AdNat - Product Design Project

AdNat | Introduction

Design Project

Charlotte McCarthy

1

Charlotte McCarthy

2

AdNat | Contents

Contents

Chapter 1 Research Paper

Chapter 2 Development: Biomaterial

Chapter 3 Development: Skink Shelter

Chapter 4 Outcome: AdNat Biomaterial

Chapter 5 Outcome: Skink Shelters

Chapter 6 Outcome: Maker’s Manual

Chapter 7 Appendices

7

29

51

71

77

83

95

3

Charlotte McCarthy

Illustrated Biography

See Appendix A for more bios

4

AdNat | Introduction

Charlotte McCarthy

Born 1992, Sydney, Australia

AD NATURAM

2022

“AdNat” biomaterial

Charlotte McCarthy works ingeniously with sustainable and

waste materials to change the way materials, objects and

nature are perceived. Core to her practice is the selection

of accessible materials, often involving those that are a

by-product of consumption or locally found natural items. In

combining these materials, she explores self-manufacturable

alternatives to materials and the relationship of materiality

and nature in the objects she produces.

In creating the presented artefacts, Charlotte has developed

a sustainable biomaterial, named “AdNat”, produced from supermarket-accessible

and household waste ingredients. Using

this material, she showcases its potential value in wildlife

conservation through two wildlife shelter designs which have

been developed to be reproducible by the average, unskilled

person in their own kitchen.

These objects are a statement for the need to change user

behaviour to respect, value and invite nature back into our

everyday lives. They demonstrate the feasibility of an user-manufacturing

model for materials and objects which

counters current energy-intensive mainstream manufacturing

and distribution models. They show a potential human-nature

coexistence where human control and needs

blend harmoniously with natural imperfections and the cycle

of decay.

Courtesy of the artist.

Exhibition Project Explainer

See Appendix A for more explainers

5

Charlotte McCarthy

6

AdNat | Research Paper

Chapter 1

Research Paper

Improving Urban Biodiversity

from the Bottom-Up

Implementing self-manufacturing and DIY biomaterials in the

development of artificial skink shelters

Abstract

The Australian natural environment is rapidly

eroding and fragmenting due to urbanisation.

This increasing human-nature divide and

prevalence of unsustainable behaviours

have been detrimental to native biodiversity.

Through a research-led explorative design

approach, this paper explores the issues

of designing for urban biodiversity in NSW

private gardens and developed a home

DIY biomaterial implemented in the design

of low-skill self-manufacturable artificial

skink shelters. The project demonstrates

the potential of the material and product

application to increase urban biodiversity

within private gardens by increasing habitat

viability. Additionally, it shows the sustainable

impact on the environment that designing

materials and products with planned

decomposition obsolescence and low-skilled

user-manufacturing had. The development

of this DIY biomaterial contributes to new

material ecologies in design manufacturing,

namely the domestic production of a material

and object that enhances a connection to

the product as well as the environment.

This project demonstrated that urban areas

have the capacity to lessen the damage they

cause to the natural environment and local

biodiversity when both human and nonhuman

users are engaged in the process and

outcome.

7

Charlotte McCarthy

1. Introduction

Australia hosts an unusually large urban

population which has been highlighted

as one of the key contributors to the

poor state of the Australian environment

(Commonwealth of Australia, 2022). This

has caused the loss and fragmentation

of natural environments resulting in a

dramatic decline in biodiversity. While the

environmental impacts of urbanisation are

multi-faceted the most recognised issues are

the growing demand for land and resources

and the resulting increase in pollution and

waste (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2020).

To lessen these impacts, a multi-solution

approach needs to be undertaken to account

for the individual demands of these issues

(Goddard, 2010; Soanes, 2018). This creates

the opportunity for the incorporation of new

knowledge, such as Do-It-Yourself (DIY)

biomaterials, to produce innovative solutions.

The growing shift to more eco-conscious

behaviours has produced a growing body

of urban biodiversity conservation actions

that range from development, such as

the biodiversity sensitive urban design

(BSUD) framework (Garrard, et al., 2017),

to gardening from which the rewilding

movement arose (Lehmann, 2021; Webb &

Moxon, 2021). Using a bottom-up approach

that focuses on engaging with citizens with

accessible actions, that in turn form usernature

connections, have been proven to

have the most impact in beneficially shifting

behaviours and producing action (Crowley et

al., 2020). As existing conservation strategies

have demonstrated, even small actions from

individuals can create beneficial impacts and

the more individuals that partake the greater

the combined influence (National Geographic

Society & African People & Wildlife, 2019).

