Is the Maker Movement Contributing to Sustainability?

sustainability

Article Is the Maker Movement Contributing to Sustainability?

Jeremy Millard 1,*, Marie N. Sorivelle 2, Sarah Deljanin 1, Elisabeth Unterfrauner 3 and Christian Voigt 3

1 International Center, Danish Technological Institute, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark; [email protected] 2 Ideas and Innovation, Danish Technological Institute, DK-2630 Taastrup Copenhagen, Denmark; [email protected] 3 Centre for Social Innovation, A-1150 Vienna, Austria; [email protected] (E.U.); [email protected] (C.V.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +45-7220-1417

Received: 31 May 2018; Accepted: 26 June 2018; Published: 28 June 2018

Abstract: ICT has already revolutionized content creation and communications. In principle, today, everybody with Internet access, the right skills and equipment can produce digital content composed of virtual “bits” and make it instantly available across the globe. The same is now happening to manufacturing for everyone with access to tools like 3D printers. This inter-changeability of bits and atoms is being called the maker movement, which started as a community-based, socially-driven bottom-up movement but is today also impacting mainstream manufacturing through increased efﬁciencies, distributed local production and the circular economy. The maker movement thus has signiﬁcant promise for increasing social, economic and environmental sustainability, but is it currently living up to this potential? This paper reports on work undertaken by the European-funded MAKE-IT project has examined this question through detailed qualitative and quantitative empirical research, including ten in-depth case studies across Europe and a detailed examination of 42 maker initiatives at Europe’s foremost city-based maker faire, supplemented by extensive secondary research. Despite the maker movement’s short history, the overall results provide sound evidence of its important though variable contribution to sustainability thus far. In addition, there is a strong gender dimension showing that females are underrepresented both as users and leaders of maker initiatives, whilst female leaders tend to achieve much higher sustainability impacts than their male counterparts. There is also clear evidence that maker initiatives in close collaboration with each other and other actors in city- and region-wide ecosystems are much more successful in achieving sustainability impacts than others.

Keywords: maker movement; digital fabrication; social sustainability; environmental sustainability; economic sustainability; gender; scale; quantitative analysis; qualitative analysis; case studies

1. Introduction This objective of this paper is to examine the question of whether the maker movement is living up to its purported potential to contribute to increasing social, economic and environmental sustainability.

1.1. The Context The maker movement is a rapidly expanding ﬁeld with innumerable perspectives, interpretations and deﬁnitions. It is part of a major transformation in manufacturing towards distributed digital fabrication that potentially marks a decisive shift away from a society reliant on by mass production

Sustainability 2018, 10, 2212; doi:10.3390/su10072212 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 29

1.1. The Context The maker movement is a rapidly expanding field with innumerable perspectives, interpretations and definitions. It is part of a major transformation in manufacturing towards distributed digital fabrication that potentially marks a decisive shift away from a society reliant on Sustainability 2018, 10, 2212 2 of 29 by mass production and consumption towards a society also characterized by ‘mass customization’. Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has already revolutionized content creation and communicationsand consumption and towards has now a society become also the characterized general purpose by “mass technology customization”. underpinning Information all other and technologies.Communication In principle, Technology today, (ICT) everybody has already with revolutionized Internet access, content the right creation skills and and communications equipment can produceand has nowdigital become content the composed general purpose of virtual technology ‘bits’ and underpinning make it instantly all other available technologies. acrossIn the principle globe. , Thetoday, same everybody is now happening with Internet to the access, fabrication the right of skillsphysical and objects equipment for everyone can produce with access digital to content tools likecomposed 3D printers. of virtual This “bits” inter-changeability and make it of instantly bits and available atoms is across being the called globe. the maker The same movement, is now whichhappening started to theas fabricationa community of- physicalbased, socially objects-driven for everyone bottom with-up access movement to tools but like is 3D today printers. also impactingThis inter-changeability mainstream manufacturing of bits and atoms through is being increased called efficiencies,the maker movement, distributed which local productionstarted as a andcommunity-based, the circular economy. socially-driven bottom-up movement but is today also impacting mainstream manufacturingIn principle, through digital fabrication increased efficiencies, allows every distributed organizatio localn and production every individual and the circularto customize economy. the productsIn principle, and services digital they fabrication consume. allows It is claimed every organization that this new and business every individual model cuts to waste customize and enablesthe products manufacturers and services to restructure they consume. supply Itchains is claimed and completely that this newreorganize business their model businesses cuts waste and operationsand enables [1 manufacturers–4]. Localised to bespoke restructure production supply chains becomes and completely possible reorganize attuned to their specific businesses user requirements,and operations in a [1 step–4]. away Localised from consumerism bespoke production and towards becomes ‘pro- possiblesumerism’, attuned thereby to also specific reducing user environmentalrequirements, in impacts a step away because from products consumerism can be and produced towards close “pro-sumerism”, to where they thereby are needed also reducing using larenvironmentalgely re-cycled impacts local because waste materials products ascan feedstock. be produced Unusually close to where for a they manufacturing are needed using innovation, largely momentumre-cycled local started waste at materialsthe bottom, as feedstock.pioneered Unusuallyby non-profit for amakers manufacturing who hack innovation, products and momentum designs instarted addition at the to software. bottom, pioneered This also byhas non-profit significant makers social impacts who hack such products as spawning and designs new skills in addition and jobs to andsoftware. supportingThis also communityhas significant cohesion social and impacts promoting such as spawning greater personal new skills satisfaction, and jobs and for supporting example throughcommunity the cohesion Fab Lab and network promoting (https://www.fablabs.io/labs/map) greater personal satisfaction, for. This example blurs through the relationships the Fab Lab betweennetwork producer, (https://www.fablabs.io/labs/map supplier and consumer, and). This also blurs has profound the relationships implications between for producer, supply chains supplier as welland consumer,as for the organization and also has and profound content implications of work, which for supply will in chains turn ashave well impacts as for theon organizationgovernance, regulation,and content education of work, whichand social will insecurity. turn have It isimpacts also claimed on governance, that the movement regulation, reflects education cultural and shif socialts enablingsecurity. peopleIt is also to claimed ‘reconnect that hand the movement with brain’ reflects and to cultural ‘get their shifts hands enabling dirty people again’ to [5], “reconnect thereby providinghand with sustainability brain” and to benefits “get their across hands the dirty social, again” environmental [5], thereby and providing economic sustainability spectrums. benefits across the social, environmental and economic spectrums. 1.2. Defining the Maker Movement 1.2. Defining the Maker Movement The maker movement is a rapidly expanding field with innumerable perspectives, interpretationsThe maker and movement definitions. is a rapidly In the expanding specific context field with of innumerable the MAKE-IT perspectives, project (2016 interpretations–2017), the definitionand definitions. of the In maker the specific movement context focuses of the MAKE-IT on the overlapproject (2016–2017), between four the main definition fields of of the activity maker (Figuremovement 1). focuses on the overlap between four main fields of activity (Figure1).

Figure 1. The four components of the maker movement.

1.2.1. Digital Fabrication Digital fabrication provides the technological underpinning of the Maker movement. Digital modeling and fabrication is a process that uniﬁes design with production through the use of 3D Sustainability 2018, 10, 2212 3 of 29 modeling software or computer-aided design (CAD) and additive and subtractive manufacturing processes. 3D printing is a type of additive fabrication, whilst machining is a type of subtractive fabrication. The initial focus on simple 3D printers has now progressed to an awareness that the real maker revolution comes when these tools are combined with laser cutters, precision mills, large and small format mills, actuators, sensors, as well as digital assemblers and re-assemblers. These use various combinations of feed-stocks, including biological materials as well as pulverized, sintered or melted plastic, rubber, metal, glass, wood, ceramics, paper, etc., much of which is very inexpensive and sourced locally [1,3]. Tools and materials like these used together give makers at any scale and size a whole suite of capabilities for additive and subtractive manufacturing. They are being installed and used, not just in industry and research labs, but in many communities by Small and Medium Sized-Enterprises (SMEs), start-ups, civil organizations and even individuals. As in the ICT revolution over the last twenty years, their costs are tumbling fast and their quality and ease of use are dramatically improving [2], and just like its digital predecessor that saw disruption driven by personal computers and co-creation online, much of the energy and innovation of the digital fabrication revolution is being driven from the bottom. Thus with suitable feed-stocks, digital fabrication tools allow designers to produce both inert and bio-material objects from a digital source, as well as convert a material object back to digital format in a two-way process which can be shared both online and in situ. In this light, the new world of digital fabrication is indeed a cornerstone of the emerging so-called fourth industrial revolution [6,7].

1.2.2. Community Awareness Platforms (CAPs) Communities such as the makers are building and exploiting communication infrastructures for collaboration, sharing and learning purposes. CAPs is the European Commission’s initiative for designing and piloting online platforms that create awareness of sustainability problems and offer collaborative solutions (https://capssi.eu). These are based on networks (for example of people, ideas and sensors), thereby enabling new forms of social innovation that aim to support behavioral change, reputational processes and self-regulation to the maximum degree so that these are trustable and effective. These can express themselves, for example, in new lifestyles and in consumption and production patterns, and give power not only to for-proﬁt platforms but also to those which have, at least in part, non-commercial objectives. CAPs use ICT tools and networks for supporting and propelling new forms of sustainability and social innovation. This is done through a people-centric approach that aims to actively involve citizens in creating multi-dimensional communities at the grassroots, whilst at the same time linking into wider social, economic, environmental and democratic systems [8]. CAPs are described as mobilizing the network effect of collective intelligence for the public good, where this is seen as expressing itself through such phenomena as crowdsourcing and connective communities, and is often the result of forms of bottom-up and self-organization [9]. In this context, the concept of CAPs has arisen from three trends, each of which can harness and deploy different forms of collective intelligence, and lead to better policies and actions in tackling the many societal challenges we are facing. All three can lead to what is termed “hyper-connected humanity”, the ultimate goal being to foster a more sustainable future based on a low-carbon, beyond-GDP economy, and a resilient, cooperative democratic community: ﬁrst, social networking; second, direct contact with the environment through the Internet of Things; and third, the collaborative production of knowledge, like Wikipedia [9]. A fourth major trend can now be added to this repertoire, i.e., not only the collaborative production of knowledge and other forms of intangible content, but also the collaborative production and consumption of tangible forms of physical objects, as currently being realized by the burgeoning maker movement. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2212 4 of 29

1.2.3. Crafts, Do-It-Yourself, Creative and Learning Activities The tradition of craft production is the process of manufacturing by hand with or without the aid of advanced or power tools. In parallel with this, do-it-yourself presents gateway opportunities for the un-skilled or novice to build, modify or repair something without the direct aid of experts or professionals. Both can also express themselves by developing an ethos of self-help, learning and competence building, often in shared and collaborative spaces like libraries, repair cafés, schools, universities and other common, shared or public spaces. Such spaces are often aimed at speciﬁc target groups, such as those who are marginalized or vulnerable in some way, and support hands-on experiences and development and production of creative ideas. Many become “constructionist learning environments” for building “social-emotional competences” with strong social-political potential, social capital and social inclusion [10]. According to Charney [5], the idea of “making” is more important than seeing people primarily as “makers”, given that making is taking place as just one activity intimately mixed/bundled with other activities. This emphasizes the notion that the maker movement is not a discrete, separate phenomenon but instead points to a broader “making culture” reﬂecting the burgeoning desire amongst many people to move on from a purely consumerist society to start again “getting their hands dirty”. This means there is a need to think less about promoting and supporting a discrete separate “maker culture”, and more about a broad and integrative “making culture”. Thus, it is important to move away from only seeing making as an instrumental activity for people to make their own products with the focus largely on the technology, towards also supporting a more widespread change of people wishing to “reconnect hand and brain”. In practice this also means, for example, not establishing making only as a separate activity in separate maker spaces, but ensuring making is an integral part of the wider range of activities in many institutions and premises, such as libraries, educational institutes, shopping centers, repair shops, community facilities of all kinds, etc. Thus, maker spaces in this context focus on encouraging “trying”, “doing”, “creating spontaneously”, “enjoying” and “having fun” [5]. The very essence of maker spaces lies in creativity, informality, doing things without pressure and a “try-and-fail-and-try-again” approach. In this way there is often an ethical and inclusive imperative in making things, nurtured through capacity building and empowerment, exploration, experimentation, fun and the absence of pressure to excel, coupled with sharing and gaining new knowledge [10,11].

