CARBON NEUTRALITY IN MAKERSPACES:

CIRCULAR MAKERSPACE EVALUATION TOOLKIT (CMET)

SHENG-HUNG LEE
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

ABSTRACT: The practices of making and learning by doing remain a cornerstone of education today. In
the context of carbon neutrality, we extend a typical “making” stage into “sustainable making” and
“meaningful making” on colleges campuses for the procurement process, material selection, students’
awareness, pedagogical design, and makerspace system. The goal of the study is to offer a shared
sustainable vision with short-term solutions and long-term goals by applying circular design
methodology and human-centered design to reduce the carbon footprint of makerspaces. We use MIT
as a testbed to prototype carbon-neutrality-related experiments to evaluate concepts and validate ideas.
The Circular Makerspace Evaluation Toolkit (CMET) created in this paper will not only empower future
generations of teachers, professionals, policymakers and community leaders, but scale to industry and
society. CMET breaks down the evaluation process into five stages and ten environmentally responsible
elements to quantify, measure, and celebrate the value of circular makerspaces to users/makers, and
inspire them and other makerspaces around the globe to view “circular” as a new creative currency of
carbon neutrality, thus motivating users/makers to create feasible plans, change their behaviors,
cultivate sustainable maker culture and, through their makerspaces, make an invaluable contribution to
the Circular Economy.

Keywords: Carbon Neutrality, Sustainability, Circular Economy, Circular Makerspace

1. INTRODUCTION
To avoid the worsening effects of climate change, efforts toward carbon neutrality have become increasingly critical
for the whole world. Carbon neutrality, the state of net-zero carbon emissions, describes the balance of carbon
emissions and carbon sequestration. Carbon neutrality is one strategy to reduce the impact of global warming. As
efforts toward carbon neutrality intensify, we expect to see their impact on industries, academic fields, and society.
In response to the discourse around carbon neutrality, higher education has developed curricula that can cultivate
understanding of the environmental and economic trade-off with social and moral awareness to tackle this systemic
global issue (Sibbel, 2009; Adrian Smith & Light, 2017). Academics are adapting to embrace the challenges of
sustainable development for education in the 21st century (Everett, 2008).
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has been a pioneer in this area by applying the latest technology,
scientific approach, engineering, data, and human-centered design. In 2013, Dr. Julie Newman and her team
established the MIT Office of Sustainability (MITOS). The mission of MITOS is to “transform MIT into a powerful
model that generates new and proven ways of responding to the unprecedented challenges of a changing planet via
operational excellence, education, research, and innovation on our campus” (MIT Office of Sustainability, 2013).
Many other universities have also initiated activities related to sustainability. Rochester Institute of Technology’s
Industrial Design Department created and experimented with carbon footprint assessment tools (Lobos et al., 2013)

Industrial Designers Society of America | 2021 Education Paper Submission 1

and considers innovative approaches to better integrate the awareness of carbon neutrality and sustainability into
design education. The government is also interested in makerspace and its relationship with sustainable city
development (Sleigh et al., 2015).

