The choice of materials in makerspaces: demonstrating its impact on sustainability

Marion Unegg; Zora Bujan; Hans Peter Schnöll; Patrick Herstätter; Andreas Franz Kohlweiss; Christian Ramsauer

doi:10.21428/70cb44c5.fa4209df

The choice of materials in makerspaces: demonstrating its impact on sustainability

Titel in Übersetzung: Die Auswahl von Materialien in Makerspaces : Aufzeigen der Auswirkungen auf die Nachhaltigkeit

Marion Unegg, Zora Bujan, Hans Peter Schnöll, Patrick Herstätter, Andreas Franz Kohlweiss, Christian Ramsauer

Institut für Innovation und Industrie Management (3710)

Publikation: Beitrag in einer Fachzeitschrift › Artikel › Begutachtung

Abstract

Makerspaces und FabLabs sind das Rückgrat der Maker-Community. Gleichzeitig wird es immer wichtiger, die Bedürfnisse der zukünftigen Generationen auf unserem Planeten zu erfüllen. Neben den Hauptakteuren, wie der Industrie, auf dem Weg zur Erreichung der Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung (SDG), sind alle unsere Beiträge wichtig. Selbst kleine alltägliche Entscheidungen in Makerspaces können den Treibhausgas-Fußabdruck und damit die CO2-Konzentration in unserer Atmosphäre beeinflussen, so dass Maker auch die Möglichkeit haben, in ihren Projekten Treibhausgase einzusparen.
Anhand einer Fallstudie, die im Makerspace der Technischen Universität Graz durchgeführt wurde, werden verschiedene Materialien und Produktionstechnologien, die in einem Makerspace zur Verfügung stehen, am Beispiel einer einfachen kleinen Box evaluiert.
Neben dem THG-Fußabdruck wird auch der Energiebedarf für jede Verarbeitungsmethode im Makerspace dargestellt. Es wurden interessante Unterschiede im THG-Fußabdruck in Abhängigkeit vom verwendeten Material und der Technologie festgestellt. So reichten die THG-Emissionen pro Box beim Laserschneiden von 38,6 g CO2eq für Walnussholz bis zu 817 g CO2eq für Acrylglas. Beim 3D-Druck ist die Materialauswahl ein weniger wichtiger Faktor für die Emissionen als beim Laserschneiden. So liegen die Emissionen pro Schachtel beim PLA-Druck bei 319,9 g CO2eq und bei 463,5 g

Titel in Übersetzung	Die Auswahl von Materialien in Makerspaces : Aufzeigen der Auswirkungen auf die Nachhaltigkeit
Originalsprache	englisch
Seitenumfang	17
Fachzeitschrift	International Journal of Academic Makerspaces and Making
Jahrgang	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.21428/70cb44c5.fa4209df
Publikationsstatus	Veröffentlicht - 20 Aug. 2024

Schlagwörter

Makerspace
Sustainabiltiy
Product Development

Fields of Expertise

Sustainable Systems

UN SDGs

Dieser Output leistet einen Beitrag zu folgendem(n) Ziel(en) für nachhaltige Entwicklung

Zugriff auf Dokument

10.21428/70cb44c5.fa4209dfLizenz: CC BY 4.0

Dieses zitieren

@article{5ea96a56f2164faa8c29b7be41093a18,

title = "The choice of materials in makerspaces: demonstrating its impact on sustainability",

abstract = "Makerspaces and FabLabs are the backbones of the maker community. At the same time, meeting the needs of the future generations of our planet is becoming increasingly important. In addition to the major drivers, such as industry, on the path to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), all of our contributions are important. Even small everyday decisions in makerspaces can affect the greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint and thus the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere, so makers also have the opportunity to save GHG in their projects.Based on a case study conducted in the makerspace at the Graz University of Technology, various materials and production technologies available in a makerspace are evaluated using the example of a simple small box. In addition to the GHG footprint, the energy demand for each processing method in the makerspace is presented. Interesting differences in the GHG footprint were found depending on the material and technology used. For instance, the GHG emissions per box for laser cutting ranged from 38.6 g CO2eq for walnut wood to 817 g CO2eq for acrylic glass. In 3D printing, material selection is less of a factor in determining emissions than in laser cutting. For instance, the emissions per box are 319.9 g CO2eq for PLA printing and 463.5 g CO2eq for recycled ABS. The long-term goal is to build on the results of this paper to increase awareness among makers in the context of material and technology choices in the future.The results of this paper should contribute to the medium-term goal of raising awareness of the environmental relevance of materials and implementation methods for makers. The aim is to show that even small choices in the first contact with materials and methods, in the first steps of building a future product, can make a difference in achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals.",