1.2.4. The Creative Industries Arising from the craft and do-it-yourself cultures but distinct from these, many makers are today overlapping and working with the so-called creative industries as creative, arts and culture-based economic activities. These constitute a range of commercial activities which are concerned with the generation and exploitation of knowledge derived from, for example, architecture, art, cultural heritage, crafts, design, fashion, film, music, the performing arts, publishing, research and development (R & D), software, toys and games, TV and radio and video games. ICT tools are playing a significant role in boosting these industries as they enable, often for the first time, any actor to collect, preserve, organize and distribute creative and cultural content, ranging from languages to historical artifacts. Makers are providing much of the new physical and digital inputs to these industries, many of which are still small scale, often recently established as start-ups, social entrepreneurs or SMEs, but also increasingly working with and becoming larger enterprises, both internationally as well as locally. The creative industries employed 11.4 million people in the European Union (EU) in 2015, accounting for 5% of the workforce, and this number is rising fast. They are characterized by higher than average levels of life satisfaction and wellbeing, with the largest number of jobs being ICT-related: “computer consultancy and programming activities” [12]. Creativity is also inversely related to computerizability: 87% of highly creative workers are at low or no risk of full automation, compared to 40% of jobs in the UK workforce as a whole. Such findings reflect the fact that machines can most successfully emulate humans when a problem is well specified in advance—that is, when performance can be straightforwardly quantified and evaluated—and when the work task Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 29 compared to 40% of jobs in the UK workforce as a whole. Such findings reflect the fact that machines Sustainability 2018, 10, 2212 5 of 29 can most successfully emulate humans when a problem is well specified in advance—that is, when performance can be straightforwardly quantified and evaluated—and when the work task environment is is sufficiently sufficiently simple simple to to enable enable autonomous autonomous control. control. Machines Machines struggle struggle when when tasks tasks are highlyare highly interpretive, interpretive, geared geared at products at products whose whose final finalform formis not isfully not specified fully specified in advance in advance and when and workwhen worktask environments task environments are complex are complex—a—a good good description description of ofmost most creative creative as as well well as as maker occupations [13]. [13].

2. Materials Materials and Methods An overview of the methods and materials deployed for mapping and analyzing the maker movement in Europe is provided in Figure2 2.. ThisThis sketchessketches howhow thethe overalloverall analyticalanalytical frameworkframework interacts with with two two main main research research instruments. instruments. The The former former consists consists of three of three analytical analytical pillars: pillars: (1) organization(1) organization and and governance; governance; (2) (2) collaborative collaborative behaviors behaviors and and (3) (3) sustainability sustainability impact impact examinin examiningg social, economic economic and and environmental environmental sustainability. sustainability. The The framework framework provides provides a common a common template template for guidingfor guiding the the two two research research instruments: instruments: qualitative qualitative in in-depth-depth case case studies, studies, and and a a qualiquali-quantitative-quantitative survey. More details are given below.

Figure 2. OverviewOverview o off methodology and tools used for analysis analysis..

2.1. Three Three Analytical Pillars The analytical framework consists of three analytical pillars for examining individual maker initiatives and and making comparisons between between them: them: ( (i)i) how how maker maker communities communities are are organised a andnd governed; ( (ii)ii) what maker participants do do and how they behave through peer and collaborative activities; and and ( (iii)iii) the various ways maker initiatives impact on, and add value to, society with particular reference reference to to their their sustainability sustainability impacts. impacts. (See (See Fi Figuregure 3).3). The The three three pillars pillars are are ambitious ambitious in scope,in scope, and and have have also also been been shown shown in inthe the project project to to be be theoretically theoretically sound sound as as well well as as highly highly robust empirically when examining both the internal features and the external relations and interactions of maker initiat initiatives.ives. Additionally, Additionally, they they are able to guide the examination of secondary evidence from the academic and grey literature in support of empirical analysis. As As illustrated illustrated in in Figure Figure 33,, thethe threethree pillars are designed to provide a comprehensive but also simple s setet of insights which show both the “means”‘means’ by by which which maker maker initiatives initiatives operate operate and and the the ‘ends’ “ends” such such ‘means’ “means” produce. produce.

2.1.1. Organization Organization and Governance Pillar 11 examinesexamines how how maker maker communities communities are are organised organised and and governed, governed, including including strategies strategies and andﬁnancing, financing, supply su chains,pply managementchains, management of knowledge of knowledge and innovation, and the innovation, institutional the environment institutional as environmentwell as gender as issues well andas gender social responsibility.issues and social Pillar responsibility. 1 looks at the Pillar ways 1 thatlooks maker at the communities ways that maker using communitiesCAPs are organised using both CAPs internally are organised and externally, both internally the legal and and externally, regulatory theframeworks legal and that regulatory promote frameworksor retard them, that their promote IPR (Intellectual or retard Property them, their Right) IPR implications, (Intellectual security, Property safety Right) and privacyimplications, issues, and the interfaces they have with their institutional and policy environments which include social, economic, environmental and technological systems. Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 29

Sustainabilitysecurity, safety2018, 10 and, 2212 privacy issues, and the interfaces they have with their institutional and policy6 of 29 environments which include social, economic, environmental and technological systems.

2.1.2. Peer and Collaborative Behaviors Pillar 2 examines what maker participants do and how they behave, including the processes of social engagement and social influence, inﬂuence, ethical issues, participation, collaboration, learning, sharing, sharing, community forming and inclusive approaches. Pillar Pillar 2 2 looks looks at at the the mechanisms and and activities, including generating awareness and leveraging leveraging peer peer pressure. pressure. It It examines what drives people’s people’s behaviors to take-uptake-up maker activity and/or establi establishsh or or join join a a maker community, and how this supports better lifestyles through through behavioral behavioral and and system system change. change. These activities and behaviors include learning, sharing, collaborating collaborating and and realizing realizing new new forms forms of production, including including social, social, economic, environmentalenvironmental and technological issues.issues.

Figure 3. The three analytical pillars of MAKEMAKE-IT.-IT.

2.1.3. Value Creation andand ImpactImpact Pillar 3 examines the various ways interactions between pillars 1 and 2 impact on and add value to society: social, economic, environmenta environmentall and and hybrid hybrid value value and and impacts, with with a strong focus on sustainability issues. Pillar Pillar 3 3 looks at the ways and extent to which maker communities create and capture such value and sustainability impacts, including through new forms of local, bottom-upbottom-up business-,business-, social-social- and sustainable-models, sustainable-models, transversing between non-monetizednon-monetized and monetized accounting frameworks as well as different impactimpact assessmentassessment methods. Local, national and global development and and sustainability sustainability issues issues are are examined. examined. An An historical historical perspect perspectiveive is also is also adopted, adopted, for forexample example in analyzingin analyzing the themaker maker movement’s movement’s trajectory trajectory in the in 21st the 21stcentury century as compared as compared to the to late the late20th 20th century century development development of personalof personal computing computing and and other other technology technology innovations. innovations. ThisThis should also be seen in the context context of today’s today’s industry industry increasingly increasingly moving away from centralized mass production and consumption towards decentralization and the mass customization of production and consumption.

2.2. Two Research Instruments Using the the analytical analytical framework, framework, two two main main research research instruments instruments were deployed,were deployed, partially partially derived fromderived the from literature the literature cited above cited plus above widespread plus widespread consultation. consultation. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2212 7 of 29

2.2.1. Ten In-Depth Qualitative Case Studies Ten in-depth qualitative case studies from across Europe were undertaken, based both on background desk research on each case plus a set of structured open questions for interviewing and analysis. A minimum of four interviews per case was undertaken, i.e., the leader and three users. The cases were selected to reﬂect the range of types and conﬁgurations of maker activities in Europe along two dimensions as shown in Figure4:

1. The vertical y axis (marked in yellow) shows the scale and interaction dimension of maker initiatives. This ranges from “situational awareness” where maker initiatives tend to be relatively isolated, unconnected and focused mainly on speciﬁc or local areas, to “distributed awareness” where maker initiatives tend to be strongly networked, interconnected and collaborative over typically large and extensive areas. A number of positions were hypothesized along this dimension each of which was substantiated by the evidence subsequently collected. These were: (a) single/individual makers; (b) makers with a limited set of regular partners; (c) medium-scale communities of makers and their users; (d) maker ecosystems of interacting, diverse but complementary makers including other relevant actors; and (e) maker networks which tend to be very large scale, often national or international in extent, consisting of maker relationships built on common needs and interests, for example for mutual learning. 2. The horizontal of x axis (marked in blue) shows the social innovation dimension derived from BEPA [14] and as described by Hochgerner [15] and Millard et al. [16]. This shows three types of Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 29 social innovation.: (a) social demand as the narrowest view of social innovation outcomes focused 2.2.1. onTen tackling In-Depth problems Qualitative in speciﬁc, Case possiblyStudies disparate, parts of society on a one-by-one, perhaps even piecemeal, basis; (b) societal challenge innovation at the boundary where the social, the economic Tenand thein-depth environmental qualitative become case studies blurred, from as all across actors Europe can be involved, were undertaken, that are directed based towardsboth on backgroundoutcomes desk across research society on as each a whole, case plus and wherea set of an structured important open focus questions is on the relationshipsfor interviewing between and analysis.actors A andminimum outcomes; of four and interviews (c) systemic per change case was innovations undertaken, that i.e. contribute,, the leader often and together three users. and The casescumulatively, were selected to the to reform reflect ofthe underlying range of types structures, and configurations relationships of and maker governance activities in in society Europe along two dimensions as shown in Figure 4:

Figure 4. Selection of the ten MAKEMAKE-IT-IT case studies studies..

1. The vertical y axis (marked in yellow) shows the scale and interaction dimension of maker Figure4 sketches the placements of the ten maker case studies across these two dimensions: initiatives. This ranges from ‘situational awareness’ where maker initiatives tend to be (1) Danish Technological Institute Lab, Denmark—a metropolitan FabLab; (2) Fablab Barcelona, relatively isolated, unconnected and focused mainly on specific or local areas, to ‘distributed Spain—a metropolitan FabLab and the central node of the Global FabLab Network; (3) Arduino, awareness’ where maker initiatives tend to be strongly networked, interconnected and Italy—open source micro-computing hardware; (4) Smart Bending Factory, the Netherlands—open collaborative over typically large and extensive areas. A number of positions were hypothesized along this dimension each of which was substantiated by the evidence subsequently collected. These were: (a) single/individual makers; (b) makers with a limited set of regular partners; (c) medium-scale communities of makers and their users; (d) maker ecosystems of interacting, diverse but complementary makers including other relevant actors; and (e) maker networks which tend to be very large scale, often national or international in extent, consisting of maker relationships built on common needs and interests, for example for mutual learning. 2. The horizontal of x axis (marked in blue) shows the social innovation dimension derived from BEPA [14] and as described by Hochgerner [15] and Millard et al. [16]. This shows three types of social innovation.: (a) social demand as the narrowest view of social innovation outcomes focused on tackling problems in specific, possibly disparate, parts of society on a one-by-one, perhaps even piecemeal, basis; (b) societal challenge innovation at the boundary where the social, the economic and the environmental become blurred, as all actors can be involved, that are directed towards outcomes across society as a whole, and where an important focus is on the relationships between actors and outcomes; and (c) systemic change innovations that contribute, often together and cumulatively, to the reform of underlying structures, relationships and governance in society

Figure 4 sketches the placements of the ten maker case studies across these two dimensions: (1) Danish Technological Institute Lab, Denmark—a metropolitan FabLab; (2) Fablab Barcelona, Spain—a metropolitan FabLab and the central node of the Global FabLab Network; (3) Arduino, Italy—open source micro-computing hardware; (4) Smart Bending Factory, the Netherlands—open factory and regional metalworking network; (5) Mini Maker Faire Tartu, Estonia—a local maker Sustainability 2018, 10, 2212 8 of 29 factory and regional metalworking network; (5) Mini Maker Faire Tartu, Estonia—a local maker faire; (6) Happylab Vienna, Austria—focused on low-threshold access, empowerment and inclusion; (7) Dezentrale, Germany—urban neighborhood FabLab; (8) Hochschule Ruhr-West Lab, Germany—manufacturer of maker technology; (9) Create It Real, Denmark; and (10) Fablab Zagreb, Croatia—NGO FabLab.

2.2.2. Survey Questionnaire with Quali-Quantitative and Open Questions for Large Scale Survey This second research instrument supplements the first by using a common set of open qualitative questions, plus 7-point Likert scale propositions for completion during conversations between a maker initiative and an independent expert. This scale ranges from completely disagree with a given statement (for example “has the initiative improved human capital, such as skills and competences”), through mainly and then partially disagree, neither disagree nor agree, then to partially, mainly and completely agree. A “not applicable” option was also available. The Likert questions rely on self-evaluation, but the results were validated during the conversation between the respondent and the independent expert so that the latter could request justification and evidence for the score proposed to ensure as much objective accuracy as possible. The Likert scores, being both negative as well as positive in relation to the proposition, were summed and standardized across all answers based on these negative and positive weights, to provide generalized findings across the sample population or selected segments of it for comparison purposes. A “relevance” score was also derived for each proposition, calculated by deducting the percentage of interviewees stating that a particular question was “not applicable” from 100%.