The purpose of this study is to explore, understand, and envision potential solutions by designing a Circular
Makerspace Evaluation Toolkit (CMET) that provides a series of guiding principles, context-driven frameworks (Table
1), actionable roadmaps, and interactive tools to transform makerspaces into “circular” makerspaces (Prendeville et
al., 2017), sustainable places, to reduce their carbon footprints and position them as important educational
touchpoints for teaching and sharing the knowledge of carbon neutrality. In addition to reviewing literature on
carbon neutrality in design education, we used MIT Project Manus (Culpepper & MIT Innovation Initiative, 2015),
MIT D-Lab Workshop (Amy Smith & Yang, 2002), MIT Hobby Shop (MIT, 1937), and an MIT Integrated Design &
Management (Kressy, 2014) ID Lab course as case studies to discuss the current carbon neutrality challenges that
confront campus makerspaces and design education and their relationships with the Institute’s strategy of
sustainability. We conducted field research, interviewing faculty and industry experts from two MIT makerspaces,
and professors and teaching assistants from programs and courses to gain an overview of the MIT makerspaces and
design education. In addition, we suggest a feasible future blueprint for creating a circular makerspace (Prendeville
et al., 2017), a sustainable making environment, to meet MIT’s carbon neutrality goal by 2030. In this paper, we use
the term “makerspace” to represent the general concept of workshop space, shop, and fabrication
facilities/resources.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 CARBON NEUTRALITY IN MAKERSPACES AND DESIGN EDUCATION
Universities play a critical role in the study of carbon neutrality and in helping our world become more sustainable
(Howlett et al., 2016). The American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) was created
by twelve college and university presidents in 2006 presenting their shared vision and determination that higher
education needs to serve as a leading role model on sustainability and carbon neutrality not only to their students
but also to society. Since then, ACUPCC has included more than 598 universities focusing on a carbon commitment
(Interface, 2014). As carbon neutrality challenges are complicated and systemic, the universities need to take
proactive steps to raise students’ greater awareness of moral and social responsibilities (Sibbel, 2009; Adrian Smith
& Light, 2017) and reach the goal of sustainability through their action (Kopnina, 2019). One methodology is a
“whole-of-university” approach, an integrated and circular design methodology, to address carbon neutrality issues
by connecting research, campus operations, and curriculum explicitly (Mcmillin & Dyball, 2009). Another study
researched how makerspaces can help cultivate more sustainable developments (Adrian Smith & Light, 2017).

Figure 1. The number web search for the words e.g., makerspace from 2004 to 2021 in the United States (Source: Google Trends)

Industrial Designers Society of America | 2021 Education Paper Submission 2

Makerspaces have drawn interest in the past decades in the United States (Fig. 1), playing a critical role on campus
to meet the needs of students and requirements of universities to cultivate the culture of making among
communities. As sustainability issues become a worldwide trend, universities consider every key touchpoint and
experience on campus, including makerspaces. Take MIT as an example. In 2016, the Institution initiated Project
Manus (Culpepper & MIT Innovation Initiative, 2015) that aimed to upgrade the hardware and software of campus
makerspaces by taking carbon neutrality into consideration. In 2019, MITOS initiated a program to issue a safe and
sustainable lab and makerspace certificate (MIT Office of Sustainability, 2021) by providing a set of helpful checklists,
well-thought-through considerations, professional suggestions, and experts’ help. To meet the goal of carbon
neutrality by 2030, some universities’ demand for environmental-friendly product development in makerspaces
includes equipment, machines and tools for prototyping, and material procurement, recycling, and storage
(Klemichen et al., 2018) They also look to apply new frameworks to evaluate the sustainable outcome (Rusinko, 2010;
Argento et al., 2020). Thus, carbon neutrality in makerspaces and design education has become popular and raised
people’s interest.

2.2 CIRCULAR ECONOMY AND DESIGN APPROACH

Since makerspaces and design education are interwoven as parts of a complex ecosystem (De los Rios & Charnley,
2017), we leveraged circular design approaches and mindsets as inspired by the Circular Design Guide (IDEO & Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, 2017) and other relevant materials (Straten et al., 2021; Crul et al., 2019; Deloitte, 2016;
Chapman, 2009). In the study, we introduce and integrate the concept of a “circular” makerspace (Heinrich &
Stefanovska, 2020; Metta & Bachus, 2020; Prendeville et al., 2017) to a typical makerspace on campus. It can not
only facilitate people’s awareness of carbon neutrality and their environmentally responsible action in makerspaces
(Mcmillin & Dyball, 2009; Adrian Smith & Light, 2017) but also help measure the contribution of circular makerspaces
to the Circular Economy in a scientific way.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF) collaborated with IDEO to launch The Circular Design Guide in 2017 by providing
activities and methods over four phases: Understand, Define, Make, and Release (IDEO & Ellen MacArthur
Foundation, 2017). The Understand phase is to gain fundamental knowledge, essential skills, and insights around
circular design solutions and their background information to transform peoples’ mindsets from linear to circular
thinking. The Define phase is to explore the unknown challenges by identifying problems through the lens of circular
perspectives. The Make phase is to understand the key stakeholders’ pain points across their user journeys and then
to leverage brainstorming to fill out high- potential opportunities preparing for the next step of selected concept
development. The Release phase is to test the selected concepts on the market to constantly gather users’ feedback.
The design of concepts will keep evolving through the prototyping process; the business model, service components,
and organization will be transformed circularly.

