this reason, several questions were integrated into
the knowledge representation such as basic approaches (Circular
Economy, Peer-To-Peer Production), checklists, methods for
product creation, software, and expert systems that are based on
systematic literature research as well as on interviews regarding
applied practice within the maker community itself. The selection
of content was made using criteria for instance number of
sustainability aspects covered, general effort, life cycle phases,
availability, time required. Through the aspect of sharing project
ideas promoted by providing concrete instructions, the makers
should not only be encouraged to be inspired by sustainable ideas,
but equally proud to present and further develop their own ideas.
ecoMaker Design Sprint
Design sprints are a method that originate from design thinking
approaches. They describe a development process usually split
in the five phases (1) understand, (2) diverge, (3) converge, (4)
FIGURE 5 | Replication of a the learning tool “Garbage Separation Bot"”
developed within a student project.
prototype, and (5) test (Knapp et al., 2016). The method has been
developed to bring innovative products to market and reduce
market risks by including a very broad system level perspective
into the product development. The ecoMaker Design Sprint takes
an entry-level perspective on environmentally friendly product
design (Roeder and Klemichen, 2019). The systems thinking
approach as a whole seemed too ambitious for participants who
have little prior knowledge of both sustainability and market
economics. Therefore, the design sprint format was adapted
to focus only on product design, excluding any broad market
considerations and testing phases, and thus helping makers to
thoroughly challenge their project ideas regarding environmental
sustainability. This process has been structured by three sub
sprints: Basic Sprint, Eco Sprint, and Idea Sprint. The ecoMaker
Design Sprint can be integrated in e.g., a hackathon format to
reach the state of physical prototypes (see Figure 6).
The “understand” phase of typical design sprints is
represented by the Basic Sprint during which participants
undertake a product tear-down (Otto and Wood, 1998),
meaning they define all parts and functions of their targeted
product for better understanding the product. The “diverge”
phase is represented by the Eco Sprint and concentrates on
identifying eco-friendly alternatives for each defined part and
function to open up the solution space. This space is then
narrowed down in the “converge” phase, represented by the
Idea Sprint. This is when participants choose a number of
identified alternatives which they actually want to integrate
into their product. This narrowing down of the solution space
is equivalent to the cognitive process that has been described
as strategic control or synthesis in design thinking (Kolodner
and Wills, 1996; Razzouk and Shute, 2012). The modeling and
production phases were not considered part of the design sprint,
so that the “prototype” and “test” phases were excluded from the
design sprint.
In order to integrate environmentally friendly product
development into maker community norms, the means of its
application could not conflict with existing norms. The ecoMaker
Design Sprint’s concept therefore comes with additional tools
that ensure that the makers can perform the design sprint
mostly on their own, without a guide. This takes into account
Frontiers in Sustainability | www.frontiersin.org 9February 2022 | Volume 2 | Article 675333
Klemichen et al. Sustainable in Action
FIGURE 6 | Integration of the ecoMaker Design Sprint into a hackathon format.
FIGURE 7 | ecoMaker design sprint canvas.
the desired independence of makers, which not only emerges
from the cited scientific literature, but was also evident in the
method’ testing iterations. The principal tool is the canvas, which
represents two concentric circles to provide visually separated
areas to work in during the Basic Sprint and the Eco Sprint
(see Figure 7). In the center, a third circle segments the sprints
according to the impact fields of manufacturing, materials,
function, end of life, and use phase, which allows makers to
think through the wide variety of possible impacts of the project
idea in a structured way within more manageable domains. To
make makers familiar with the sheer number of aspects that
could be considered during the Eco Sprint, when it comes to
finding more eco-friendly adaptations of the original project
idea, a cardboard-based tool with guide questions is offered in
a wheel design. Underneath the three key fields that identify
possible eco-friendly improvements, namely materials, processes,
and end-of-life, the maker is presented guiding questions, such
as “Where do the raw materials come from?” or “How can
energy be conserved in this process?” To support the subsequent
reduction of the solution space by dismissing inappropriate
Frontiers in Sustainability | www.frontiersin.org 10 February 2022 | Volume 2 | Article 675333
Klemichen et al. Sustainable in Action
FIGURE 8 | Principles behind the ecoMaker check.
solutions during the Idea Sprint, makers are offered a logbook.