2.3. Applying the Research Instruments to the Analytical Framework The second instrument provides data on the types and leadership of maker initiatives, the technology used, their ambitions and their actual achievements across the three analytical pillars. The first instrument complements these largely “what” data with more detailed information on “how” and “why” the reported results might have been achieved. For example, the second instrument indicates gender gaps and differences, which is confirmed by the first instrument adding some qualitative understanding, e.g., the “genderization” of tasks and objects in the maker space, differences in the use of technology, etc. [17]. The survey questionnaire was used to undertake structured interviews with a sample of 42 maker initiatives present at the Barcelona Maker Faire, 16–18 June 2017, out of 82 registered as present. Given that the initiatives were organized according to their main purpose and focus across the floor of the exhibition space, every second initiative was interviewed, thereby ensuring a representative sample. The Faire consisted of a highly diverse set of exhibitors drawn from across Barcelona and Catalonia in north-east Spain. European experts on the MAKE-IT team conducted the interviews and validated that the Barcelona maker scene is quite typical of other large cities across Europe. When using the survey instrument in Barcelona, only one person was interviewed in most cases, although they were requested to speak on behalf of the initiative as a whole and not their own personal position or interests. Gender and age were, as far as possible, recorded referring to the main leader and/or practitioner rather than the manager/administrator or interviewee, if different. In most cases, the actual leader was interviewed as the faire was considered important enough that they should be present in person. The dataset has the potential for many more analyses, for example looking for comparisons and correlations between different variables. There are, as always, issues about the representativeness and validity of these data. However, the results from the two different sources do tend to corroborate each other in areas where there is overlap, and much care has been taken in data collection and preparation. All data and instruments are available on the MAKE-IT website in open format to support ongoing research (http://make-it.io/open-data-api/). Both instruments went through various iterations of development, piloting and testing, and are best deployed together and alongside desk research as well as by making comparisons with other Sustainability 2018, 10, 2212 9 of 29

Sustainabilitystudies. The 2018, result 10, x FOR provides PEER REVIEW a “quali-quantitative” analysis of the maker movement in Europe,9 of 29 anno 2017, the ﬁrst of its kind to the authors’ knowledge that includes a quantitative analysis of maker initiativesinitiatives based based on on a a reasonably sized sized sample. sample. Given Given lack lack of of space, space, only only some some headline headline results results are are presented in Section 33 below,below, plusplus cross-comparisonscross-comparisons withwith gendergender andand scalescale variables,variables, particularlyparticularly drawing out some sustainability issues.

3. Results Results This section presents and interprets some of the findingsﬁndings of MAKEMAKE-IT-IT’s’s research research using using the the analytical framework and research instruments described above.

3.1. Gender Gender and and Age Age of of Maker Maker Leader Leaderss ItIt is is clear clear from from Figure Figure 55 thatthat mostmost makermaker initiativesinitiatives areare ledled byby youngyoung malesmales andand thatthat thisthis isis quitequite similarsimilar to to the the situation situation seen seen in thein the majority majority of technology-based of technology-based start-ups start and-ups new and enterprises. new enterprises. Female Femaleleaders leaders constitute constitute only 26% only of 26% all makerof all maker leaders leaders in the in Barcelona the Barcelona sample. sample. These These gender gender and and age agedistributions distributions are also are in also line in with line the with results the of results the ten ofMAKE-IT the ten MAKEcase studies-IT case from studies across from Europe, across i.e., Europe,the majority i.e., ofthe maker majority managers of maker are malemanagers (9 out are of10), male while (9 out the of10), gender while ratio the among gender users ratio varies among from users80:20 to varies 60:40, from and 80:2 most0 are to 60:40, relatively and young, most are between relatively 20 and young, 40 years between of age. 20 Again, and 40 this years gives of some age. Again,conﬁdence this gives that the some samples confidence reﬂects that maker the samples initiatives reflects more widely.maker initiatives more widely.

Figure 5. Gender and age of maker initiative leaders. Figure 5. Gender and age of maker initiative leaders.

3.2. Scale and Interaction of Maker Initiatives 3.2. Scale and Interaction of Maker Initiatives Based on the five scales that individual maker initiatives operate at, as described above, Figure Based on the five scales that individual maker initiatives operate at, as described above, Figure6 6 indicates that there is a good spread of maker scales, ranging from single initiatives that are more indicates that there is a good spread of maker scales, ranging from single initiatives that are more or or less operating without significant interaction with other actors (which is the least common scale), less operating without significant interaction with other actors (which is the least common scale), up to up to makers operating in networks (the second least common). The overall distribution of makers in makers operating in networks (the second least common). The overall distribution of makers in the the sample starts to resemble a normal curve indicating that, at least on this characteristic, the sample starts to resemble a normal curve indicating that, at least on this characteristic, the sample seems sample seems to be relatively representative of makers generally. This is useful corroboration that to be relatively representative of makers generally. This is useful corroboration that this deductively this deductively derived scale range seems also to have relevance in practice. It is also clear from the derived scale range seems also to have relevance in practice. It is also clear from the second graph in second graph in Figure 6 that males and females are operating at quite different scales. Females are Figure6 that males and females are operating at quite different scales. Females are much more likely much more likely to work at the two extremes of the scale range, i.e., at the larger scales of to work at the two extremes of the scale range, i.e., at the larger scales of ecosystems and networks and ecosystems and networks and the smaller scale of singles, although they are also quite well the smaller scale of singles, although they are also quite well represented in communities. represented in communities. The case studies also demonstrate gender differences, including that female makers tend to work on different tasks “Woman make bio stuff; men make 3D prints” (maker manager, Germany) and on different projects and machines (while 3D printers are mostly used by men, plotters are more likely to be used by females). There is no equal participation of male and female makers in the cases and many Sustainability 2018, 10, 2212 10 of 29 interviewees lack female role models: “I do think that by having the Fab Lab attended by a girl, it makes other women interested in coming to the Fab Lab too” (maker manager, Denmark). This aligns with Kanter’s theory of homo-social reproduction according to which people are more likely to find their ways into social environments if people with similar interests are already participating [18]. Role models are needed not only on a management level but also among facilitators in the maker space: “The problem is that if it’s a man who is teaching, he would say it in one way, and a girl would say it in another way. They have role models, so if it is a woman saying it, it is great to look up to her and who she is. It really depends on who is standing there” (maker, Denmark). Interviewing maker managers, however, also had an impact on their reflection of male dominated cultures: “The visibility of women we never thought of, now it’s on our minds. For some time now we have started thinking in these terms—how many girls we have, etc.” (maker leader, Spain). Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 29

Figure 6. Scale and gender of maker initiatives. Figure 6. Scale and gender of maker initiatives.

The case studies also demonstrate gender differences, including that female makers tend to 3.3. Technology Types and Technology Use work on different tasks “Woman make bio stuff; men make 3D prints” (maker manager, Germany) and on differentThe two projects diagrams and in machines Figure7 provide (while an3D overview printers are of which mostly types used of by technologies men, plotters are are used more by bothlikely male- to be andused female-led by females). makers There inis no the equal sample, participation as well as of the male purposes and female for which makers they in arethe cases used. Inand the manylefthand interviewees diagram lack of Figure female7 ,role it is models: unsurprising “I do thi thatnk that 3D by printing having the technologies Fab Lab attended are the by mosta girl, common,it makes other given women that these interested are, by in andcoming large, to whatthe Fab deﬁnes Lab too” who (maker makers manager, are. However, Denmark). a large This number aligns of otherwith Kanter’s technologies theory are of also homo used,-social by far reproduction the majority according of which are to notwhich speciﬁcally people are offered more to likely or designed to find fortheir makers. ways into However, social theyenvironments are clearly if maker-relevant people with similar and are interests being used are already quite intensely participating by makers, [18]. evenRole models though theyare needed are generally not only available on a management technologies level used but across also manyamong sectors, facilitators by many in the different maker actorsspace: and“The for problem a multitude is that if of it purposes.’s a man who is teaching, he would say it in one way, and a girl would say it in anotherThis way. conclusion They have has role also models, been soreached if it is a woman through saying a separate it, it is analysisgreat to look of theup to technologies her and who selectedshe is. It andreally described depends on for who makers is standing in MAKE-IT’s there” (maker, TechRadar Denmark).(http://make-it.io:8080 Interviewing maker). In managers, terms of the howev useser, to whichalso had these an technologiesimpact on their are put,reflection again thereof male is adominated wide spread, cultures: based on“The the visibility categories of proposedwomen we innever the TechRadarthought of,. now The it’s least on usedour minds. categories For some are time organization now we have and started communication thinking in these which terms are— morehow indicativemany girls ofwe pillarhave, etc. 1 (organization” (maker leader, and Spain). governance) activities. Indeed, other evidence presented below shows that pillar 1 has less focus in the sample and is less developed than pillar 2 (peer and collaborative behavior),3.3. Technology perhaps Types because and Technology makers are Use generally still at quite an informal stage. This is also indicated by theThe fact two that diagrams commercialization in Figure 7 usesprovide are an only overview at rank 5of out which of 8 types in Figure of technologies7, given that are becoming used by commercialboth male- and tends female to take-led a makers long-term in the effort. sample, These as differences well as the arepurposes not stark, for which however, they and are may used. also In arisethe left becausehand diagram many of theof Figu individualsre 7, it is interviewed unsurprising in the that Barcelona 3D printing sample technologies were lead are practitioners the most rathercommon, than given management that these orare, administrative by and large, staff.what Alldefines the otherwho makers technology are. usesHowever, are well a large represented number andof other appear technologies to be highly are relevant also used, for makingby far the activity. majority of which are not specifically offered to or designed for makers. However, they are clearly maker-relevant and are being used quite intensely by makers, even though they are generally available technologies used across many sectors, by many different actors and for a multitude of purposes. This conclusion has also been reached through a separate analysis of the technologies selected and described for makers in MAKE-IT’s TechRadar (http://make-it.io:8080). In terms of the uses to which these technologies are put, again there is a wide spread, based on the categories proposed in the TechRadar. The least used categories are organization and communication which are more indicative of pillar 1 (organization and governance) activities. Indeed, other evidence presented below shows that pillar 1 has less focus in the sample and is less developed than pillar 2 (peer and collaborative behavior), perhaps because makers are generally still at quite an informal stage. This is also indicated by the fact that commercialization uses are only at rank 5 out of 8 in Figure 7, given that becoming commercial tends to take a long-term effort. These differences are not stark, however, and may also arise because many of the individuals interviewed in the Barcelona sample were lead Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 29

Sustainabilitypractitioners2018 rather, 10, 2212 than management or administrative staff. All the other technology uses are11 well of 29 represented and appear to be highly relevant for making activity.

Figure 7. Technology type and use by gender. Figure 7. Technology type and use by gender.

It is also relevant to examine technology types and uses by gender, as also shown in Figure 7. The It overwhelming is also relevant conclusion to examine is, technology in fact that types both and males uses and by gender, females as generally also shown use in the Figure same7. Thetechnologies overwhelming to a similarconclusion extent. However, is, in fact Figure that both 7 does males indicate and that females males generallyare a little usemore the likely same to betechnologies involved in to modeling, a similar extent.software However, develop Figurement, 7robotics does indicate and the that Internet males of are Things a little (IoT) more, each likely of whichto be involved is perhaps in modeling,a more specialist software technology development, in the robotics maker context. and the Generally, Internet of females Things (IoT),tend to each use of a whichwider range is perhaps of technologies a more specialist and to technology be less specialized in the maker in their context. technology Generally, use, femalesas also tendindicated to use by a widerthe higher range incidence of technologies of the ‘other’ and to category. be less specialized in their technology use, as also indicated by the higherIn incidence terms of oftechnology the “other” use category. by gender, Figure 7 again indicates quite similar usage patterns betweenIn terms males of and technology females, use with by gender, a strong Figure emphasis7 again on indicates sharing, quite collaboration, similar usage learning patterns and interactionbetween males which and are females, also more with typical a strong of emphasis pillar 2 as on opposed sharing, to collaboration, pillar 1 activities. learning However, and interaction there is whichone important are also moreexception, typical i.e. of, learning pillar 2 as is opposed much more to pillar important 1 activities. for males, However, whilst there interaction is one important is much moreexception, important i.e., learning for females. is much This more observation important seems for males, to be whilstin line interactionwith the fact is muchthat females more important are more likelyfor females. than men This to observation be leading seemsmaker toinitiatives be in line at with the larger the fact scales, that femalesi.e., networking are more and likely ecosystems, than men asto benoted leading in the maker second initiatives graph in at Figure the larger 6. Men scales, are also i.e., networkingvery marginally and ecosystems,more likely to as be noted using in the technologysecond graph for in commercial Figure6. Men purposes are also than very females, marginally and again more females likely to tend be using to be themore technology generalist for in theircommercial technology purposes use as than also females, indicated and by again the higher females incidence tend to of be the more ‘other’ generalist category. in their technology use asLooking also indicated at the by technology the higher types incidence at different of the “other” scales, category. Figure 8 (on left) shows only a few distinctioLookingns. Most at the are technology used more types or atless different equally scales, at all Figurescales,8 al(onthough left) shows there onlyis a clear a few tendency distinctions. for partneringMost are used to use more 3D or printing, less equally modeling at all scales,and other although types theremore, is and a clear electronics, tendency robotics for partnering and IoT to less, use when3D printing, compared modeling to many and of other the other types scales. more, andExamining electronics, how robotics the technologies and IoT less, arewhen used compared(Figure 8 onto themany right), of the however, other scales. shows Examining some stronger how distinctions. the technologies It seems are usedclear (Figurethat singles8 on theare right),quite random however, in theirshows technology some stronger use given distinctions. they can It be seems highly clear diverse that but singles perhaps are quite also randombecause their in their sample technology size is theuse givensmallest they at can 5 initiatives. be highly Thediverse other but noteworthy perhaps also observation because their is that sample it is size mostly is the in smallest relatively at small5 initiatives-scale . partnerships The other noteworthy that commercialization observation is that is it taking is mostly place, in relatively whilst commercial small-scale partnerships uses of the technologythat commercialization are much less is takingcommon place, at the whilst larger commercial scales of community, uses of the ecosystems technology an ared much networks. less Partneringcommon at is the perhaps larger scalesbetter able of community, to provide ecosystemsthe close bonding and networks. and trusting Partnering relationships is perhaps necessary better forable makers to provide to set the up closegood bondingcommercial and relationships trusting relationships in the maker necessary context than for makers are the toother set scales. up good commercial relationships in the maker context than are the other scales. Also, as noted above, such commercial relations seem to focus more on 3D and modeling technologies, which is maybe unsurprising given that these are the original core technologies of the maker movement, so have had much more time to support commercial activities. It is also relevant to note that the largest scales to be more “all-round” in their use of technology, which again is perhaps not surprising as they involve many more actors and are generally more complex and comprehensive in the range of their activities. Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 29

Sustainability 2018, 10, 2212 12 of 29 Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 29

Figure 8. Technology type and use by scale.