EMF also partnered with MITOS (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2020) to apply a circular design approach, build data
infrastructures to capture the right information, and collaborate with a partner specializing in waste to solve waste
problems on campus by: 1. reducing contamination among the waste, 2. decreasing volume of the landfill by
recycling material effectively, 3. maintaining soil health on campus, and 4. changing people’s behavior and cultivating
new rituals of waste management. The Circular Economy and circular design approach enable us to reframe the
design process, tools and framework from linear to circular thinking to better implement them into the circular
makerspace.

Industrial Designers Society of America | 2021 Education Paper Submission 3

3. CASE STUDY: MIT MAKERSPACE
One of MIT’s educational missions is “learning by making/doing.” The importance of “making” can be seen from the
number of MIT makerspaces, including not only the four we are examining, but dozens of other featured
makerspaces. Each makerspace offers access to all types of machines, prototyping tools, materials, space, training
programs, and courses relevant to making at MIT. The estimated total area of the MIT makerspaces is over 130,000
ft2 (12,077 m2) across over 40 design/build/project spaces (MIT Facts, 2020). Since making is a cornerstone of MIT,
the Institute initiated Project Manus in 2016 as part of its Innovation Initiative that aimed to upgrade the hardware
and software of campus makerspaces, establish innovative academic maker systems for the next generation, and
cultivate student maker communities. However, research has shown that there is still much room for improving the
carbon footprints of most MIT makerspaces by implementing carbon neutrality ranging from planning to
environmentally responsible action. Helping makerspace users understand the value of sustainability by providing a
clear vision of carbon neutrality is the first step (Klemichen et al., 2018).

3.1 DEMOGRAPHICS
We leveraged the MIT Maker Survey (Culpepper & MIT Innovation Initiative, 2015) to inform us of the demographics
of makerspace users and their behaviors, needs, and pain points. The survey received a 17% response among the
MIT community, which consisted of 22% of undergraduates and 13% of graduate students responding in academic
year 2015. The result showed that 47% of MIT students spend more than five hours building, making, or creating
during a typical week. Since they stay and work in makerspaces for a long time, 58% of them want to have basic and
intermediate makerspace training to teach them how to use simple and complex tools and technologies. Another
finding reveals that 22% of students spent below $50 of their own money on the resources, raw materials, and tools
in one academic year. These findings indicate that MIT makerspaces can provide most of the needs of students. They
don’t need to worry about materials and tools for their projects since 19% of them don’t even spend any money
during one semester.

Regarding areas of students’ interest, 62% of them solve the challenges connected to software, code, and
programming, whereas 41% are interested in electronics, Arduino, 3D printing, rapid fabrication, and prototyping.
Also, 36% use makerspaces to work on hardware and machining-related topics. The result showed that students
have a diverse range of interests in woodworking, product design, UI/UX, web design, metalwork, soldering,
sculpting, photography, culinary arts, and painting. Makerspaces can support them with tools, machines, people
(e.g., technical experts, shop managers), and maker community. The research also reveals that over 50% of MIT
students are willing to take basic training to learn how to use simple and complex tools, machines, and software in
makerspaces, from which we can assume that this could be a great opportunity and entry point to teach and
implement the key concepts, the essential knowledge, and applicable methodologies of carbon neutrality in the MIT
maker community to realize the goal of building a sustainable makerspace and culture on campus by 2030.