It contains the most frequently mentioned exclusion criteria
from the initial survey, that are accessibility, time and cost.
It also offers space for further personal demands such as
aesthetics, again, in order to offer the greatest possible scope
for the independence of the makers and thus to emphasize
that they are the ones who shape the process. Also within
the predefined categories of accessability, time and cost, the
makers are requested to set their own tolerance limits for the
evaluation system.
Simplified Life Cycle Analysis for
Prototypes–ecoMaker Check
The analysis assistant ecoMaker Check shall support makers
more concretely in the selection of processes and materials as part
of their product development process. The configured product is
also to be evaluated. Thus, transparency for the own product is to
be created regarding the improvement potentials of the product.
The assistant fulfills the following tasks: (1) Support in the
selection of design strategies, (2) Overview of the sustainability
issues that affect a product (3) detailed information about the
advantages and disadvantages of individual selection variants and
finally (4) evaluation of the product in terms of ecological design
strategies and visualization of the global warming potential and
the CO2 footprint (see Figure 8).
This was followed by the research phase on existing legislation
and political strategies (e.g., Circular Economy Action Plan,
UNEP Report Design for Sustainability). Due to the fact
that ecodesign is already an established method in product
development a solution had to be found on how to use
this knowledge for a simplified product evaluation from an
environmental point of view. Therefore, in order to develop
an evaluation method for the web-based tool ecoMaker Check,
ecological product aspects, and design criteria were elaborated
taking into account the characteristics of makers as production
environment. Since there was no set of design strategies and
criteria that consider environmentally friendly behavior and
production methods that could be used to evaluate product
development in makerspaces, a general design for sustainability
strategies was used.
Thus, a wide range of improvement directions can be covered
in all phases of a product’s life cycle. A checklist was then
used to translate the criteria that characterize the strategies
appropriate to the maker’s action options into understandable
multiple-choice questions. The answers are translated into a
numerical scale representing the fulfillment rate of a design
strategy and assigned along the life phases of the product.
Here, the makers have to go through the whole life cycle of
the product starting from complexity, materials, manufacturing,
using, repairing as well as disposal. By means of info boxes
Frontiers in Sustainability | www.frontiersin.org 11 February 2022 | Volume 2 | Article 675333
Klemichen et al. Sustainable in Action
that accompany the Makers during the run and can be clicked
on, additional inspirations regarding alternative materials,
production techniques or options for action are to be created. The
answers are used to determine the extent to which the product
meets the defined ecodesign criteria. Since each criterion was
previously assigned a value on a numerical scale, these values
can be summarized so that a more comprehensive statement
can be made about the extent to which a product fulfills
the ecoMaker strategies in each life cycle phase. A simplified
calculation of the product’s carbon footprint can be performed
at the same time using the questions and answers in the
ecoMaker Check. Here, the greenhouse gas emissions during
material manufacturing, production and disposal are considered
and was carried out using the Gabi 6.0 software. This impact
assessment was carried out using the CML2001 methodology for
life cycle assessment.
Best Practice Animations and Learning
Path
Together with our partner makerspace, the ViNN:Lab, typical
errors (regarding e.g., design, machine operation, material
selection) that lead to production errors and material waste were
identified for each individual station in the makerspace, for which
instructions for makers could be formulated in a second step.
This was done in the form of short animations that can be
either used for trainings or called up via a QR code on personal
devices to implement a learning path through the physical
makerspace. For this the codes that lead to the animations
are placed throughout the makerspace to match the respective
workstation, starting at the entrance to the lab with references
to online platforms for inspiration for sustainable project ideas,
through the exhibition area, where example products are referred
to, e.g., to show the influence of the printing direction in the 3D
printing process on the surface structure of the printed object,
toward the material store with suggestions on the appropriate
choice of material, the computer workstation with useful design
clues, and finally the machine tools with operating instructions.