Also, as noted above, such commercial relations seem to focus more on 3D and modeling technologies, which is maybe unsurprising given that these are the original core technologies of the maker movement, so have had much more time to support commercial activities. It is also relevant to note that the largest scales to be more ‘all-round’ in their use of technology, which again is perhaps not surprising as theyFigure involve 8. Technology many more type actorsand use andby sca arele. generally more complex and Figure 8. Technology type and use by scale. comprehensive in the range of their activities. Also, as noted above, such commercial relations seem to focus more on 3D and modeling 3.4. Long Term Ambition technologies,3.4. Long Term which Ambition is maybe unsurprising given that these are the original core technologies of the maker movement, so have had much more time to support commercial activities. It is also relevant In Figure9 9,, thethe long-termlong-term ambitionsambitions of of makermaker initiatives,initiatives, as as opposed opposed to to thethe actualactual achievementsachievements to note that the largest scales to be more ‘all-round’ in their use of technology, which again is (which(which areare discussed discussed below), below), is is charted. charted. The The two two graphs graphs show show a distinction a distinction between between an ambition an ambition being perhaps not surprising as they involve many more actors and are generally more complex and activelybeing actively pursued pursued (on the (on left) the and left) how and the how interviewee the interviewee sees the relevancesees the relevance of the ambition of the (onambition the right). (on comprehensive in the range of their activities. Thethe relevanceright). The scores relevance are the scores percentages are the of initiatives percentages indicating of initiatives a given indicating ambition is a potentially given ambition relevant is topotentially them, whilst relevant the ambition to them, scores whilst are the those ambition they are scores actually are pursuing. those they As are would actually be expected, pursuing. in As all 3.4. Long Term Ambition caseswould the be relevanceexpected, scoresin all cases are higher the relevance than the scores scores are for ambitionshigher than actually the scores being for pursued, ambitions whilst actually the gapbeing betweenIn pursued, Figure the 9, whilst the two long indicates the-term gap betweenambitions the size differentialsthe of twomaker indicates initiatives of what the is, sizeas happening opposed differentials into practicethe of actual what and achievementsis aspirationshappening still(whichin practice to beare tackled. discussed and aspirations So, forbelow), example, still is charted. to the be gap tackled. The between two So, graphs technical for example, show and a educationaldistinction the gap between between science technical andan ambition research and ambitionsbeingeducational actively and science theirpursued perceived and (on research the relevance left) ambitions and is how much the and smaller interviewee their than perceived between sees the relevance commercial, relevance is muchof environmental the ambition smaller than and(on socialthebetween right). ambitions commercial, The relevance and their environmental relevance. scores are Clearly,and the social percentages there ambitions is more of initiativesand progress their inrelevance. indicating terms of Clearly, the a given former there ambition ambitions is more is thanpotentiallyprogre thess latter,in relevantterms and of that the to them,the former former whilst ambitions are the more ambition than indicative the scoreslatter, of theand are early that those stagethe they former of are maker actuallyare developmentmore pursuing. indicative than Asof laterwouldthe early stages. be stage expected, of maker in all development cases the relevance than later scores stages. are higher than the scores for ambitions actually being pursued, whilst the gap between the two indicates the size differentials of what is happening in practice and aspirations still to be tackled. So, for example, the gap between technical and educational science and research ambitions and their perceived relevance is much smaller than between commercial, environmental and social ambitions and their relevance. Clearly, there is more progress in terms of the former ambitions than the latter, and that the former are more indicative of the early stage of maker development than later stages.

Figure 9. Long-term ambitions and relevance of maker initiatives, by gender.

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 29 Sustainability 2018, 10, 2212 13 of 29 Figure 9. Long-term ambitions and relevance of maker initiatives, by gender.

The five five types types of of long-term long-term ambitions ambitions of the ofmaker the maker initiatives initiatives shown shownin Figure in9 can Figure be compared 9 can be withcompared these makers’ with these actual makers’ reported actual impact reported achievements, impact discussed achievements, below. Both discussed educational below. science Both andeducational research science and technical and research ambitions and technicalseem overall ambitions to be the seem most overall important, to be the followed most important, by social, environmentalfollowed by social, and finally environmental commercial. and Again, finally this commercial. tends to corroborate Again, this the conclusions tends to corroborate of MAKE-IT the’s in-depthconclusions qualitative of MAKE case-IT’s study in-depth analyses qualitative of ten makercase study initiatives. analyses Gender of ten differences maker initiatives. are also Gender plotted indifferences Figure9, whichare also shows plotted quite in Figure similar 9, ambition which shows and relevance quite similar scores, ambition except and that relevance males are scores, much moreexcept focused that males on technical are much ambitions more focused than females,on technical whilst ambitions the latter than are females, a little more whilst focused the latter on social are a ambitionslittle more thanfocused males. on social ambitions than males. Figure 10 shows how the fivefive different scales have different ambitions andand the extent to which the initiatives see these ambitions as relevantrelevant oror not.not. Ecosystem configurations,configurations, followed closely by networks, normally score highest on both. Even though ecosystems are not at the largest potential scale, they can be thought of as exhibitingexhibiting the mostmost intricate,intricate, comprehensive and developed set of relationships between between different, different, but but complementary, complementary, actors actors at a at relatively a relatively large large scale. scale. Given Given this level this oflevel development, of development, when successful when successful they are they thus arelikely thus to be likely very to ambitious be very and ambitious to see all and ambitions to see a asll highlyambitions relevant. as highly The same relevant. argument The holds, same thoughargument to a holds, slightly though lesser extent, to a slightly for networks, lesser which extent, tend for tonetworks, be less developed which tend than to be ecosystems less developed but at than a larger ecosystems scale. but at a larger scale.

Figure 10. Long-term ambitions and relevance of maker initiatives by scale. Figure 10. Long-term ambitions and relevance of maker initiatives by scale. It is also interesting in Figure 10 that there seems to be quite a strong positive correlation betweenIt is alsoincreasing interesting scale in and Figure increasing 10 that thereambition seems/relevance, to be quite with a strong only a positive relatively correlation minor deviation between increasingbetween the scale two and smallest increasing scales ambition/relevance, of single and partnering. with only aThis relatively observation minor deviation will be repeated between the on twonumerous smallest occasions scales of below single andwhen partnering. looking at This actual observation achievements. will be It repeated is quite onclear numerous that, like occasions gender, belowscale is when a very looking important at actual determinant achievements. of the Itsuccess is quite and clear impacts that, like maker gender, initiatives scale is are avery likely important to have. determinant of the success and impacts maker initiatives are likely to have. 3.5. Organization and Governance 3.5. Organization and Governance The overall reported achievements in organization and governance (pillar 1), as shown in The overall reported achievements in organization and governance (pillar 1), as shown in Figure 11, are mainly good, although overall the achievement rate is only 33% of those for whom Figure 11, are mainly good, although overall the achievement rate is only 33% of those for whom such such achievements are relevant, with some interesting differences between the various issues. achievements are relevant, with some interesting differences between the various issues. Openness Openness to and sharing with partners outside the maker initiative itself is the most positive result, to and sharing with partners outside the maker initiative itself is the most positive result, perhaps perhaps reflecting the conclusion noted in the discussion of maker scales (Figure 4), where the reﬂecting the conclusion noted in the discussion of maker scales (Figure4), where the partnering, partnering, community and ecosystem scales are the most common operational forms. community and ecosystem scales are the most common operational forms. As the case study interviews with makers show, they are very keen on realizing openness as As the case study interviews with makers show, they are very keen on realizing openness as much as possible: “Openness and sharing are the key principles that makers abide by. I haven’t seen much as possible: “Openness and sharing are the key principles that makers abide by. I haven’t seen makers being overly protective of their (intellectual property) IP. They are mostly willing to share makers being overly protective of their (intellectual property) IP. They are mostly willing to share their materials, designs with anyone who is interested” (maker, Estonia). Openness is practiced by Sustainability 2018, 10, 2212 14 of 29

Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 29 their materials, designs with anyone who is interested” (maker, Estonia). Openness is practiced by the sharing of ideas and designs locally, and by learning online in the wider community using multiple the sharing of ideas and designs locally, and by learning online in the wider community using platforms for uploading designs and projects for other makers to use and adapt. However, for makers multiple platforms for uploading designs and projects for other makers to use and adapt. However, with commercial ambitions it is challenging to reconcile the value of openness and protection when for makers with commercial ambitions it is challenging to reconcile the value of openness and running a maker business: “We’re of course in competition with other people. We’re entering into a protection when running a maker business: “We’re of course in competition with other people. capitalist market where money is being made. And if we go there now and document every bit that We’re entering into a capitalist market where money is being made. And if we go there now and we make and put it online, then we shoot (ourselves) in our own foot of course” (maker, Germany). document every bit that we make and put it online, then we shoot (ourselves) in our own foot of Thus, openness challenges the business model of makers. course” (maker, Germany). Thus, openness challenges the business model of makers. Financial and organizational sustainability is much less positive in Figure 11, although is still Financial and organizational sustainability is much less positive in Figure 11, although is still generally achieving some good results. By contrast, however, the maker initiatives’ gender balance is generally achieving some good results. By contrast, however, the maker initiatives’ gender balance is reported to be relatively poor, even disregarding those initiatives for which this is not a relevant goal. reported to be relatively poor, even disregarding those initiatives for which this is not a relevant Overall, the more bottom-up, informal aspects seem to be more important than the more top-down and goal. Overall, the more bottom-up, informal aspects seem to be more important than the more formal aspects, even in the organization and governance pillar, again indicative of the early stage of top-down and formal aspects, even in the organization and governance pillar, again indicative of the maker development. There are also large gaps between achievements and relevance on all issues except early stage of maker development. There are also large gaps between achievements and relevance on gender (where both are low) and openness and sharing (where both are relatively high). Achieving the all issues except gender (where both are low) and openness and sharing (where both are relatively long-term vision shows the largest gap, which is perhaps unsurprising given the relatively early stage high). Achieving the long-term vision shows the largest gap, which is perhaps unsurprising given of development of these maker initiatives. the relatively early stage of development of these maker initiatives.