The leading cause of declining biodiversity

in urbanised areas stems from a deficit in

suitable wildlife habitats but this could be

countered by the potential of private gardens

to contribute to providing refuge to wildlife.

This design-led research explores increasing

urban biodiversity in NSW urban private

gardens through the development of a homemanufacturable

DIY biomaterial artificial

wildlife shelter for blue-tongue skinks. Both

the material and product will be designed

to be home-manufacturable by unskilled

users, those without technical knowledge,

who have limited access to resources and

equipment. Through this, individuals with

access to garden spaces are provided with

a way to engage in conservation actions

directly and, by engaging, will also increase

their nature-connectedness in promoting

more eco-conscious behaviours. Additionally,

this project will demonstrate the potential of

user-manufacturing and a DIY biomaterial in

achieving sustainable outcomes.

8


2. Background

2.1. The Environment Crisis and

Urbanisation

Nature is experiencing unprecedented,

globally-impacting destruction (Bratman et

al., 2015; United Nations, 2018) with over

75% of the natural environment irreversibly

altered (Plumptre et al., 2021; World Wildlife

Foundation, 2020). Just within Australia the

state and trend of the natural environment

has been officially classified as poor and

deteriorating (Commonwealth of Australia,

2022) with less than 50% of forests remaining,

an ongoing extinction and biodiversity crisis

(Australian Conservation Foundation, 2020;

Cox, 2018), numerous ecosystems collapsing

(Bergstrom et al., 2021) and devastating

climate events. Simultaneously, over the past

century, there has been a dramatic increase

in the global urban population (Ghosh, 2019)

with Australia containing over 96% of its

population within urban areas (Commonwealth

of Australia, 2019). The corresponding

urbanisation directly impacts the natural

environment through its contribution to the

“increasing pressures climate change, habitat

loss, invasive species, pollution and resource

extraction” (Commonwealth of Australia, 2022).

Notably, urbanisation is now recognised as

one of the major threats to biodiversity, due to

the invasive way existing natural environments

are altered, fragmented and replaced (Bekessy

et al., 2018; Filazzola et al., 2019; Kirk et

al., 2021) however urban environments can

also be repurposed to lessen these impacts

through the application of nature-based

solutions (Lehmann, 2021), such as with

biodiversity-sensitive urban design (BSUD)

(Garrard et al., 2017; Kirk et al., 2021) and

rewilding (Carver et al., 2021), in order to return

nature to urban areas and enable it to coexist

beneficial with people as “healthy ecosystems

and biodiversity are vital for human survival,

quality of life and economic prosperity”

(Commonwealth of Australia, 2022).

2.2. The Urban Home Garden and

Artificial Wildlife Shelters

Within urban environments, private gardens

constitute the majority of the urban green

spaces (Samus et al., 2022; van Heezik et

al., 2015; Web & Moxon, 2021) and have

the potential to valuably contribute to the

improvement of urban biodiversity, both in

isolation and as a network of green spaces

(Goddard et al., 2010), due to the existing

presence of nature and the high degree of

autonomy users have over these spaces to

enact change (Hanson et al., 2021). These

areas are important habitats for urban species,

including many listed as threatened (Australian

Conservation Foundation, 2020; Kirk et al.,

2021) which, combined with the willingness

and activity of Australians to partake in

biodiversity-consciousness decisions in

their gardens (Shaw, 2014; World Wildlife

Foundation Australia, 2018), has given rise

to wildlife-friendly initiatives such as rewilding

(Carver, 2021) and usage of artificial wildlife

shelters (Watchorn, 2022). Man-made wildlife

structure implementation is a fundamental part

of urban biodiversity strategies and is crucial

to overcoming the shelter deficit created by the

destruction of the natural environment (Cowan

et a., 2021; Watchorn et al., 2022). They also

enable human users to engage passively and

connect to nature which has been proven

9

Charlotte McCarthy

to increase nature-connectedness and ecoconscious

behaviours (Kaplan, 2001; Samus

et al., 2022). Additionally, the variability of

wildlife shelters supports the autonomy of

users highlighting this product group as not

only important but crucial in urban biodiversity

conservation in private gardens.