The concept provides learning paths in the form of footprints
sticked to the ground that guide makers through the appropriate
content along their intended production method. Of course,
in an ideal case the learning path would also refer to the
other tools and methods from the ecoMaker project that would
have been implemented in the makerspace beforehand. The
platform would be referred to right in the entrance area or at
a showcase of products realized in the makerspace, since this
is where inspiration for environmentally friendly projects could
be found. The ecoMaker Design Sprint would be integrated
around co-working areas and the ecoMaker Check at computer
work stations. In this second option of using the best practice
animations to create a learning path the knowledge transfer is
merely a positive side effect of the primary purpose to make
commitment for environmentally friendly product development
visible in each and every corner of the makerspace to influence
both community norms and consequently the self-identity of
makers as well as the control beliefs of makers when it comes to
the decision of actually acting in environmentally friendly ways
when making.
EVALUATION OF TOOLS AND METHODS
Limitations
The survey, interviews and workshops that formed the basis
for the ecoMaker concept were all limited to the German
context. Furthermore, the development and evaluation design
had to be adapted for each tool and method of the concept,
due to the diversity of the targeted users and the specifics of
the Makers’ work culture, which, for example, clearly favors
informal dialogue over more formal methods. Therefore, a set of
individual strategies had to be developed, rather than an easily
replicable single method that would have allowed for greater
comparability. The most serious limitation, however, was the
closure of the project’s partner makerspaces due to the Covid
19 pandemic regulation in the middle of the final evaluation of
the overall approach. Thus, while the individual methods and
tools have been tested and their usefulness and functionality
ensured for step two of the ecoMaker approach (providing
helpful guidance to early adopters), the subsequent step (adding
sustainable product development to the maker image through
the widespread use of various tools and methods within the
makerspace) needs to be evaluated.
Sharing Platform
First, the platform concept was tested at an early stage with
an initial functional mock-up in an internal expert workshop
with scientists from the context of virtual product development
and sustainable engineering. For this purpose, various personas
were defined to imitate different makers’ background such
as age, professional activity, technical and ecological prior
knowledge, maturity level of product idea. Those were assigned
to the participants. The knowledge hub received particular
attention of the participants. In some cases, more in-depth
information on specific topics was desired (for e.g., assistance on
sustainable production and individual principles of the circular
economy). At the same time, the information should be presented
briefly and precisely. Secondly, students should document and
publish their projects on the platform in accordance with
the open source paradigm as part of a students’ project to
develop environmentally conscious inter-generational games.
From them we received feedback that there was still some
potential for improvement in terms of usability, which was
subsequently realized.
ecoMaker Design Sprint
The ecoMaker Design Sprint was expanded in several stages,
tested at maker specific events, and constantly improved. In
the first development phase, the approach was tested during
two hackathons lasting several days at the partner fab lab in
cooperation with a vocational school and a high school. In
the first session, the students were supported with cards on
sustainability indicators in the ecoSprint. Since these tended to
confuse rather than support, they were replaced in the second
implementation by the cardboard wheel with guiding questions
Frontiers in Sustainability | www.frontiersin.org 12 February 2022 | Volume 2 | Article 675333
Klemichen et al. Sustainable in Action
along which the students could identify sustainability factors
for their product sessions with a total of 12 participants. The
event was used to further develop the design sprint to test it
with other target groups. For this purpose, the tools (canvas
and wheel) were revised. Furthermore, a MET-Matrix (material,
energy and toxic emissions) enabling a qualitative assessment of
product life cycle, was provided for the identification of ecological
weak spots of the product ideas. The workshop resulted in
positive feedback from the participants on the design sprint and
clearly showed that the sprint and the associated tools were quite
helpful with basic knowledge of the ecoDesign topic. However,
the MET matrix was rarely used, all teams preferred the wheel
with guiding questions along the product life phases. Within the
framework of a large multi-day public hackathon, the design
sprint was implemented into a wider design thinking hackathon
format in collaboration with the learning factory ecoDesign.