Figure 11. Organization and governance achievements and relevance: by gender. Figure 11. Organization and governance achievements and relevance: by gender. In terms of gender contrasts, Figure 11 clearly shows that females have both greater achievementsIn terms of and gender greater contrasts, relevance Figure on gender11 clearly balance shows compared that females to males, have both although greater this achievements remains on andthe low greater side. relevance Females onalso gender have balancegreater comparedachievements to males, on openness although and this sharing remains, whilst on the males lowside. feel Femalesthey are also achieving have greater a little achievements more on changing on openness prevailing and sharing, norms, whilst policies males and feel regulations, they are achieving on their along little-term more visions on changing and on prevailing financial sustainability. norms, policies and regulations, on their long-term visions and on financialWhen sustainability. examining the five types of scale in Figure 12, again the two largest scales, networking and ecosystems,When examining both report the five the types biggest of scale achievements. in Figure 12 , again the two largest scales, networking and ecosystems, both report the biggest achievements. However, in the organization and governance pillar, networking is leading ecosystems, perhaps because it is more concerned with the larger scale external environment compared to the peer and collaborative behavior pillar, where ecosystems are more successful than networks. There are also large gaps between actual achievements and relevance across all scales, although the largest scales have the smallest gaps given that they are generally more successful. The gaps are most marked in relation to gender balance but also in terms of organization and decision-making as well as financial sustainability. Again, there is a very strong positive correlation between increasing scale and increasing achievement/relevance. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2212 15 of 29 Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 29

Figure 12. Organization and governance achievements and relevance: by scale. Figure 12. Organization and governance achievements and relevance: by scale. However, in the organization and governance pillar, networking is leading ecosystems, 3.6. Peer and Collaborative Behaviours perhaps because it is more concerned with the larger scale external environment compared to the peer Theand overallcollaborative reported behavior achievements pillar, where in peer ecosystems and collaborative are more behaviorssuccessful (pillarthan networks. 2), as shown There in Figureare also 13 large, are generallygaps between very actual positive, achievements and overall and are greaterrelevance than across in the all organization scales, although and governance the largest pillar,scales withhave an the average smallest achievement gaps given ratethat ofthey 40%. are This generally may be more because successful. many The makers gaps are are still most at amarked relatively in relation informal to stage,gender experimenting balance but also and in playingterms of withorganization the technology and decision and with-making co-creative, as well collaborativeas financial sustainability. and self- and Again, group-learning there is a ve activities,ry strong so positive this result correlation perhaps between reflects increasing this early stagescale ofand maker increasing development. achievement The/relevance. result may, however, be somewhat biased because, as noted above, many of the individuals interviewed in the sample were lead practitioners rather than management or administrativeSustainability3.6. Peer and 2018 Collaborative, staff.10, x FOR PEER Behaviours REVIEW 16 of 29 The overall reported achievements in peer and collaborative behaviors (pillar 2), as shown in Figure 13, are generally very positive, and overall are greater than in the organization and governance pillar, with an average achievement rate of 40%. This may be because many makers are still at a relatively informal stage, experimenting and playing with the technology and with co-creative, collaborative and self- and group-learning activities, so this result perhaps reflects this early stage of maker development. The result may, however, be somewhat biased because, as noted above, many of the individuals interviewed in the sample were lead practitioners rather than management or administrative staff. The most positive results in Figure 13, come from questions on the motivation and engagement of users, collaborative learning and knowledge, and individual user skills and competences, in each of which there is also high relevance across most of the initiatives surveyed and with very few negative or neutral reports. This probably reflects the conclusion above that these types of achievement reflect the current preoccupation and focus of most makers. In contrast, achievements related to intended business and commercial goals are much more evenly spread between both positive and negative results from the questionnaires, resulting in lower overall scores, in addition, one third ofFigure the maker 13. Peer initiatives and collaborative surveyed behavior do not achievements even have and such relevance: goals by so gender their . relevance is relatively low.Figure 13. Peer and collaborative behavior achievements and relevance: by gender. In terms of gender contrasts, Figure 13 clearly shows both that females have higher aspirations (givenThe by most their positive relevance results scores) in Figure and are 13 ,in come practice from achieving questions much on the more motivation on user and motivation, engagement user of users,skills and collaborative collaborative learning learning, andknowledge, compared to and males. individual This conclusion, user skills and i.e., competences, that female-led in each maker of whichinitiatives there are is alsoachieving highrelevance more, and across are thus most generally of the initiatives more successful, surveyed than and withmale very-led fewinitiatives, negative is orfurther neutral reinforced reports. in This much probably of the reflectsdata presented the conclusion below. above that these types of achievement reflect the currentIn relation preoccupation to scale effects, and focus Figure of 14 most again makers. shows In the contrast, predominance achievements of the related two largest, to intended with ecosystems claiming the biggest achievements and a generally very clear positive correlation between increasing scale and greater achievements/relevance. The largest gaps between achievement and relevance are for business and commerce. The case studies show that the level of engagement of makers depends on their willingness to participate in regular activities and their unwillingness to invest in high cost projects. The lack of trust that inhibits access to some maker spaces was mentioned as a barrier to deeper involvement. However, makers stated they were driven by open access to equipment and knowledgeable professionals. The more the makers were able to test and use these services and tools, the more they become engaged in making. Thus, it seems that maker engagement is mainly dependent on their personal characteristics, e.g., high motivation and interest, in the context of access and opportunity.

Figure 14. Peer and collaborative behavior achievements and relevance: by scale. Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 29

Sustainability 2018, 10, 2212 16 of 29 business and commercial goals are much more evenly spread between both positive and negative results from the questionnaires, resulting in lower overall scores, in addition, one third of the maker initiatives surveyed do not even have such goals so their relevance is relatively low. Figure 13. Peer and collaborative behavior achievements and relevance: by gender. In terms of gender contrasts, Figure 13 clearly shows both that females have higher aspirations (given byIn theirterms relevance of gender scores) contrasts, and Figure are in practice13 clearly achieving shows both much that more females on user have motivation, higher aspirationsuser skills and(given collaborative by their relevance learning, scores) compared and toare males. in practice This conclusion,achieving much i.e., thatmore female-led on user motivation, maker initiatives user areskills achieving and collaborative more, and learning, are thus compared generally tomore males. successful, This conclusion, than male-led i.e., that initiatives, female-ledis maker further reinforcedinitiatives in are much achieving of the datamore, presented and are thus below. generally more successful, than male-led initiatives, is furtherIn relation reinforced to in scale much effects, of the data Figure presented 14 again below. shows the predominance of the two largest, with ecosystemsIn relationclaiming to scale effects, the biggest Figure achievements 14 again shows and the a generallypredominance very of clear the positivetwo largest, correlation with betweenecosystems increasing claiming scale the and biggest greater achievements achievements/relevance. and a generally The largest very clear gaps positive between correlation achievement andbetween relevance increasing are for business scale and commerce. greater achievements/relevance. The largest gaps between achievementThe case studies and relevance show that are for the business level of and engagement commerce. of makers depends on their willingness to participateThe incase regular studies activities show that and the their level unwillingness of engagement to investof makers in high depends cost projects.on their Thewillingness lack of trustto thatparticipate inhibits access in regular to some activities maker and spaces their was unwillingness mentioned asto ainvest barrier in tohigh deeper cost involvement.projects. The However,lack of makerstrust that stated inhibits they access were to driven some bymaker open spaces access was to mentioned equipment as and a barrier knowledgeable to deeper involvement. professionals. However, makers stated they were driven by open access to equipment and knowledgeable The more the makers were able to test and use these services and tools, the more they become engaged professionals. The more the makers were able to test and use these services and tools, the more they in making. Thus, it seems that maker engagement is mainly dependent on their personal characteristics, become engaged in making. Thus, it seems that maker engagement is mainly dependent on their e.g., high motivation and interest, in the context of access and opportunity. personal characteristics, e.g., high motivation and interest, in the context of access and opportunity.

Figure 14. Peer and collaborative behavior achievements and relevance: by scale. Figure 14. Peer and collaborative behavior achievements and relevance: by scale.

3.7. Social Sustainability Achievements As shown in Figure 15 achievements related to social sustainability are generally good, although overall the achievement rate is only 29% of those for whom such achievements are relevant. Improved human capital appears overall to be the most positive, probably related to the questions on collaborative learning and knowledge, and on individual user skills and competences, referred to in the peer and collaborative behavior pillar above. Improved education and research achieves the second highest impact in Figure 15. The questions on changed social opinions and behavior, improved quality of life and on improved social inclusion and cohesion are less positive but still overall more positive than negative. These latter three questions are ostensibly broader and perhaps less concrete than improved human capital, that can be related more or less directly to measurable skills, so there is likely to be both more uncertainty in scoring them higher as well as greater difﬁculty in assessing such impacts in the wider community. Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 29

Figure 15. Social sustainability achievements and relevance: by gender. Figure 15. Social sustainability achievements and relevance: by gender. Improved education and research achieves the second highest impact in Figure 15. The questionsLooking on at changed gender social issues opinions in Figure and 15 ,behavior, female-led improved initiatives quality are havingof life and much on improved greater success social in achievinginclusion social and cohesion sustainability, are less particularly positive but in relationstill overall to social more inclusionpositive than and negative. cohesion, These quality latter of life andthree social questions opinions are andostensibly behaviors. broader In and fact perhaps these would less concrete score quite than highimproved overall human except capital, for the that fact thatcan male-led be related initiatives more or less seem directly to perform to measurable badly. However,skills, so there both is genders likely to performbe both more relatively uncertainty well on humanin scoring capital them and education higher as and well research as greater which, difficul as mentionedty in assessing above, such can be impacts morereadily in the related wider to measurablecommunity. outcomes such as skills. TurningLooking to at scale gender differences issues in Figure for social 15, female sustainability,-led initiatives Figure are 16 having shows much that greater ecosystems success score, in veryachieving decisively social, much sustainability, better than particularly all others in relation across to all social ﬁve inclusion issues. Theand cohesion, other scales quality tend of lif toe be moreandrandom social opinions in their and achievements, behaviors. In with fact networksthese would scoring score bestquite on high social overall inclusion except andfor the cohesion, fact that male-led initiatives seem to perform badly. However, both genders perform relatively well on communities on human capital and quality of life, and singles on education and research. These all human capital and education and research which, as mentioned above, can be more readily related appear quite rational, as does simple partnering which seems to score lower than all others across to measurable outcomes such as skills. most issues given that partnerships tend to be focused in their activities, as noted above in relation to Turning to scale differences for social sustainability, Figure 16 shows that ecosystems score, their commercial activities. Ecosystems also score highest in terms of perceived relevance, with overall very decisively, much better than all others across all five issues. The other scales tend to be more generally a positive correlation between increased relevance and increased scale. randomSustainability in 2018 their, 10, x achievements, FOR PEER REVIEW with networks scoring best on social inclusion and cohesion,18 of 29 communities on human capital and quality of life, and singles on education and research. These all appear quite rational, as does simple partnering which seems to score lower than all others across most issues given that partnerships tend to be focused in their activities, as noted above in relation to their commercial activities. Ecosystems also score highest in terms of perceived relevance, with overall generally a positive correlation between increased relevance and increased scale.

Figure 16. Social sustainability achievements and relevance: by scale. Figure 16. Social sustainability achievements and relevance: by scale. The case studies attest all these social sustainability achievements, especially in terms of education, training and innovations addressing social challenges. Education is described as the core aim of maker spaces, with all cases offering workshops for educational institutions, from kindergarten children up to university students: “(…) Part of the task, which we set ourselves is of course to try to break barriers, especially for pupils who would never get the idea to study because they grow up in a social environment where they have no contact at all to universities. (…) social origin determines the educational career a lot here” (manager, Germany). Thus, making might have an impact on career choices as well as an empowering effect: “Something that is very remarkable is the fact that whatever happens in our lab, our advisory service is all about the empowerment of people, providing people with knowledge and tools that make them become more valuable, whatever they do. It is giving them knowledge, practical tools and approaches that strengthen their capabilities” (manager, Denmark). There are also numerous examples of maker innovations that tackle social challenges and enhance quality of life, from printed prostheses for people with disabilities, to mobile maker spaces in disaster zones for developing products to tackle immediate necessities (Fieldready.org).

3.8. Economic Sustainability Achievements Economic sustainability achievements, shown in Figure 17, are generally as high as social sustainability achievements with an achievement rate of 28%, but they have less impact overall because the percentage of initiatives for which these questions are relevant is 71% compared with 83% for the social sustainability questions. This leads to a tentative conclusion that for those fewer initiatives that have economic sustainability goals, they are achieving them relatively well, whereas there are more initiatives with social sustainability goals and all these are also achieving them relatively well. There are also interesting differences between each of the economic questions, as shown in Figure 17, with the improved sharing, collaboration and co-creation in an economic context question the most positive. This probably relates, as noted above, to the highly positive impact questions on collaborative learning and knowledge, and on individual user skills and competences, referred to in the peer and collaborative behavior pillar above. Also important are questions on improved science and research for the economy and improved innovation in the economy, showing the general value of maker initiatives to these issues. Performing least well are work and employment, although, it needs to be stressed, some achievements are being made in this context. As concluded earlier, the improved sharing, collaboration and co-creation question directly reflects the main activities in the current stage of maker development, i.e., focused somewhat more on experimenting and playing with the Sustainability 2018, 10, 2212 18 of 29

The case studies attest all these social sustainability achievements, especially in terms of education, training and innovations addressing social challenges. Education is described as the core aim of maker spaces, with all cases offering workshops for educational institutions, from kindergarten children up to university students: “( ... ) Part of the task, which we set ourselves is of course to try to break barriers, especially for pupils who would never get the idea to study because they grow up in a social environment where they have no contact at all to universities. ( ... ) social origin determines the educational career a lot here” (manager, Germany). Thus, making might have an impact on career choices as well as an empowering effect: “Something that is very remarkable is the fact that whatever happens in our lab, our advisory service is all about the empowerment of people, providing people with knowledge and tools that make them become more valuable, whatever they do. It is giving them knowledge, practical tools and approaches that strengthen their capabilities” (manager, Denmark). There are also numerous examples of maker innovations that tackle social challenges and enhance quality of life, from printed prostheses for people with disabilities, to mobile maker spaces in disaster zones for developing products to tackle immediate necessities (Fieldready.org).