2.3. Biodiversity Conservation Potential

of the User-Manufacturer

The rising prominence of the maker

movement, stemming from the Do-It-Yourself

(DIY) culture, has decentralised the production

process and empowered individuals with the

means to self-manufacture their own products

for personal and commercial use (Bonvoisin,

2017; Bonvoisin, et al., 2017; Camburn, &

Wood, 2018; Marotta, 2020; Millard, 2018).

It is characterised by “users’ increased

competence at innovating independently“

(Fisher, 2022), the accessibility and adoption

of manufacturing technology and a rise in

social and open sharing and collaboration

amongst diverse individuals (Browder, 2019).

Users not only create but also customize and

modify designs to a greater degree without

needing a technical background. It is these

traits that provide opportunities for users to

directly engage in addressing environmental

issues as detailed in a study (Unterfrauner,

et al., 2019) that showed the environmental

impact of existing DIY projects fell under

five topics: circular material flow, repairing,

recycling, and upcycling; environmentally

friendly materials and products;

environmentally friendly production processes;

the impact of local production and new supply

chains on the environment; and awareness

of environmental issues within the maker

community. By adapting biodiversity design,

such as Severijnen’s Principles (Severijnen,

2018) or the BSUD framework (Garrard, et al.,

2017), this impact could be further tailored for

biodiversity conservation illustrating that it is

within users’ abilities to manufacture projects

that contribute to biodiversity conservation.

2.4. DIY Biomaterials, Waste and

Designing for Decay

As Australia’s population increases, so do

the waste disposed of by these people which

currently amounts to 704 kg a person annually

(Commonwealth of Australia, 2022). Millions

of tonnes of this waste end up harming

ecosystems and wildlife or producing harmful

products as it slowly decays in landfills.

A prominent solution is to use a circular

economy model with the waste either returning

to the beginning of the manufacturing steam or

being designed to decay harmlessly, returning

necessary nutrients back to the environment.

Situated in the latter, DIY biomaterials is an

emerging field focused on the self-production

of biobased materials (Ayala-Garcia & Ragnoli,

2019; Ragnoli & Ayala-Garcia, 2021; Sorensen

& Rosen, 2021) and, like other maker trends,

features accessible manufacturing processes

for unskilled users (Dunne, 2018; Sorensen &

Thyni, 2020) which has sprouted many opensource

resources and sharing communities.

While solving the environmental issues of

traditional materials and providing alternatives

are a mainstay in this field, some have pushed

beyond this to “redistribute value away from

permanent materials that destroy ecosystems

onto transient ones that restore them, finding

epistemological as well as practical value

in designing responsivity, degradation, and

renewal into man-made objects” (Ling, n.d.).

The strength of the DIY biomaterial field is its

ability to involve the participation of a diverse

user base in these issues and its accessibility

to unskilled individuals enables users to take

alternative actions to reduce their waste.

With the exponential growth of urbanisation in

Australia negatively impacting the environment

during an ongoing biodiversity crisis it is even

more critical that urbanisation issues are faced.

As explored, a potential solution would be to

target private home gardens and engage their

users in biodiversity conservation in these urban

spaces by leveraging the maker movement and

DIY biomaterials which can provide accessible

actions for unskilled individuals.

10


3. Purpose

3.1. Artificial Skink Shelters

The importance of urban biodiversity

conservation is of growing prominence

as Australia’s urban areas continue to

sprawl outward to accommodate a growing

population. This design-led research

project sought to answer “how can a

DIY biomaterial artificial skink shelter be

developed for home user-manufacturers for

use in private urban gardens for the benefit

of urban biodiversity?”. This demonstrates

the potential of private urban gardens, and

their users, to contribute to biodiversity

conservation as well as the ability of DIY

biomaterials in making material and product

manufacturing accessible and sustainable to

non-skilled users.