The participants of the four teams went through a very tightly
scheduled workshop, in which first business concepts and finally
associated products and services were to be derived from a
predefined futuristic mobility scenario. Although all participants
were able to finally prototype and demonstrate their ideas (e.g.,
flexible scooter helmet, hitchhiking app, flexible convertible, and
renewable energy powered gondola), participants complained
about the tight schedule that required teams to make quick
decisions. This restricted the concepts, some of which had not
yet been finally evaluated in the group discussion, from being
thought through in the best possible way. The ecoMaker Design
Sprint, however, received excellent feedback for being useful
while granting the makers full autonomy. Thus, the goal for was
reached both in terms of having a positive practical impact and
meeting acceptance.
ecoMaker Check
The development of the analysis assistant ecoMaker Check also
followed an iterative work process. According to the survey
users preferred a supporting tool for comparing different product
scenarios as well as an environmental life cycle assessment.
The early concept evaluation was performed using a clickable
mockup with five makers, which was tested in a partner
makerspace ViNN:Lab. For the evaluation, participants were
asked to imagine either their own project or a given one and
then run through the assistant. The survey then focused on
usability and the logical process. The majority found the tool
easy to use and agreed that it was easy to learn without external
help or a manual. Furthermore, it was well-customized to the
requirements of the work. With regard to the statement of
unnecessary entries and the constraint of needless work steps,
the participants expressed moderate satisfaction. The questions
were understandable in a standard manner and could partly
help to obtain a new perspective on product development or to
better understand one’s own product. Moreover, the participants
requested additional information boxes, for example on specific
material properties and production possibilities as well as the
effects of the decision parameters on the overall ecological impact
of the product or prototype. After the final implementation of
the assistant, a test scenario (design of a lemon squeezer) was
created for the final evaluation. The participants had to use the
example to design a first concept with first strategies along the
product life cycle without the assistant. Then they were supposed
to run through the assistant with the developed concept. The
evaluation was attended by 13 makers with different levels of
knowledge about sustainable product development, materials
and production techniques and in compliance with selected
criteria of ISO/IEC 9126 (effectiveness, efficiency, satisfaction).
On average, the tool performed reasonably well in the area of
effectiveness. The provided information helped to better assess
environmental impacts and participants indicated that the tool
supported them to gain knowledge about sustainability in the
development process. In contrast, conflicting goals could rarely
be identified. Six participants felt that the tool had a positive
impact on the environmental performance of the product. There
were four participants who stated that the tool would only
partially affect them, and three participants stated that there
would be no impact. Regarding the efficiency of the tool, testers
we generally satisfied regarding time required, comprehensibility,
and logical operation. There was a high agreement that the tool
could be well-integrated into the everyday life of makers, which,
unfortunately, does not correspond to their own statement
regarding their own intent to use the tool regularly in the future.
CONCLUSION
Makerspaces are not as environmentally-oriented as often
proclaimed in literature and media. However, certain maker
groups do have high potential of being activated as sustainability
advocates by psychological processes making use of concepts
such as self-identity, priming and Reasoned Action Approach,
especially promising when focusing on normative beliefs
(influencing norms in the community through the makerspaces
position and omnipresent visibility of the topic) and control
beliefs in terms by offering physical and digital tools and methods
and making commitment visible. Thus, in the ecoMaker project
we set out to try to merge social psychological and engineering
knowledge from product development to develop useful methods
and tools—to be visibly presented in the makerspace—to foster
a higher active awareness of environmental sustainability with
the aim of promoting sustainable action within the community.
Thus, makerspaces themselves operate as a local service not only
for technology sharing but also as an enabler for promoting
a paradigm shift from “make it fast and cheap” to “make
it sustainable.” Especially, those who could be encouraged
to take on the role of early adopters of techniques for
environmentally friendly product development should also find
easy access to information. For this purpose a number of example
methods and tools were developed that can function as both,
assistants for sustainable product development and elements
of a pro-environmental makerspace surrounding that promotes
environmental considerations as part of the maker identity. Since
the concept was co-developed with makerspaces, all elements are
adoptable by other makerspaces to be integrated into their spatial
and social designs.