3.8. Economic Sustainability Achievements Economic sustainability achievements, shown in Figure 17, are generally as high as social sustainability achievements with an achievement rate of 28%, but they have less impact overall because the percentage of initiatives for which these questions are relevant is 71% compared with 83% for the social sustainability questions. This leads to a tentative conclusion that for those fewer initiatives that have economic sustainability goals, they are achieving them relatively well, whereas there are more initiatives with social sustainability goals and all these are also achieving them relatively well. There are also interesting differences between each of the economic questions, as shown in Figure 17, withSustainability the improved 2018, 10, sharing,x FOR PEER collaboration REVIEW and co-creation in an economic context question the19 of most 29 positive. This probably relates, as noted above, to the highly positive impact questions on collaborative technology and with co-creative, collaborative and self- and group-learning activities. The other learning and knowledge, and on individual user skills and competences, referred to in the peer and questions reflect impacts that probably require a longer time horizon and changes to more collaborative behavior pillar above. established institutional structures and activities.

Figure 17. Economic sustainability achievements and relevance: by gender. Figure 17. Economic sustainability achievements and relevance: by gender. There are only minor gender differences shown in Figure 17, with the most prominent being greaterAlso male important economic are questionssustainability on improvedachievements science in innovation and research for the for theeconomy, economy but andslightly improved less innovationthan females in the on economy, sharing, collaboration showing the and general co-creation. value of maker initiatives to these issues. Performing In examining scale differences, Figure 18 shows a very strong positive correlation between increasing scale and increasing sustainability achievements across all four issues, again with the usual flip between ecosystems and networks. Thus, both in terms of social and economic sustainability achievements, ecosystems are clearly the most successful scale, followed by networks and then the smaller scales progressively performing less well. For both gender and scale, relevance scores closely mirror achievement scores with quite large gaps across all four issues. The case studies show that economic sustainability is mainly generated through easy prototyping and the drive for innovation, as well as impacts on the labour force. Using digital fabrication tools, prototypes can be easily developed and ideas tested before needing substantial funding: “I think they [FabLabs] are a kind of nucleus for products in general, because you can develop your ideas with no risk. If you have an idea, you just come here and try it out. If you figure out that it did not work, then it just does not work, but you did not buy a laser cutter for €30,000 before trying. No start-up business could afford that” (maker, Austria). Thus, products find their way to the market faster and ideas can be tested before searching for investment, showing that making is a driving force for innovation. Indeed, many start-up companies have their roots in the maker movement, whilst impact on the labour force comes from local job creation and up-skilling the work force. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2212 19 of 29 least well are work and employment, although, it needs to be stressed, some achievements are being made in this context. As concluded earlier, the improved sharing, collaboration and co-creation question directly reflects the main activities in the current stage of maker development, i.e., focused somewhat more on experimenting and playing with the technology and with co-creative, collaborative and self- and group-learning activities. The other questions reflect impacts that probably require a longer time horizon and changes to more established institutional structures and activities. There are only minor gender differences shown in Figure 17, with the most prominent being greater male economic sustainability achievements in innovation for the economy, but slightly less than females on sharing, collaboration and co-creation. In examining scale differences, Figure 18 shows a very strong positive correlation between increasing scale and increasing sustainability achievements across all four issues, again with the usual flip between ecosystems and networks. Thus, both in terms of social and economic sustainability achievements, ecosystems are clearly the most successful scale, followed by networks and then the smaller scales progressively performing less well. For both gender and scale, relevance scores closely mirror achievement scores with quite large gaps across all four issues. The case studies show that economic sustainability is mainly generated through easy prototyping and the drive for innovation, as well as impacts on the labour force. Using digital fabrication tools, prototypes can be easily developed and ideas tested before needing substantial funding: “I think they [FabLabs] are a kind of nucleus for products in general, because you can develop your ideas with no risk. If you have an idea, you just come here and try it out. If you figure out that it did not work, then it just does not work, but you did not buy a laser cutter for €30,000 before trying. No start-up business could afford that” (maker, Austria). Thus, products find their way to the market faster and ideas can be tested before searching for investment, showing that making is a driving force for innovation. Indeed, many start-up companies have their roots in the maker movement, whilst impact on the labour force comes from local job creation and up-skilling the work force. Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 29

Figure 18. Economic sustainability achievements and relevance: by scale. Figure 18. Economic sustainability achievements and relevance: by scale. 3.9. Environmental Sustainability Achievements 3.9. Environmental Sustainability Achievements Compared with both social and economic sustainability achievements, environmental Compared with both social and economic sustainability achievements, environmental sustainability achievements are overall somewhat less impressive, with an achievement rate of only sustainability achievements are overall somewhat less impressive, with an achievement rate of 15%, indicating both the overall lack of ambition in this regard as well perhaps the difficulty for only 15%, indicating both the overall lack of ambition in this regard as well perhaps the difﬁculty for makers in undertaking environmental evaluations. However, there are some quite marked differences between individual environmental questions, as revealed in Figure 19.

Figure 19. Environmental sustainability achievements and relevance: by gender.

More sustainable consumption shows the greatest success in Figure 19, perhaps related to the strong material re-use and high resource use efficiency of makers. Although collectively sustainability achievements are lower than overall social and economic achievements, the specific issue of sustainable consumption is achieving almost as high sustainability impacts as the highest social and economic issues. Circular economy sustainability impacts are also relatively good although less than sustainable consumption, even though the two relate, probably because the former are more likely to be part of broader industrial systems into which only few makers are currently incorporated. In contrast to these two, sustainability achievements related to decreased greenhouse gas emissions and of other types of pollution, as well as of improved bio-diversity, are Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 29

Figure 18. Economic sustainability achievements and relevance: by scale.

3.9. Environmental Sustainability Achievements

SustainabilityCompared2018, 10 , with 2212 both social and economic sustainability achievements, environmental20 of 29 sustainability achievements are overall somewhat less impressive, with an achievement rate of only 15%, indicating both the overall lack of ambition in this regard as well perhaps the difficulty for makers in in undertaking undertaking environmental environmental evaluations. evaluations. However, However, there are there some are quite some marked quite differences marked betweendifferences individual between environmentalindividual environmental questions, as questions, revealed inas Figurerevealed 19 .in Figure 19.

Figure 19. Environmental sustainability achievements and relevance: by gender. Figure 19. Environmental sustainability achievements and relevance: by gender. More sustainable consumption shows the greatest success in Figure 19, perhaps related to the strongMore material sustainable re-use consumption and high shows resource the greatestuse efficiency success ofin Figure makers. 19 , Although perhaps related collectively to the strongsustainability material achievements re-use and high are resource lower than use efficiencyoverall social of makers. and economic Although achievements, collectively sustainability the specific achievementsissue of sustainable are lower consumption than overall is social achieving and economic almost as achievements, high sustainability the specific impacts issue as of the sustainable highest consumptionsocial and economic is achieving issues. almost Circular as high economy sustainability sustainability impacts as impacts the highest are a sociallso relatively and economic good issues.although Circular less than economy sustainable sustainability consumption, impacts are even also though relatively the good two although relate, probably less than because sustainable the consumption,former are more even likely though to be the part two of relate, broader probably industrial because systems the former into which are more only likely few makers to be part are ofcurrently broader incorporated. industrial systems In contrast into which to these only two few, sustainability makers are currently achievements incorporated. related toIn decreased contrast togreenhousethese two gas, sustainability emissions and achievements of other types related of pollution, to decreased as well greenhouse as of improved gas emissionsbio-diversity, and are of other types of pollution, as well as of improved bio-diversity, are only marginally positive, perhaps indicating the difficulties for makers in understanding in practice how they might contribute directly to these goals. These results perhaps reveal a weakness in the methodology here, as there are two issues which perform well and on a par with many social and economic impacts, but these are coupled with three which perform much less well, thereby significantly reducing the average achievement of environmental sustainability. Although decisions about the issues to address have been derived from desk research and widespread consultation with makers, the actual choice can obviously affect the average result. Clearly, there are some quite good environmental sustainability achievements arising from maker initiatives shown by these results. Distinctions in environmental sustainability achievements related to gender are also seen in Figure 19 with females being clearly more successful than males in relation to sustainable consumption and the circular economy, and marginally less successful in terms of decreased pollution, the latter perhaps being a more technically specialist issue. Looking at scale differences, Figure 20 shows that there is again, in general terms, a clear correlation between increasing scale and impact. However, in relation to environmental as opposed to social and economic sustainability achievements, networks do perform better than ecosystems, but also partnerships perform better than communities. This seems to reinforce the evidence above that networks and partnerships are both more focused on, and more specialist in, more challenging technical and commercial issues. Environmental challenges are perhaps a good example of this, being able to exploit either small strong ties as in partnerships, as well as perhaps looser although very wide -ranging ties as with networks. It is also noteworthy that singles do not appear in Figure 20 because Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 29 only marginally positive, perhaps indicating the difficulties for makers in understanding in practice how they might contribute directly to these goals. These results perhaps reveal a weakness in the methodology here, as there are two issues which perform well and on a par with many social and economic impacts, but these are coupled with three which perform much less well, thereby significantly reducing the average achievement of environmental sustainability. Although decisions about the issues to address have been derived from desk research and widespread consultation with makers, the actual choice can obviously affect the average result. Clearly, there are some quite good environmental sustainability achievements arising from maker initiatives shown by these results. Distinctions in environmental sustainability achievements related to gender are also seen in Figure 19 with females being clearly more successful than males in relation to sustainable consumption and the circular economy, and marginally less successful in terms of decreased pollution, the latter perhaps being a more technically specialist issue. Looking at scale differences, Figure 20 shows that there is again, in general terms, a clear correlation between increasing scale and impact. However, in relation to environmental as opposed to social and economic sustainability achievements, networks do perform better than ecosystems, but also partnerships perform better than communities. This seems to reinforce the evidence above that networks and partnerships are both more focused on, and more specialist in, more challenging technicalSustainability and2018 , commercial10, 2212 issues. Environmental challenges are perhaps a good example of21 this, of 29 being able to exploit either small strong ties as in partnerships, as well as perhaps looser although very wide -ranging ties as with networks. It is also noteworthy that singles do not appear in Figure 20none because of the fivenone interviewed of the five could interviewed answer could the environmental answer the environmental questions, unlike questions, all interviewees unlike all at intervieweesother scales and at other unlike scales all the and other unlike questions all the other that they questions did respond that they to. did respond to.

Figure 20. Environmental sustainability achievements and relevance: by scale. Figure 20. Environmental sustainability achievements and relevance: by scale.

Some of the case studies addressed environmental challenges with maker inventions (e.g., a waterSome purification of the case tool studies using addressed solar environmental energy, an energychallenges-harvesting with maker flower inventions-pot, etc. (e.g.,), a others water puriﬁcationexperimented tool with using environmentally solar energy, an friendly energy-harvesting materials ﬂower-pot,(e.g., mushroom etc.), others-based experimented textiles replacing with leather)environmentally or developed friendly substitute materials parts. (e.g., While mushroom-based not all makers textiles in the replacing cases were leather) environmentally or developed conscious,substitute parts.there were While many not all examples makers inof themakers cases keen were on environmentally up-cycling, re-cycling conscious, or repairing there were things many in theirexamples maker of space makers [19 keen]. on up-cycling, re-cycling or repairing things in their maker space [19]. 4. Discussion 4. Discussion There are a number of general discussion points arising from the results and analysis reported There are a number of general discussion points arising from the results and analysis reported above, both from the 42 maker initiatives investigated in Barcelona, and from the ten case studies above, both from the 42 maker initiatives investigated in Barcelona, and from the ten case studies drawn from across Europe, most of which appear to be complementary. These are grouped under drawn from across Europe, most of which appear to be complementary. These are grouped under four headings: technology; ambitions and achievements by analytical pillar; the importance of gender; and the importance of scale. In addition, links are drawn to some wider issues of sustainability and to the ongoing development of the maker movement in this context.

4.1. Technology The technology types used cover the whole range: 3D printing, modeling, robotics, Internet of Things (IoT), software development, telecommunications and electronics. It is unsurprising that 3D printing technologies are the most common, given that these are, by and large, what deﬁnes who makers are. However, a large number of other technologies are also used, by far the majority of which are not speciﬁcally offered to or designed for makers. In terms of the activities for which the technology is used, there is strong emphasis on sharing, collaboration, learning and interaction: These are more typical of the peer and collaborative behaviors pillar, whilst the least used categories are organization and communication that are more indicative of organization and governance pillar activities. This shows that makers are generally still at a quite informal, less organised stage, more concerned with starting up and exploring possibilities, which the peer and collaborative behaviors pillar tends to represent. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2212 22 of 29

4.2. Ambitions and Achievements In terms of the ambitions of maker initiatives, education and research are the most important, followed by social and technical. Of less importance are environmental ambitions and the least important are commercial ambitions. These priorities tend to reflect some of the main reasons for starting a maker initiative, i.e., to provide skills upgrading for both vocational and non-vocational purposes often in educational institutions, and to serve social and sometimes inclusion goals. Technical ambitions are also an intrinsic part of this given the new and innovative nature of the technologies being used which tend to attract young people, especially males, to explore the new possibilities. Similar to ambitions, the achievements actually being delivered are generally higher for the peer and collaborative behaviors pillar than the organization and governance pillar, again perhaps underlining the still relatively early stage of development of many maker initiatives. This result is further underpinned by the fact that the overall focus of achievements tends to be on the more bottom-up and sometimes informal individual aspects of the peer and collaborative behaviors pillar (like user skills and motivation, sharing and learning) than on the more top-down and formal organizational aspects (like management, decision-making, impact on wider institutional norms, including policies and regulation) of the organization and governance pillar. Looking at the social sustainability impacts achieved, improved human capital appears to be the most positive in the social context, probably related to the questions on collaborative learning and knowledge, and on individual user skills and competences, referred to in the peer and collaborative behaviors pillar above. In terms of economic sustainability impacts, improved sharing, collaboration and co-creation in an economic context are the most positive. Also important are questions on improved science and research for the economy and improved innovation in the economy. Fewer impacts are, however, currently being achieved in relation to improved work and employment, perhaps because these tend to require achievements over the longer term. The most important environmental sustainability impacts are more sustainable consumption and circular economy impacts, perhaps related to the strong material re-use and high resource use efficiency of makers. In contrast to these two, impacts related to decreased greenhouse gas emissions and of other types of pollution, as well as of improved bio-diversity, are only marginally positive, perhaps indicating the difficulties in understanding in practice how makers can contribute directly to these goals. In general for the overall societal sustainability impacts pillar, there are both good social and economic sustainability achievements, but there are many more of the former that are rated as relevant, so the overall social sustainability impact is greater. Environmental sustainability impacts are collectively rated as less relevant, perhaps because they are more difficult to understand and engage with, although there are some very good positive environmental sustainability results.