Private NSW gardens within urban

environments have been targeted by this

project as they have been highlighted

as a crucial element in conserving urban

biodiversity as they constitute the majority

of urban greenspaces. Additionally, these

isolated gardens can create a network of

wildlife-friendly areas through the garden

owners’ uptake of simple rewilding actions

which increase the overall biodiversity of

an urban environment. Artificial shelters

are a critical part of wildlife-friendly actions,

due to the deficit of suitable refuges for

fauna in urban areas, yet require little to no

maintenance once installed. By designing

these objects in an open-source and DIY

manner these objects become accessible to

unskilled individuals for self-manufacturing,

removing potential barriers to conservation

action caused by technical ability or

purchasing access. A survey of existing

artificial wildlife shelters highlighted a lack of

designs for terrestrial reptiles. Due to this, the

project focused on shelters for blue-tongue

skink lizards. These species were ideal due

to the common occurrence of the species

within NSW, the identified negligible safety

risk to humans, their beneficial effect on

pest management and as well as being an

important part of the biodiversity web.

3.2. DIY Biomaterial

The bottom-up approach that defines DIY

materials allows for rapid experimentation

using low-cost self-production and

approaches to develop materials and

innovate new ones, often from local or waste

resources (Rognoli & Ayala-Garcia, 2021;

Vuylsteke, et al., 2021). This means these

materials can be produced within a home

kitchen using store-bought ingredients which

were ideal for the project’s target human

users who had no technical background and

limited access to equipment and materials.

Additionally, the ability to reuse waste

improved access to resources and increased

the circularity of the material by diverting

waste. When combined with biobased

materials, which are those composed or

derived to some extent from grown, natural

sources (Fitzgerald, et al., 2021; Vuylsteke,

et al., 2021), the sustainability of the material

increases due to its use of renewable

resources, low-impact manufacturing and

biodegradability. These aspects were highly

desirable in this biodiversity-focused project

as they ensured the values of the research

weren’t compromised by the material

11

Charlotte McCarthy

4. Ethical Considerations

choice and, most notably, demonstrated

an alternative to less sustainable industrial

materials and processes.

By developing an artificial skink shelter

constructed of a DIY biomaterial this project

not only designed a product that improved

urban NSW private garden biodiversity but

also demonstrated a sustainable material

and a non-skilled, home-accessible

manufacturing process to provide alternatives

to those currently available.

This research project was undertaken from a

pro-environmental perspective, formed from

personal interest and first-hand experiences

with nature. To prevent personal opinions

and bias from interfering with the research

a critical distance was achieved through the

use of academic references. No sources

were excluded from being cited based on the

author’s information or positioning and are

purely judged on whether the information had

been gathered in an accountable manner.

Methods instigated through this project were

performed at low risk and with negligible

impact on participants, wildlife and the

environment. All user feedback was gathered

from voluntary and consenting participants

and any identifying information was

stripped to ensure anonymity and privacy.

Wildlife-involving methods were limited to

observations and any objects intended to

be voluntarily interacted with by wildlife were

made of approved animal-safe materials. To

remain in line with the eco-conscious theme

emphasis was placed on using materials and

tools that could be classed as eco-friendly

and any items that fell outside of these

classifications were noted and necessity

analysed. By taking these measures the

project mitigated any harm caused and

ensured the knowledge contributed was

accountable.

12


5. Methods

A research-through-design approach (IGI

Global, n.d.) was employed to explore and

design a DIY biomaterial and a set of artificial

wildlife shelters that could potentially improve

biodiversity within an NSW private urban

garden. The design process (see Figure 1)

was initiated with a preliminary concept, of a

biomaterial wildlife shelter, and split into two

processes. These processes, of material and

product design, were developed in tandem

with each other initially. As the research

progressed the material design was finalised

and fed back into the shelter design to ensure

all outcomes were compatible with each

other. This methodological approach enabled

the effective exploration, experimentation

and iteration of material and product designs

to produce the two outcomes, AdNat

biomaterial and artificial skink shelters.

5.1. Development of a DIY biomaterial

There currently exists a broad range of

accessible DIY biomaterial recipes however

none of those surveyed encompassed all

the desired material characteristics for the

project. It was necessary that the material be:

self-manufacturable by unskilled users in a

home environment, be settable into a form,

sturdy enough to handle the weight of a lizard,

have several months of weather resistance,

and also decay harmlessly into the earth. To

achieve these features experimentation was

undertaken to develop a new biomaterial.