The main purpose of the tools was to create an omnipresence
of sustainability issues in order to influence the community’s
Frontiers in Sustainability | www.frontiersin.org 13 February 2022 | Volume 2 | Article 675333
Klemichen et al. Sustainable in Action
identification with sustainability and thus the mindset or at
least the behavior of community members. Evaluation of the
isolated tools to draw on so far, particularly in early sustainability
assessment, showed a general interest in the tools themselves,
but does not yet seem to have penetrated their day-to-day work.
Nonetheless, supporting makers with an intrinsic or extrinsic
motivation to take on the role of sustainability pioneer in
the community by providing knowledge and guiding methods
and tools is essential to maintaining motivation. To promote
sustainable value creation patterns in decentralized production,
further research must focus not only on the development and
deployment of individual tools but also on the interaction
between the offer of individual and holistic concepts and the
users to assess the impact on sustainable action. In this way,
values can first be engaged to the individuals in the long
term and consequently also transferred to the community. In
order to expand the use of the created offer, it must continue
to be carried into the makerspaces via social channels and
networks, so that on the one hand the tools can benefit
from an expanded level of awareness and on the other hand
from the optimization potential through the community itself.
Furthermore, the evaluation of the overall concept remains the
essential next step e.g., in association with the establishment of
an exemplary makerspace.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The original contributions presented in the study are included
in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be
directed to the corresponding author/s.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
AK, IP, and RS contributed to conception and design of the
research. AK and IP wrote the sections of the manuscript.
AK designed and described the technological driven tools. IP
described the social psychosocial perspective and educational
tools. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and
approved the submitted version.
FUNDING
The research work within the ecoMaker project was funded by
the German Federal Environmental Foundation.
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, Personality and Behaviour. Milton Keynes: Open
University Press.
Anderson, C. (2012). Makers: The New Industrial Revolution. New York,
United States: Random House Business Books.
Andrews, D. (2015). The circular economy, design thinking and education for
sustainability. Local Econ. 3, 305–315. doi: 10.1177/0269094215578226
Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., and Oettingen, G. (2010). “Motivation,” in Handbook
of Social Psychology, eds S. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, G. Lindzay (New York, NY:
Wiley), 268–316 doi: 10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy001008
Berglund, E., and Kohtala, C. (2020). Collaborative confusion among DIY
makers: ethnography and expertise in creating knowledge for environmental
sustainability. Sci. Technol. Stud. 33, 102–119. doi: 10.23987/sts.60812
Bovea, M. D., and Pérez-Belis, V. (2012). A taxonomy of ecodesign tools for
integrating environmental requirements into the product design process. J.
Clean. Product. 20, 61–71. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.07.012
Buhl, A., Schmidt-Keilich, M., Muster, V., Blazejewski, S., Schrader, U., Harrach,
C., et al. (2019). Design thinking for sustainability: why and how design
thinking can foster sustainability-oriented innovation development. J. Clean.
Product. 231, 1248–1257. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.259
Chen, M.-F. (2016). Extending the theory of planned behavior model to explain
people’s energy savings and carbon reduction behavioral intentions to mitigate
climate change in Taiwane. Moral obligation matters. J. Clean. Product. 112,
1746–1753. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.043
Chen, M.-F. (2020). The impacts of perceived moral obligation and sustainability
self-identity on sustainability development. A theory of planned behavior
purchase intention model of sustainability-labeled coffee and the moderating
effect of climate change skepticism. Bus. Strat. Environ. 29, 2404–2417.
doi: 10.1002/bse.2510
Fishbein, M. A., and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An
Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA.
Fishbein, M. A., and Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and Changing Behavior: The
Reasoned Action Approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press; Taylor & Francis
Group.