4.3. The Importance of Gender Most maker initiatives are led by young males which is quite similar to the situation seen in the majority of technology-based start-ups and new enterprises. However, as summarized below, females generally achieve better results than males. In terms of technology use, males and females generally use the same technologies to a similar extent. However, females tend to use a wider range of technologies and to be less specialized in their technology use. Females are also more likely to use more interactive and collaborative tools and be leading maker initiatives at larger scales, i.e., networking and ecosystems, than males (see below), where such technology uses are most relevant. By contrast, males are marginally more likely to be using the technology for commercial purposes, and to be much more focused on technical ambitions than females, whilst the latter are somewhat more prone to have social ambitions than males. In relation to the organization and governance pillar, females report both greater achievements and greater relevance on gender balance compared to males, though this remains on the low side for both. Females also report greater achievements on openness and sharing, whilst males feel they Sustainability 2018, 10, 2212 23 of 29 are achieving a little more on changing prevailing norms, policies and regulations, on their long-term visions and on financial sustainability. In terms of the peer and collaborative behavior pillar, females report much higher aspirations (given by their relevance scores), and are in practice achieving much more on user motivation, user skills and collaborative learning, compared to males. Overall, females have a higher focus on social and educational issues, on openness and sharing, skills and quality of life, whilst males focus more on technology, industry/economy innovation and changing regulations, norms, etc. Female-led initiatives are having much greater success than males in delivering social sustainability impacts, particularly in relation to social inclusion and cohesion, quality of life and changing social opinions and behaviors. On the other hand, there are greater male achievements in economic sustainability related industry and economy innovation, but slightly less than females on sharing, collaboration and co-creation in an economic context. In the environmental sustainability impact context, females are also more successful than males in relation to sustainable consumption and the circular economy. However, females are marginally less successful than males in terms of decreased pollution, the latter perhaps being a more technically specialist issue. The maker initiatives that females and males lead seem to be operating at quite different scales. Females are much more likely to work at the larger scales of ecosystems and networks, although they are also well represented at the community and less so at single scales. Males, in contrast, are much more likely to quickly move from the single stage to partnering, which seems to be their dominant modus operandi, although they are also well represented in communities and less so in ecosystems. The overall conclusion is that female-led maker initiatives are achieving more, and are thus generally more successful, than male-led initiatives. The reasons for this are difficult to unravel, especially as expectations would point to the opposite in such a male dominated context. Clearly many females can bring unique skills and insights which complement male ones. However, a contributing factor might be that only high caliber females lead maker initiatives, precisely because of the barriers against them, whilst the range of male leaders is much wider so their average level of skill, determination and ambition may be lower, leading to fewer achievements overall. Another reason might be that females have to be more ambitious and expert from the outset in this male-dominated field. Whatever the reasons, females are in most cases underrepresented in most maker initiatives. To change this, there is a need to actively promote a culture that promotes diversity (not only females, but also other groups which tend to be left out, such as the elderly) and to install a respectful and supportive culture in maker spaces [17].

4.4. The Importance of Scale Looking at each of the ﬁve scales in turn (see Figure4), single/individual initiatives seem to be quite diverse in their technology use, their ambitions and achievements, compared to the four other scales each of which do seem to demonstrate distinct characteristics. Perhaps this is the case given that singles can be highly diverse, but possibly also because their sample size for this analysis is the smallest at only ﬁve initiatives. Maker initiatives characterized as partnering tend to use 3D printing and modeling technologies more than other scales, and electronics, robotics and IoT less. Partnerships are also more likely to be more focused and specialized in their activities, especially in relation to commercial and environmental ambitions and achievements, compared to the larger scales of community, ecosystems and networks. Partnering is thus perhaps better able to provide the close bonding and trusting relationships necessary for makers to set up good commercial relationships in the maker context than are other scales. By contrast to partnering, communities tend, as suspected, to consist mainly of single, though sometimes several, maker initiatives having very close relationships with their users. These relationships are mainly non-commercial, and the overall ambitions and achievements of communities are also more focused on social sustainability rather than economic sustainability impacts. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2212 24 of 29

Moving to ecosystems and networks, these larger scale initiatives seem almost always to achieve much bigger impacts than smaller scale initiatives. However, ecosystems outperform networks in terms of the peer and collaborative behavior pillar as well as in social sustainability and economic sustainability, perhaps because they consist of well functioning local or regional clusters of complementary and diverse actors. Networks, however, outperform ecosystems in terms of the organization and governance pillar and environmental sustainability, possibly because they sometimes have an even large scale and much learning between similar initiatives given the need to challenge many more incumbents, infrastructures and norms than the peer and collaborative behavior pillar, or social and economic sustainability, at least in the early stages of maker development. Even though ecosystems are not necessarily at the largest potential scale, they can be thought of as exhibiting the most intricate, comprehensive and developed set of relationships between different, but complementary, actors at a relatively large scale. Such relationships are typically at the heart of an innovative milieu. When successful, ecosystems are therefore likely to be very ambitious and to see all ambitions as highly relevant. Many of the observations concerning ecosystems also hold, though to a slightly lesser extent, for networks, which are likely to be less developed than ecosystems but at a larger scale. It is also relevant to note that the two largest scales of ecosystems and networks tend to be more “all-round” in their use of technology, which again is perhaps not surprising as they involve many more actors and are generally more complex and comprehensive in the range of their activities. The overall conclusion regarding the scale of maker initiatives is that the scale differentiation proposed in Figure4 is strongly supported empirically, and that large scales almost always do better in terms of ambition, achievement and relevance than smaller scales. The largest scales also have the smallest gaps between achievements and ambitions given they are generally more successful. Scales thus provide a robust and empirically valid framework for analysis. Thus, to maximise the successful operation and impacts of maker initiatives, it is clear that ecosystems and networks, both formal and informal, should be supported by policymakers and strategies at different levels and sectors. This does not mean that the smaller scales are not important nor valuable, as they provide good routes into making and can achieve much on their own, but encouraging and linking them towards greater and larger scale awareness and cooperation can provide win-wins all round.

4.5. Development of the Maker Movement As highlighted in this discussion, the current status of maker development seems still to be at an early stage with a lot of enthusiastic and innovative activity. They are just starting to make significant progress on more formal internal organization and management and becoming embedded in wider governance and institutional contexts, whilst having important, though not yet large scale, social, economic and environmental sustainability impacts on wider society. Given this, it is important that policy focuses on nurturing the maker movement to help it better achieve its potential across the wide spectrum of social, cultural, economic and environmental sustainability benefits it can clearly deliver. The increasingly important links with mainstream industry, as much of this moves towards distributed manufacturing business models, is also extremely important. It is also quite clear from the discussion above that, like gender, scale is a very important determinant of the success and sustainability impacts maker initiatives are likely to have. The maker movement started in garages, basements and workshops, set up “maker-spaces”, joined and often became indistinguishable from “hacker-spaces” and formed communities on the web. They have become platforms for learning, sharing and collaboration. Many observers thus point to the social sustainability of making, increasing the social cohesion, inclusion, wellbeing, and quality of life of those it engages. They see its potential to change behaviors towards more sustainable lifestyles. At the same time, they see possibilities for transformations in economic sustainability through new skills and jobs, innovations in products, materials and business models, for example where digital Sustainability 2018, 10, 2212 25 of 29 designs for physical products are shared and then used or extended by third parties. This culture of experimentation is a powerful driver for innovations leading to social, economic and environmental sustainability [1,2,7,11,20]. Typically, products go through several design iterations reusing local material feedstocks, each adding new features which better suit specific needs as makers increase their understanding of the communities they work with. For example, a basic water purifier using solar energy that can be adapted with reusable parts made of biologically degradable materials to cater for wear and tear [19,21]. The most prominent current manifestation of the maker movement are Fab Labs which have emerged as spaces for democratizing digital fabrication. Here people learn how to design and make with tools and machines that work with the interactions of ICT, physical and biological processes and materials [22]. The maker movement and the Fab Lab network is now being envisaged and extended at city scale and networked globally for the purpose of ensuring that Industry 4.0 will be efficient, effective, as well as socially and environmentally sustainable. According to the Fab City whitepaper [23], cities should rapidly move towards being locally productive and self-sufficient whilst globally connected. (See Figure 21) The 18 members of the global Fab City network are committed to moving from the current linear industrial production model, which imports raw materials and products and exports waste and pollution, towards a spiral innovation ecosystem in which energy and materials flow locally within cities, whilst information and data (including on how things are made) circulate globally. It is claimed that merging the bottom-up maker movement with distributed manufacturing at a larger scale will result in value and supply chains moving away from centralized mass production towards decentralized distributed manufacturing and mass customization [1–4]. This would profoundly impact the future of manufacturing and our physical world, as well as of work, behavior, local and city development, not to mention global politics. Perhaps of even greater significance will be the potential impact on the environment and sustainability more generally. If in the future the only economically traded commodities over large distances consist of (i) talent (high caliber skilled people), (ii) raw materials and energy inputs in cases where their occurrences are still geographically fixed, and (iii) digital algorithms, this will have a hugely beneficial environmental impact as the number of physical goods transported over even medium distances shrinks. The social, economic and environmentally sustainable potential of making is thus of strategic importance. There is also clear and important potential for maker initiatives, particularly when linking with larger scale industry, to make significant contributions to promoting and fully exploiting the sustainability benefits of the circular economy. While there are about 114 different definitions of circular economy [24], there is agreement that the term means to reduce, reuse and recycle the resources in the process of production, transportation and consumption. The circular economy is perceived in contrast to the linear and prevailing model of “take, make and dispose” associated with creating huge amounts of waste. According to Ghisellini et al., there are three main implementation levels of the circular economy: the macro city level, the meso eco-industrial parks level, and the micro single company level [25]. In light of the Fab City discussion, to this could perhaps be added a super-macro level above cities, i.e., regionally, nationally and globally across borders. Evidence for this comes from Bragdon [26], as it is clear that, at least at this stage of development, the most successful circular economy examples are multi-national companies like Unilver simply because they cover so many different sectors ranging across countries that they are able to use the “waste” from one sector as an input to a completely different sector. Thus their circular economy maneuverability is much greater. Single city or single sector circular economies, although very important, tend to be somewhat constrained because they have fewer options for inputting their “waste” elsewhere. Maximizing synergies and links between different sectors is clearly the way to go to optimize the benefits of the circular economy. The maker movement, which as outlined above started bottom-up at a small scale but is now having its greatest sustainability impacts at ever larger scales (described above in terms of ecosystems and networks), is starting to impact the industrial scales through Fab Cities and similar developments. Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 26 of 29

creating huge amounts of waste. According to Ghisellini et al., there are three main implementation Sustainabilitylevels of the2018 circular, 10, 2212 economy: the macro city level, the meso eco-industrial parks level, and26 of the 29 micro single company level [25]. In light of the Fab City discussion, to this could perhaps be added a super-macro level above cities, i.e., regionally, nationally and globally across borders. Evidence for Itsthis implications comes from are Bragdon prominent [26], in as the it Europeanis clear that, Commission’s at least at Factory this stage 4.0 of policy developmen (https://ec.europa.t, the most eu/digital-single-market/en/blog/factories-40-future-european-manufacturingsuccessful circular economy examples are multi-national companies like Unilver) as well simply as in because parallel nationalthey cover initiatives so many in different Germany sectors and Denmark ranging [4 across]. It is alsocountries being driventhat they by industryare able itselfto use (as the explained ‘waste’ byfrom Olivier one Scalabre, sector as a member an input of The to Boston a completely Consulting differ Group’sent sector. Industrial Thus Goods their practice, circular focusing economy on themaneuverability shift from centralized is much to greater. distributed Single manufacturing city or single in multiple sector circular sectors, sucheconomies, as railway, although energy very and utility,important, consumer tend toelectronics, be somewhat and automotive: constrained https://www.bcg.com/en-nor/about/people/experts/ because they have fewer options for inputting their olivier-scalabre.aspx‘waste’ elsewhere. Maximi), andzing not leastsynergies by the and World links Economic between Forum’sdifferent strategicsectors is research, clearly the analysis way to and go policyto optimize proposals the benefits [6]. of the circular economy.