The material exploration was completed in

iterative batches to most efficiently test and

evaluate a number of recipe variations (see

Appendix B). There was no predetermined

number of variations per batch instead this

was determined by how many variations

were required to achieve that exploration

focus of the batch with the exception being

the batches 1-5 which were broadly testing

different aspects (see Table 1). Variations

were produced by altering the batch’s

deriving recipe by changing the ingredients

and method. With the exception of the first

batch, each batch was derived from the

variation of the previous batch that had the

most desirable qualities. Instead, the first

batch was derived from a prior developed

recipe (see Appendix C) that retained a stable

form after saturation in water.

After the production of a batch, each

variation’s strength, rigidity, density, water

resistance, texture and smell were tested.

A DIY approach was taken as only a basic

understanding of these characteristics was

required and used accessible methods. The

methods employed used physical senses and

basic tools. For mechanical tests, the force

from bending with the hands and cutting

with tools was used. For water resistance, a

sample of the variation was left to soak in a

glass of water for 24 hours. The water was

initially at boiling temperature to speed up

the breakdown of bonds to simulate a longer

period of soaking. The results were marked

on a rating scale based on observable

differences, as shown in Table 2, to make

comparative analysis easier.

Through this process, MB06.30 was chosen

as the final recipe as it possessed the

desired characteristics beyond the minimum

13

Charlotte McCarthy

Figure 1

Development Process Methodology

ITERATE

Material

Design

EVALUATE

Refined

Material

Preliminary

Concept

Design

Phase 2

Final

Design

ITERATE

Shelter

Design

Part 1

EVALUATE

Form

Lang.

ITERATE

Shelter

Design

Part 2

EVALUATE

Refined

Product

necessary. Most notably it far exceeded the

minimum outdoor weather resistance needed

with testing showing an expected lifespan

of one year without preventing natural

decomposition.

Additional iterations (see Appendix B) revealed

that any material, not just fibrous sources,

could be used as a filler ingredient without

reducing its performance demonstrating a

greater waste upcycling and customization

potential. In some cases, the filler improved its

performance such as the increased strength

displayed in the flour and sand variations.

At the end of the experimentation, a suitable

material recipe had been developed with

the desired properties. This material was

then incorporated into the final stages of

the artificial skink shelter development to

complete the design process.

14


Table 1

Material Batches

Batch Exploration Focus No. of Variations

1 What ingredients and steps are needed (part 1)? 4





6 What is the best ratio of ingredients? 25

7 What sources can be used as a filler? 5

8 What starches can be used? 9

9 What sources can be used as a filler? 7

Variation

Table 2

Material Variation Test Results (chosen material in grey)

Bending

1 = Brittle,

5 = Flexible

Pressing

1 = Solid,

5 = Spongy

Cutting

1 = scissors,

2 = hacksaw

Dryness

1 = Dry,

5 = moist

Water Test

1 = mush,

5 = solid

1 2 1 2 1 4

2 2 1 2 1 2

3 2 1 2 1 3

4, 6, 11 2 1 2 1 1

5, 7 3 1 2 1 1

8 4 3 1 3 4

9 4 3 1 3 3

10 1 2 1 1 1

12 3 1 1 2 4

13 4 1 1 1 3

14, 26 4 3 1 1 3

15 4 2 1 1 1

16 4 2 1 2 4

17 4 2 1 2 3

18 4 2 1 2 2

19 2 1 2 1 4

20, 29 2 1 2 1 5

21 4 1 2 1 4

22 2 2 2 1 4

23, 34, 40, 43 2 1 2 1 3

24 1 1 2 1 5

25 4 2 2 1 4

27 3 2 1 1 1

28 3 1 2 1 2

30 1 1 2 1 5

31 4 3 1 1 5

32, 37-38, 46-47, 62-67 3 1 2 1 4

33, 44, 49 2 1 2 1 4

35, 39 1 1 2 1 3

36, 50, 61 1 1 2 1 4

41 3 1 2 1 3

42 3 2 2 1 4

45 3 1 2 1 5

48 4 1 2 1 4

51-60 3 1 2 1 4

15

Charlotte McCarthy

Figure 2

Shelter Direction Mind Map

5.2. Development of a Skink Shelter

To demonstrate the potential of the developed

material in urban biodiversity conservation

it was applied to the construction of an

artificial bluetongue skink shelter. A survey

of existing artificial shelters, both for wildlife

and pets, revealed a lack of variety and user

engagement in the designs. This provided

an opportunity to design a shelter that not

only used a DIY biomaterial but was itself

user-manufacturable. Additionally, the shelter

design would be restricted to low-fi processes

and focus on sustainable practices to further

its beneficial environmental impact.