Geissdoerfer, M., Bocken, N. M. P., and Hultink, E. J. (2016). Design
thinking to enhance the sustainable business modelling process – a
workshop based on a value mapping process. J. Clean. Product. 1218–1232.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.020
Grabher, G., and Ibert, O. (2014). Distance as asset? Knowledge for collaboration in
hybrid virtual communities. J. Econ. Geogr. 14, 97–123. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbt014
Halstenberg, F. A., Lindow, K., and Stark, R. (2019). Leveraging circular economy
through a methodology for smart service systems engineering. Sustainability
11:3517. doi: 10.3390/su11133517
Hartmann, F., Mietzner, D., and Zerbe, D. (2016). Die Maker Bewegung als neues
soziales Phänomen - Ergebnisse einer qualitativen Inhaltsanalyse ausgewählter
Massenmedien. Wildau: TH Wildau
Klemichen, A., and Roeder, I. (2018). Needs and Requirements for Environmental-
friendly Product Development in Makerspaces-A Survey of German Makerspaces.
Wien: Going Green Care Innovation.
Knapp, J., Zeratsky, J., and Kowitz, B. (2016). Sprint. How to Solve Big Problems
and Test New Ideas in Just Five Days. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Kohtala, C. (2016). Making Sustainability: How Fab Labs Address Environmental
Issues. Helsinki: Aalto ARTS Books.
Kohtala, C., and Sampsa, H. (2015). Anticipated environmental
sustainability of personal fabrication. J. Clean. Product. 99, 333–344.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.093
Kolodner, J., and Wills, L. (1996). Power of observation in creative design. Design
Stud. 17, 385–416. doi: 10.1016/S0142-694X(96)00021-X
Liedtka, J. (2015). Perspective: linking design thinking with innovation, outcomes
through cognitive bias reduction. J. Product Innovat. Manage. 32, 925–938.
doi: 10.1111/jpim.12163
Luttrop, C., and Lagerstedt, J. (2006). EcoDesign and the ten golden rules: generic
advice for merging environmental aspects into product development. J. Clean.
Product. 14, 1396–1408. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.022
Millard, J., Unterfrauner, E., Voigt, C., Katsikis, O. K., and Sorivelle, M. N. (2017).
The maker movement in Europe: empirical and practitioner insights into
sustainability. EPiC Ser. Comput. 52, 227–242. doi: 10.29007/8lsf
Newlands, G., Lutz, C., and Hoffmann, C. P. (2018). Sharing by proxy: invisible
users in the sharing economy. First Monday 23:11. doi: 10.5210/fm.v23i11.8159
Osorio, F., Dupont, L., Camargo, M., and Pe?a, J. I. (2019). “Constellation
of innovation laboratories: a scientific outlook,” in 2019 IEEE International
Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/ITMC), 1–10.
doi: 10.1109/ICE.2019.8792816
Frontiers in Sustainability | www.frontiersin.org 14 February 2022 | Volume 2 | Article 675333
Klemichen et al. Sustainable in Action
Otto, K., and Wood, K. (1998). “A reverse engineering and redesign methodology
for product evolution,” in Proceedings of the 1996 ASME Design Theory
and Methodology Conference (Irvine, CA). doi: 10.1115/96-DETC/DTM-
1523
Oyserman, D. (2015). “Identity-Based motivation,” in Emerging Trends in the
Social and Behavioral Sciences, ed R. Scott and S. Kosslyn (John Wiley
& Sons). Available online at: https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/782/docs/
oyserman2015ibm.pdf (accessed February 20, 2021).
Petschow, U., Ferdinand, J.-P., Dickel, S., Fläming, H., Steinfeldt, M., and Worobei,
A. (2014). “Dezentrale produktion, 3D-Druck und nachhaltigkeit; trajektorien
und potenziale innovativer wertschöpfungsmuster zwischen maker bewegung
und industrie 4.0,” in IÖW 206/14 (Berlin).
Prendeville, S., Hartung, G., Brass,C., Purvis, E., and Hall, E. (2017).
Circular Makerspaces: the founder’s view. Int. J. Sust. Eng. 10, 272–288.
doi: 10.1080/19397038.2017.1317876
Razzouk, R., and Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important?