3.2 QUALITATIVE APPROACH: EXPERT INTERVIEW

In the study, we conducted seven 30-min virtual expert interviews, paired with two field trips at MIT D-Lab Workshop
and MIT Hobby Shop to acquire first-hand perspectives on the makerspace (Fig. 2). We interviewed three faculty
members from D-Lab Workshop and MIT Hobby Shop, one associate director from MIT Project Manus as well as one
lecturer and two teaching assistants from MIT Integrated Design & Management, to gain a better understanding and
overview of MIT makerspaces. We discussed the topic of carbon neutrality in makerspaces on campus, including
how makerspaces are managed and operated currently, their general material procurement process, challenges of

Industrial Designers Society of America | 2021 Education Paper Submission 4

organizing the materials, machines, people, and systems, as well as their approaches to collaborating and
coordinating with other lecturers, courses, and departments.

From expert interviews, we gained five key takeaways: 1. Managers with diverse interpretations of sustainability and
carbon neutrality vary in their awareness of carbon neutrality among MIT makerspaces. Most don’t know that MITOS
provides Sustainable Makerspace Certification (MIT Office of Sustainability, 2021) and services to help build a more
sustainable and eco-friendly working environment. 2. There is no standard material procurement process. Normally,
students bring their materials to makerspaces. Makerspace managers also help them purchase materials based on
their previous experience, intuition or discussions with lecturers prior to courses. 3. Most MIT makerspaces have
very limited storage areas for materials. 4. Each MIT makerspace is relatively independent in terms of shared
resources, operation, spatial layout, and community culture. 5. The top priority of MIT makerspace is to make tools,
machines, and resources (e.g., training program, material) accessible to MIT students and communities. One
interviewee shared his view that the MIT makerspace’s goal of carbon neutrality and sustainability should be
included in MIT’s mission at the Institution level.

Figure 2. Field trip observation at MIT D-Lab Workshop and MIT Hobby Shop

Industrial Designers Society of America | 2021 Education Paper Submission 5

3.3 QUANTITATIVE APPROACH: DATA ANALYSIS
Using MIT Maker Map (Fig. 3) and MIT DataPool (Fig. 4), we analyzed the MIT makerspaces’ electricity consumption
data and material lifecycle (waste data) in year 2019 to summarize the result and suggest future research in terms
of data collection and focus.

Figure 3. MIT Maker Map: hands-on project spaces span campus (Illustration: Adam Simpson)

Electricity Consumption: Using MIT DataPool, we analyzed the electricity (kWh) consumption of selected buildings
that contain MIT makerspaces in 2019. Building 32’s (CSAIL Woodshop) consumption is significantly higher than that
of others. Besides reading the data of electricity, we also consider the area of the building to calculate per square
footage of energy consumed. It shows that the ratio of consumption of Building 31 (Beaver Works II), Building 38
(Cypress Engineering Design Studio), Building W31 (Hobby Shop), Building 37 (The Deep), and Building E14 (Program
in Art, Culture, and Technology Mars Lab) are relatively high. However, the result cannot precisely reveal the actual
energy consumption of makerspaces as the selected buildings consist of labs, offices, and mixed spaces. We also
need to understand the number of students/participants using makerspaces as well as their frequency and time of
using them.