Figure 21. The Fab City concept [23].].

5. ConclusionsThe maker movement, which as outlined above started bottom-up at a small scale but is now having its greatest sustainability impacts at ever larger scales (described above in terms of ecosystemsThe jury and is outnetworks), on whether is starting the maker to impact movement the industrial will be midwife scales tothrough the next Fab industrial Cities and revolution similar bydevelopments. moving from Its centralized implications to decentralizedare prominent distributed in the European manufacturing, Commission’s as claimed Factory for 4.0 example policy by(https://ec.europa.eu/digital Anderson [1] and by Olivier-single Scalabre-market/en/blog/factories more recently (See-40 above).-future-european The World-manufacturing Economic Forum) as itselfwell as is, inhowever, parallel presenting national initiatives a range of in views. Germany On the and one Denmark hand, it [ argues4]. It is that also indeed being the driven scaling by upindustry of the itself maker (as movement, explained forby exampleOlivier Scalabre, by becoming a member part of of Fab The City Boston ecosystems, Consulting is leading Group’s to sustainabilityIndustrial Goods through practice, resilience focusing and circularity—arguably on the shift from centralized the two most to criticaldistributed features manufacturing of future-proof in societies.multiple Oversectors, the such last decade as railway, the movement energy and has morphed utility, consumer into a global electronics, ecosystem and for prototypingautomotive: software-hardwarehttps://www.bcg.com/en integration,-nor/about/people/experts/olivier leading to on-site manufacturing-scalabre.aspx) becoming an, and effective not way least of reducing by the carbonWorld Economic footprint. Forum’s In the process, strategic the research, maker analysis movement and through policy proposals its humble [6]. Fab Lab beginnings is helping to strategically re-generate marginalized areas through progressive re-industrialization [27]. On5. Conclusions the other hand is the more balanced view that 3D-printing will not replace mass manufacturing but rather supplement it. Even in the midterm, a mix of technologies and supply chains will be The jury is out on whether the maker movement will be midwife to the next industrial needed. 3D-printing generates significant value in the field of highly personalized goods and to revolution by moving from centralized to decentralized distributed manufacturing, as claimed for meet demand for smaller quantities at affordable prices. However, it will still be too expensive example by Anderson [1] and by Olivier Scalabre more recently (See above). The World Economic and cumbersome to meet the demands for very cheap standardized products and, in the context Forum itself is, however, presenting a range of views. On the one hand, it argues that indeed the of growing world trade, standardization is critical to keep prices low as well as keep quality and scaling up of the maker movement, for example by becoming part of Fab City ecosystems, is leading reliability up. Thus, more likely is that manufacturing develops in two phases: the base products will be mass-manufactured, while finalization and personalization will happen in or close to the market, Sustainability 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 27 of 29 to sustainability through resilience and circularity—arguably the two most critical features of future-proof societies. Over the last decade the movement has morphed into a global ecosystem for prototyping software-hardware integration, leading to on-site manufacturing becoming an effective way of reducing carbon footprint. In the process, the maker movement through its humble Fab Lab beginnings is helping to strategically re-generate marginalized areas through progressive re-industrialization [27]. On the other hand is the more balanced view that 3D-printing will not replace mass manufacturing but rather supplement it. Even in the midterm, a mix of technologies and supply chains will be needed. 3D-printing generates significant value in the field of highly personalized goods and to meet demand for smaller quantities at affordable prices. However, it will still be too expensive and cumbersome to meet the demands for very cheap standardized products Sustainabilityand, in the2018 context, 10, 2212 of growing world trade, standardization is critical to keep prices low as well27 of as 29 keep quality and reliability up. Thus, more likely is that manufacturing develops in two phases: the base products will be mass-manufactured, while finalization and personalization will happen in or bothclose geographicallyto the market, both and culturallygeographically [28]. Some and culturally of these tensions, [28]. Some challenges of these andtensions, indeed challenges opportunities and areindeed illustrated opportunities in Figure are 22illustrated. This attempts in Figure to 22. capture This attempts and summarize to capture much and ofsummarize the evidence much and of discussionthe evidence in and this paperdiscussion as to howin this ICT paper is being as to used how as ICT the is new being “general used as purpose the new technology” ‘general purposeto help “jumptechnology’ the sustainability to help ‘jump gap” the insustainability how goods gap’ are madein how between goods are the made bottom-up, between small the scalebottom maker-up, movementsmall scale andmaker the movement larger city- and and the global-scales larger city- of and Industry global- 4.0.scales of Industry 4.0

Figure 22. Jumping the sustainability gap. Figure 22. Jumping the sustainability gap. In conclusion and with feet once again firmly back in the present, it can be confidently stated that theIn conclusionmaker movement and with today feet is once driven again more firmly and backmore in at the ecosystem present, and it can network be confidently level with stated new thatplatforms, the maker service movement providers today and istheir driven increasingly more and strong more atintegration ecosystem into and the network value chains level with of larger new platforms,companies, service many providers of which and are their moving increasingly towards strong a distributed integration manufacturing into the value business chains of m largerodel. companies,However, many many makers of which remain are moving as hobbyists, towards enthusiasts a distributed or manufacturing students and are business often amateurs, model. However, whilst manystill being makers wellsprings remain asof hobbyists,innovation, enthusiasts creating new or studentsproducts and and are producing often amateurs, value in whilst the community, still being wellspringsand some become of innovation, entrepreneurs creating and new launch products start-up and comp producinganies. Yet, value there in the remains community, a significant and some gap becomebetween entrepreneurs‘making’, on the and one launch hand, start-up and social companies. and sustainable Yet, there innovation remains a significanton the other. gap Making between is “making”,often still dominated on the one by hand, the latest and social gadgets, and technical sustainable prowess innovation and playful on the experimentation other. Making is which often stillare dominatedof strategic byimportance the latest for gadgets, innovation. technical However, prowess social and playfuland sustainable experimentation innovations which require are of stronger strategic importanceconnections for with innovation. communities However, that social have andbeen sustainable active—often innovations for decades require—improving stronger connections the living withconditions communities of marginalized that have people, been active—often protecting the for environment decades—improving or caring the for living older conditions generations. of marginalizedMuch of the analysis people, protectingand many theof the environment cases explored or caring by MAKE for older-IT are generations. attempting Much to bridge of the this analysis gap, andbut developments many of the cases for the explored most part by MAKE-IT are still atare a comparatively attempting to bridgeearly stage. this gap, but developments for the most part are still at a comparatively early stage.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.M., M.N.S. and E.U.; Data curation, J.M. and S.D.; Formal analysis, J.M., M.N.S. and E.U.; Investigation, J.M., M.N.S. and E.U.; Methodology, J.M., M.N.S., S.D., E.U. and C.V.; Validation, J.M.; Visualization, J.M.; Writing—original draft, J.M., E.U. and C.V.; Writing—review & editing, J.M., E.U. and C.V. Funding: This research was funded by European Commission, grant number MAKE-IT –REP-688241-2. Acknowledgments: Software and technical support: Orfeas K. Katsikis (Danish Technological Institute) and Massimo Menichinelli (The Institute for Advanced Architecture of Catalonia and Fab Lab Barcelona). Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂicts of interest. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2212 28 of 29

References

1. Anderson, C. Makers: The New Industrial Revolution; Random House Business Books: New York, NY, USA, 2012. 2. Rifkin, J. The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, the Collaborative Commons, and the Eclipse of Capitalism; Palgrave Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 2014. 3. Gershenfeld, N. How to make almost anything: The digital fabrication revolution. Foreign Aff. 2012, 91, 43–56. 4. Gershenfeld, N. Designing Reality: How to Survive and Thrive in the Third Digital Revolution; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 2017. 5. Charney, D. The Cultural Role(s) of Maker Spaces—Research in Progress; FROM-NOW-ON: London, UK, September 2016; Available online: www.fromnowon.co.uk (accessed on 25 November 2017). 6. Schwab, K. The Fourth Industrial Revolution; World Economic Forum, Penquin Random House: New York, NY, USA, 2016. 7. McAfee, A.; Brynjolfsson, E. Machine Platform Crowd: Harnessing Our Digital Future; W.W. Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2017. 8. Millard, J. Networks, communities and value chains in digital social innovation for social services. In ICT-Enabled Social Innovation for the European Social Model: A Multi-Disciplinary Reﬂection and Future Perspectives; Davide, F., Misuraca, G., Eds.; Internet Science, Human-Computer Interaction and Socio-Economics, IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018. 9. Sestini, S. Collective awareness platforms: Engines for sustainability and ethics. IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 2012, 31, 54–62. [CrossRef] 10. Fourie, I.; Meyer, A. What to make of maker spaces: Tools and DIY only or is there an interconnected information resource space? In Library Hi Tech 33/4; University of Pretoria: Pretoria, South Africa; Emerald Group Publishing Inc.: Bingley, UK, 2015. 11. Millard, J. Towards Sustainable and Resilient Societies: Innovation and Interconnectivity for Social Development; Prepared as a Note by the Secretariat for the United Nations 56th Commission for Social Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2018; Available online: http://undocs.org/E/CN.5/2018/5 (accessed on 25 November 2017). 12. Nathan, M.; Pratt, A.; Rincon-Aznar, A. Creative Economy Employment in the EU and the UK: A Comparative Analysis; Nesta: London, UK, December 2015; Available online: https://www.nesta.org.uk/report/creative- economy-employment-in-the-eu-and-uk-a-comparative-analysis (accessed on 25 November 2017). 13. Fujiwara, D.; Dolan, P.; Lawton, R. Creative Occupations and Subjective Wellbeing; Nesta: London, UK, 2015; Available online: http://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/creative-occupations-and-subjective-wellbeing (accessed on 25 November 2017). 14. Bureau of European Policy Advisers (BEPA). Empowering People, Driving Change. Social Innovation in the European Union; European Union: Luxembourg, 2010. 15. Hochgerner, J. Social innovation: The novel creation, variation or new combination of social practices. In Invention, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship; Carayannis, E.G., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013. 16. Millard, J.; Holtgrewe, U.; Hochgerner, J. Objectives: Social Demands, Societal Challenges and Systemic Change Addressed. In Towards a General Theory and Typology of Social Innovation; Deliverable D1.6 of the SI-DRIVE Project; Technical University of Dortmund: Dortmund, Germany, December 2017; Available online: https://www.si-drive.eu (accessed on 25 November 2017). 17. Voigt, C.; Unterfrauner, E.; Stelzer, R. Diversity in FabLabs: Culture, Role Models and the Gendering of Making. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference, INSCI, Thessaloniki, Greece, 22–24 November 2017; Kompatsiaris, I., Cave, J., Satsiou, A., Georg, C., Passani, A., Kontopoulos, D., McMillan, D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 52–68. 18. Kanter, R.M. Men and Women of the Corporation; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1997. 19. Unterfrauner, E.; Shao, J.; Hofer, M.; Fabian, C. The $environmental value and impact of the Maker movement: Insights from a cross-case analysis of European maker initiatives. J. Clean. Prod. 2018. under review. 20. Buxmann, P.; Hinz, O. Business & Information Systems Engineering; Springer: Basel, Switzerland; Fachmedien Wiesbaden: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2013. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2212 29 of 29

21. Unterfrauner, E.; Voigt, C. Makers’ ambitions to do socially valuable things. Des. J. 2017, 20, 3317–3325. [CrossRef] 22. Menichinelli, M. La dimension économique. In La Révolution est en Marche; Menichinelli, M., Ed.; Editions Pyramyd: Paris, France, 2015. 23. Fab City Global Initiative. Fab City Whitepaper: Locally Productive, Globally Connected Self-Sufﬁcient Cities; Fab City Global Initiative: Barcelona, Spain, 2016; Available online: http://fab.city/whitepaper.pdf (accessed on 25 November 2017). 24. Kirchherr, J.; Reike, D.; Hekkert, M. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 deﬁnitions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 127, 221–232. [CrossRef] 25. Ghisellini, P.; Cialani, C.; Ulgiati, S. A review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 114, 11–32. [CrossRef] 26. Bragon, J.H. Companies that Mimic Life: Leaders of the Emerging Corporate Renaissance; Greenleaf Publishing Limited: Saltaire, UK, 2016. 27. Ermacora, T. Why Maker Spaces Could Be the Secret to Making Smart Cities Smart; World Economic Forum: Cologny, Switzerland, 2018; Available online: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/03/makerspaces- smart-sustainable-cities-thomas-ermacora/ (accessed on 25 November 2017). 28. Lehmacher, W.; Schwemmer, M. 3D-Printing Might Not Kill Global Trade after All; World Economic Forum: Cologny, Switzerland, 2017; Available online: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/10/3d-printing- global-trade-supply-chains/ (accessed on 25 November 2017).

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).