keywords = "Makerspace, Sustainabiltiy, Product Development",

author = "Marion Unegg and Zora Bujan and Schn{\"o}ll, {Hans Peter} and Patrick Herst{\"a}tter and Kohlweiss, {Andreas Franz} and Christian Ramsauer",

year = "2024",

month = aug,

day = "20",

doi = "10.21428/70cb44c5.fa4209df",

language = "English",

volume = "3",

journal = "International Journal of Academic Makerspaces and Making",

publisher = "PubPub ",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The choice of materials in makerspaces

T2 - demonstrating its impact on sustainability

AU - Unegg, Marion

AU - Bujan, Zora

AU - Schnöll, Hans Peter

AU - Herstätter, Patrick

AU - Kohlweiss, Andreas Franz

AU - Ramsauer, Christian

PY - 2024/8/20

Y1 - 2024/8/20

N2 - Makerspaces and FabLabs are the backbones of the maker community. At the same time, meeting the needs of the future generations of our planet is becoming increasingly important. In addition to the major drivers, such as industry, on the path to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), all of our contributions are important. Even small everyday decisions in makerspaces can affect the greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint and thus the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere, so makers also have the opportunity to save GHG in their projects.Based on a case study conducted in the makerspace at the Graz University of Technology, various materials and production technologies available in a makerspace are evaluated using the example of a simple small box. In addition to the GHG footprint, the energy demand for each processing method in the makerspace is presented. Interesting differences in the GHG footprint were found depending on the material and technology used. For instance, the GHG emissions per box for laser cutting ranged from 38.6 g CO2eq for walnut wood to 817 g CO2eq for acrylic glass. In 3D printing, material selection is less of a factor in determining emissions than in laser cutting. For instance, the emissions per box are 319.9 g CO2eq for PLA printing and 463.5 g CO2eq for recycled ABS. The long-term goal is to build on the results of this paper to increase awareness among makers in the context of material and technology choices in the future.The results of this paper should contribute to the medium-term goal of raising awareness of the environmental relevance of materials and implementation methods for makers. The aim is to show that even small choices in the first contact with materials and methods, in the first steps of building a future product, can make a difference in achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

AB - Makerspaces and FabLabs are the backbones of the maker community. At the same time, meeting the needs of the future generations of our planet is becoming increasingly important. In addition to the major drivers, such as industry, on the path to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), all of our contributions are important. Even small everyday decisions in makerspaces can affect the greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint and thus the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere, so makers also have the opportunity to save GHG in their projects.Based on a case study conducted in the makerspace at the Graz University of Technology, various materials and production technologies available in a makerspace are evaluated using the example of a simple small box. In addition to the GHG footprint, the energy demand for each processing method in the makerspace is presented. Interesting differences in the GHG footprint were found depending on the material and technology used. For instance, the GHG emissions per box for laser cutting ranged from 38.6 g CO2eq for walnut wood to 817 g CO2eq for acrylic glass. In 3D printing, material selection is less of a factor in determining emissions than in laser cutting. For instance, the emissions per box are 319.9 g CO2eq for PLA printing and 463.5 g CO2eq for recycled ABS. The long-term goal is to build on the results of this paper to increase awareness among makers in the context of material and technology choices in the future.The results of this paper should contribute to the medium-term goal of raising awareness of the environmental relevance of materials and implementation methods for makers. The aim is to show that even small choices in the first contact with materials and methods, in the first steps of building a future product, can make a difference in achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

KW - Makerspace

KW - Sustainabiltiy

KW - Product Development

U2 - 10.21428/70cb44c5.fa4209df

DO - 10.21428/70cb44c5.fa4209df

M3 - Article

VL - 3

JO - International Journal of Academic Makerspaces and Making

JF - International Journal of Academic Makerspaces and Making

ER -

The choice of materials in makerspaces: demonstrating its impact on sustainability

Abstract

Schlagwörter

Fields of Expertise

UN SDGs

Zugriff auf Dokument

Fingerprint

Dieses zitieren