Figure 4. MIT Building-level utilities (Labs & Mixed Use): electricity (kWh) consumption in 2019 (Source: MIT DataPool)

Industrial Designers Society of America | 2021 Education Paper Submission 6

Material Lifecycle: The material lifecycle can provide another informative aspect for us to understand carbon
neutrality of makerspaces. Lifecycle conveys holistically the journey of materials: how we procure, reuse, recycle,
repair, and repurpose them. MIT provides many channels for researchers and students to access the waste-related
data and information of used material including MITOS, Department of Facilities, MIT Green Lab, Rheaply, MIT Waste
Alliance, and MIT Solve. Students can take a fundamental online course (e.g., Responsible Waste Disposal Practices)
from MIT Atlas Service Center. In addition, in 2019, MITOS collaborated with the Department of Facilities to design
a Request For Proposal (RFP) offering, a campus-wide waste management service, to experiment with a new
systemic approach to solve material waste issues. In the study, we focused on and analyzed the campus material
waste data. According to the MIT DataPool’s Material Collected and Removed Data, the majority of the waste by
category comes from non-housing waste (33%) and recycling (31%). The data includes the waste from makerspaces.
Due to the current setup of the data capture, it is relatively difficult to distinguish the percentage actually generated
from makerspaces. We assume the material waste from makerspaces is significantly low compared with housing
waste, yard waste, and food waste.

Future Data Collection and its Challenge: For further research of quantitative data analysis, we suggested MITOS
collaborate with MIT DataPool to establish a set of robust systems and mechanisms with carbon neutrality criteria
to document makerspaces’ energy consumption, manage materials lifecycle and its efficiency
(storage/recycle/waste), and build an optimized and flexible workflow adjusted to different types of makerspaces
through a scientific approach.

4. CIRCULAR MAKERSPACE EVALUATION TOOLKIT (CMET)

The current MIT DataPool platform lacks comprehensive data specifically for makerspaces including energy, water,
waste, and materials procured. MITOS is in the process of developing the Sustainable Maker Space Certification to
create a well-thought-through checklist for MIT makerspaces. Thus, the value of this study lies in designing CMET
(Table 1) to build an applicable framework and establish suggested high-level principles to help decrease the carbon
footprint in MIT makerspaces. Part of CMET was inspired by Circular Makerspaces-Elements & Levels (Makerspace
Adelaide & Government of South Australia Green Industries SA, 2020). By applying CMET, we want to quantify,
measure, and celebrate the value of circular makerspace to users/makers, and inspire them and other makerspaces
around the globe to view “circular” as a new creative currency of carbon neutrality, thus motivating users/makers
to create feasible plans, change their behaviors, cultivate sustainable maker culture, and make an invaluable
contribution through their makerspaces to the Circular Economy.

CMET breaks down the evaluation process into five stages (Table 1) from short-term goals with low cost for internal
teams to long-term strategies with high investment in external partners: Establish, Enter, Engage, Empower, and
Envision. The Establish stage is the very first step of any initiated circular designs or concepts. It is an entry point of
CMET. Therefore, most requirements in the Establish stage need to be accessible and approachable to makerspace
users and to be technologically feasible and economically viable. The Enter stage is built on the fundamental part of
the Establish stage to enhance its core concepts and extend and explore some of the selected ideas that makerspace
managers and users want to emphasize to clarify the content and experiments before the next stage. The Engage
stage is to get people involved outside the makerspace and to get the resources, material, funding, and talent the
makerspace needs at the individual level. It is relatively critical in CMET since it serves as a stepping stone to connect
the previous stages and pave the path for the next two stages. The Empower stage is to create advanced and
sophisticated circular-design-related ideas, sustainable concepts, and frameworks to assist and improve the current
CMET to make it relevant to the context and even influence and lead the industry. The Empower stage also

Industrial Designers Society of America | 2021 Education Paper Submission 7

encourages the makerspace to build external relationships at the institutional level. The Envision stage is to make
people consider the next step of evaluation criteria beyond the current CMET, which includes applying cutting-edge
technology to challenge the future circular makerspace system, its morphed and dynamic structure, and diverse
community culture.