Rev. Educ. Res. 82, 330–348. doi: 10.3102/0034654312457429
Roeder, I., Klemichen, A., and Stark, R. (2019). “Be(com)ing an eco-maker -
a prestructured self-learning concept for environmentally-friendly product
creation in makerspaces,” in 4th International Symposium on Academic
Makerspaces (New Haven, CT).
Rossi, M., Germani, M., and Zamagni, A. (2016). Review of ecodesign methods
and tools. Barriers and strategies for an effective implementation in industrial
companies. J. Clean. Product. 129, 361–373. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.051
Schoneboom, A. (2018). Making Maker Space: an exploration of lively things,
urban placemaking and organisation. Ephemera 18, 709–736.
Sheridan, K., Rosenfeld Halverson, E., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe,
L., and Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the making: a comparative
case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educ. Rev. 84, 505–531.
doi: 10.17763/haer.84.4.brr34733723j648u
Sherwin, C. (2004). Design and sustainability. J. Sust. Product Des. 4, 21–31.
doi: 10.1007/s10970-006-0003-x
Snippe, M. H. M., Peters, G. J. P., and Kok, G. (2021). The operationalization
of self-identity in reasoned action models: a systematic review of self-identity
operationalizations in three decades of research. Health Psychol. Behav. Med. 9,
48–69. doi: 10.1080/21642850.2020.1852086
Stryker, S., and Serpe, R. (1982). “Commitment, Identity Salience, and Role
Behavior. Theory and research example,” in Personality, Roles, and Social
Behavior, ed W. Ickes and E. Knowles (New York, NY: Springer), 199–218
doi: 10.1007/978-1-4613-9469-3_7
Terry, D., Hogg, M., and White, K. (1999). The theory of planned behaviour: self-
identity, social identity and group norms. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 38 (Pt. 3), 225–244.
doi: 10.1348/014466699164149
Toffler, A. (1980). The Third Wave. New York: Morrow.
Toombs, A., Bardzell, Sh., and Bardzell, J. (2015). “The proper care and feeding
of hackerspaces: care ethics and cultures of making," in Proceedings of the 33rd
Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 629–638.
doi: 10.1145/2702123.2702522
Tukker, A., and Tischner, U. (2006). Product-Services as a research field:
past, present and future. Reflections from a Decade of Research, Journal
of Cleaner Production, Product Service Systems: reviewing achievements
and refining the research agenda. J Clean Product. 14, 1552–1556.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.01.022
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., and Wetherell, M. S. (1987).
Rediscovering the social group. A Self-Categorization Theory. New York, NY:
Basil Blackwell.
Unterfrauner, E., Hofer, M., Pelka, B., and Zirngiebl, M. (2020). A new player
for tackling inequalities? Framing the social value and impact of the maker
movement. Soc. Inclus. 8, 90–200. doi: 10.17645/si.v8i2.2590
Unterfrauner, E., Shao, J., Hofer, M., and Fabian, D. (2019). The environmental
value and impact of the Maker movement - Insights from a cross-case
analysis of European maker initiatives. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 28, 1518–1533.
doi: 10.1002/bse.2328
Voigt, C., Mair, S., and Unterfrauner, E. (2018). “Hacking the knowledge of
maker communities in support of 21st century education,” in Internet Science
Conference. INSCI 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 11193, ed S.
Budronova (Cham: Springer). doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-01437-7_22
Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitudes versus actions: the relationship of verbal
and overt behavioral responses to attitude objects. J. Soc. Issues 25, 41–78.
doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1969.tb00619.x
Zamiri, M., and Camarinha-Matos, M. (2019). Mass collaboration and
learning: opportunities, challenges, and influential factors. Appl. Sci. 9:2620.
doi: 10.3390/app9132620
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of
the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in
this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
endorsed by the publisher.
Copyright © 2022 Klemichen, Peters and Stark. This is an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.
No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these
terms.
Frontiers in Sustainability | www.frontiersin.org 15 February 2022 | Volume 2 | Article 675333