Diagram
Circular
Makerspace
Evaluation
Toolkit (CMET)

Goal Realize Carbon Neutrality in Makerspace on Campus

Complexity Fundamental Entry Point Advanced Complex System

Level
Stakeholder Internal Team External Partner

Cost Low-cost Short-term Goal High-cost Long-term Strategy

When Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5

Evaluation ESTABLISH ENTER ENGAGE EMPOWER ENVISION

(Individual) (Institutional)
Stage

Definition Establish stage is the very Enter stage is built on the Engage stage is to get Empower stage is to create Envision stage is to make
first step of any initiated fundamental part of people involved outside the advanced and sophisticated people consider the next
Evaluation circular designs or concepts. Establish stage to enhance makerspace and to get the circular-design-related step of evaluation criteria
Stage It is an entry point of CMET. its core concept and to resources, material, funding, ideas, sustainable concepts, beyond the current CMET.
Therefore, most extend and explore some of and talents the makerspace and frameworks to assist Envision stage includes
requirements in Establish the selected ideas that needs at the individual level. and improve the current applying cutting-edge
stage need to be accessible people want to emphasize It is relatively critical in CMET to make it relevant to technology to challenge the
and approachable to to clarify the content and CMET since it serves as a the context and even future circular makerspace
makerspace users as well as experiments before the next stepping stone to connect influence and lead the system, its morphed
to meet the technological Engage stage. the previous Establish stage industry. Empower stage structure, and community
feasibility and business and Enter stage and pave also encourages the culture.
viability. the path for the next two makerspace to build the
stages. external relationships at the
institutional level.

Table 1. Circular Makerspace Evaluation Toolkit (CMET) diagram and its five evaluation stages

For each evaluated item, we provide both qualitative and quantitative criteria to evaluate its performance connected
to its participants. Since CMET is designed for circular makerspaces, we want to use ten environmentally responsible
elements: repurpose, reuse, recycle, repair, reset, material, design, business, education, and society to build multi-

Industrial Designers Society of America | 2021 Education Paper Submission 8

faceted and circular perspectives to consider the makerspace comprehensively from energy, material, business,
people, and society. Even though CMET originated from the needs of MIT, it can be applied to other makerspaces
beyond the campus. Table 2 shows how we applied CMET to MIT makerspace (recycling element) to illustrate the
methods, usage, and benefit of CMET.

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5

Recycling
Establish Enter Engage Empower Envision

What - Add specific recycle bins for - Besides some big categories - Create an evaluation - Recycling campaigns are - Envision how do we
some commonly recycled of recycling: paper, food recycling criterion and its initiated by students or integrate these recycled
Evaluation material for makerspace waste, composite materials, system for makerspace makerspaces. It is an materials to the make
Item (e.g., aluminum, metal create more detailed preparing for the campus- expression that maker education
scrap, wood scrap). categories for material wide systemic communities are ready to system/curriculum and how
- Redesign the recycling as well as update transformation to reach the repurpose and reuse most do we use their recycled
wayfinding/communication the whole campus recycling goal of carbon neutrality. recycled materials to create material to decorate/fix the
sign of recycling. system. new values. environment of
makerspaces.

How - Volumes and types of - Progress of campus-wide - Number of added recycling - Number of camping is - Roadmap of course content
recycling material collected material recycling system criteria for evaluation hosted by makerspaces or integrated with the idea of
Evaluation in makerspace - The design and its - Key touchpoint of recycling students leveraging the recycled
Criteria - Recycled kg/tonnes evaluation plan of the new evaluation flow - Story of each camping materials
- Decrease CO2 emissions structure in terms of - Recycled kg/tonnes - Investment/cost of the new
detailed recycling categories - Decrease CO2 emissions and meaningful pedagogical
- Recycled kg/tonnes activities
- Decrease CO2 emissions
- Calculate the percentage
(%) of purchasing spend per
item with a percentage (%)
of recycling components

Who - MIT (university-level) - MIT (university-level) - MIT (university-level) - Makerspace - MIT Office of Sustainability
- MIT Office of Sustainability - MIT Office of Sustainability - MIT Office of Sustainability - Students - Makerspace Manager
Evaluation - MIT Department of Facility - MIT Department of Facility - MIT Department of Facility - Lecturer/Professor
Participant - Makerspace Manager - Makerspace Manager - Makerspace Manager - Students

Table 2. Example of applying to CMET in MIT makerspace (Recycling element).

5. SUMMARY
5.1 CONCLUSION AND CONSIDERATIONS
By viewing makerspaces and design education as an ecosystem, we captured and documented comprehensive
perspectives for carbon neutrality in makerspaces on campus, and illustrated users’ current pain points and their
relationships. We applied circular design methodology (IDEO & Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017) and human-
centered design (IDEO, 2015; IDEO, 2011) to the study, and designed a Circular Makerspace Evaluation Toolkit
(CMET), a set of evaluation frameworks and tools for varied scenarios. The toolkit emphasizes raising people’s
awareness of carbon neutrality, cultivating the right mindset, and changing behavior of makerspace users on campus.
In the study, with the help of MITOS and MIT Project Manus, we use MIT makerspace as an example to study its
current status (e.g., makerspace environment and training program, the Institution’s regulation, waste management
system, electricity, and other utility consumption) both through qualitative and quantitative approaches to consider
students/makers core needs and functional requirements for initiating an MIT circular makerspace certification
checklist, educational toolkit, evaluation service, and shop experience designed for students and the community.

In studying the challenge of carbon neutrality in design education and makerspace, we found that to transform a
typical makerspace into a circular makerspace we need to consider not only the fundamental criteria (e.g., material
life cycle, electricity consumption, space infrastructure, and operation) but also the long-term strategies (e.g.,
educational purpose, business model, policy, and maker culture). Hence, we created and used CMET, an applicable

Industrial Designers Society of America | 2021 Education Paper Submission 9

framework, and suggested high-level principles and examples, to help enable the carbon neutrality action to
decrease the carbon footprint in MIT makerspaces. CMET is applied to quantify, measure, and celebrate the value
of circular makerspace to users/makers, and inspire them and other makerspaces around the globe to view “circular”
as a new creative currency of carbon neutrality, motivating users/makers to come up with feasible plans, change
their behaviors, cultivate sustainable maker culture, and make an invaluable contribution through their makerspaces
to the Circular Economy.

5.2 FURTHER STUDY

We initiated and promoted CMET to transform typical makerspaces on campus into circular makerspaces by raising
people’s awareness of carbon neutrality, changing people’s mindset and behavior, reducing energy, water, and
material consumption, and modifying the current makerspace training program and its design education. To reach
the goal of carbon neutrality in makerspaces, suggested further studies and environmentally responsible elements
can be emphasized in the following three areas: 1. Validating CMET through a scientific and data-driven approach;
2. Upgrading and renovating the infrastructure of current makerspaces to capture and compare their data for
analyzing with circular makerspace concept to prolong the material life cycle, foster its circulation and improve its
efficiency in makerspaces; 3. Prototyping to promote the circular makerspace concept and scale its impact that can
influence beyond the campus.

REFERENCES
Argento, D., Einarson, D., Mårtensson, L., Persson, C., Wendin, K., & Westergren, A. (2020). Integrating
sustainability in higher education: A Swedish case. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,
21(6), 1131–1150. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-10-2019-0292
Chapman, J. (2009). Design for (Emotional) Durability. Design Issues, 25(4), 29–35.
https://doi.org/10.1162/desi.2009.25.4.29
Crul, M., Joore, P., & Celik, S. (2019). Teaching Circular Design—A Handbook for Educators.
Culpepper, M., & MIT Innovation Initiative. (2015, October). MIT Project Manus. MIT Project Manus.
https://project-manus.mit.edu/
De los Rios, I. C., & Charnley, F. J. S. (2017). Skills and capabilities for a sustainable and circular economy: The
changing role of design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 160, 109–122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.130
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2020). Designing out waste and driving a circular economy on a university campus: A
complex, multi solution approach, the MIT case study. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/our-
work/activities/universities/stories/driving-a-circular-economy-on-a-university-campus
Everett, J. (2008). Sustainability in higher education: Implications for the disciplines. Theory and Research in
Education, 6(2), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878508091115
Heinrich, K., & Stefanovska, B. (2020). Measuring circular economy impact: Makerspace Adelaide workshop
findings. 22.
Howlett, C., Ferreira, J.-A., & Blomfield, J. (2016). Teaching sustainable development in higher education: Building
critical, reflective thinkers through an interdisciplinary approach. International Journal of Sustainability in
Higher Education, 17(3), 305–321. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2014-0102
IDEO (Ed.). (2011). Human Centered Design: Toolkit (2nd ed). IDEO.

Industrial Designers Society of America | 2021 Education Paper Submission 10

IDEO (Ed.). (2015). The Field Guide to Human-Centered Design (1st. ed). IDEO.
IDEO, & Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2017). The Circular Design Guide. https://www.circulardesignguide.com/
Interface. (2014). Interface Education Sustainability White Papers. https://www.interface.com/CA/en-
CA/segments/higher-education-en_CA#511457432
Klemichen, A., Roeder, I., Ringhof, J., & Stark, R. (2018). Needs and Requirements for Environmental-friendly
Product Development in Makerspaces – A Survey of German Makerspaces. 10.
Kopnina, H. (2019). Green-washing or best case practices? Using circular economy and Cradle to Cradle case
studies in business education. Journal of Cleaner Production, 219, 613–621.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.005
Kressy, M. S. (2014, June). MIT Integrated Design & Management (IDM). MIT Integrated Design & Management
(IDM). https://idm.mit.edu/
Lobos, A., Yao, C., & Gang, J. (2013). Carbon Neutrality in Design Education. 8.
Makerspace Adelaide, & Government of South Australia Green Industries SA. (2020). Circular Economy Workshop.
https://makerspaceadelaide.org/ethos/circular-economy/
Mcmillin, J., & Dyball, R. (2009). Developing a Whole-of-University Approach to Educating for Sustainability: Linking
Curriculum, Research and Sustainable Campus Operations. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development,
3(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/097340820900300113
Metta, J., & Bachus, K. (2020). Mapping the circular maker movement: From a literature review to a circular maker
passport. 114.
MIT. (1937). MIT Hobby Shop. https://studentlife.mit.edu/hobbyshop
MIT Facts. (2020). MIT Facts: Makerspaces. https://web.mit.edu/facts/makerspaces.html
MIT Office of Sustainability. (2013). MIT Office of Sustainability. http://sustainability.mit.edu/
MIT Office of Sustainability. (2021). MIT Sustainable Maker Space Certification. MIT Sustainable Maker Space
Certification. https://sustainability.mit.edu/certifications
Prendeville, S., Hartung, G., Brass, C., Purvis, E., & Hall, A. (2017). Circular Makerspaces: The founder’s view.
International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 10(4–5), 272–288.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2017.1317876
Rusinko, C. A. (2010). Integrating sustainability in higher education: A generic matrix. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, 11(3), 250–259. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676371011058541
Sibbel, A. (2009). Pathways towards sustainability through higher education. International Journal of Sustainability
in Higher Education, 10(1), 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1108/14676370910925262
Sleigh, A., Stewart, H., & Stokes, K. (2015). Open Dataset of UK Makerspaces: A User’s Guide. Nesta.
Smith, Adrian, & Light, A. (2017). Cultivating sustainable developments with makerspaces. Liinc Em Revista, 14.
Smith, Amy, & Yang, M. (2002). MIT D-Lab. MIT D-Lab. https://d-lab.mit.edu/

Industrial Designers Society of America | 2021 Education Paper Submission 11