As the shelter survey revealed, there

were many possible approaches to the

construction and aesthetic style of the

design. Rapid sketches (see Figure 2) were

used to brainstorm the potential directions of

the shelter design which were then analysed

based on how accessible they would be

to unskilled users and their feasibility to be

produced using the developed biomaterial (at

that point in time). By concept batch (CB) 3

the design direction had been refined to two

different directions, one freeform (CB03.12)

and one modular (CB03.13). This choice was

made to cover a wide target user group, of

household users and have different levels of

pre-designed parts. The modular direction

was better suited for unskilled users but

limited form choices to those of pre-designed

parts while the freeform direction was more

difficult but wasn’t limited to pre-designed

parts.

The exploration then shifted to focus on

16


Figure 3

Form Style Exploration

Figure 4

Moulding System Exploration

17

Charlotte McCarthy

Figure 5

Selection of Shelter Design Refined Forms

the form style (see Figure 3) of the product

which had loosely been explored in the prior

concepts. As the shelters were designed

for wildlife, it was decided that more natureinspired

forms would be fitting as a bridge

between the natural and artificial. The style

exploration started initially as sketching but

then shifted to sketch models as this was

more suitable to test modular concepts. From

this, the style was refined to focus on curving

and layered shapes which worked with both

the freeform (CB06.30) and mould (CB06.31)

concepts.

Next developed was the moulding system.

Despite the plausibility of creating predesigned

parts that would be distributed, as

CAD prototyped in CB07 (see Figure 4), there

were difficulties in choosing a sustainable

material that would not hinder the process.

Glazed ceramic was a possibility but due to

the constraints of the project, it was decided

that a low-fi method of mould-making that

could be produced by the user-consumer

would be a better direction. Several different

methods using a combination of found

objects, cardboard and paper mache using

rice flour glue were tested (CB08-CB09). Of

these combinations, the CB09.38 was the

most promising as the mould-making method

did not require specialist skills and used

readily available materials. The constraint of

this moulding method was that the mould

needed to be a simple one-part piece which

the material would be pressed into. With this

direction change, there was a change in the

two design outcomes. Instead of having a

design made using a pre-designed mould

and a free-form design, this would instead be

replaced with a design created using moulds

made from found objects and a design

made from moulds made with flat cardboard

patterns. After testing moulds with the

biomaterial it was decided that both moulds

would be constructed with a paper mache

layer to increase the stability of the moulds

while retaining the ability to be composted.

The final process stage was the refinement of

the shelter and corresponding mould design

(see Figure 5). In both cases, the designs

would need to be fully manufacturable by

the consumer so the emphasis was placed

on the simplicity of design. A large range

of forms was explored from which the final

designs drew inspiration from those with

curved shapes.

At the conclusion of the overall development

process two design outcomes, a DIY

biomaterial and a couple of artificial skink

shelters were produced. The design of

both outcomes was shown to be selfmanufacturable

for unskilled users while

maintaining the functionality of the shelters

for blue-tongue lizards in urban NSW private

gardens thereby achieving the desired

outcomes of the project.

18


6. Results

The outcome of the exploration and

development processes was the design of

a DIY biomaterial and two artificial wildlife

shelter designs targeted at bluetongue

skinks. They fulfilled the requirement of being

self-manufacturable by unskilled users and

displayed the potential to contribute to urban

biodiversity conservation.

6.1 AdNat DIY Biomaterial

The developed biomaterial recipe, named

AdNat, produced an environmentally

friendly, non-toxic and formable material

with designed obsolescence when in

the right conditions. The recipe (see

Figure 6) consisted of only organic, nontoxic

ingredients enabling it to naturally

decompose over time when exposed to

moisture. The method entailed only simple

tasks which used supplies that were

commonly found within the household or

local supermarket. This meant the recipe was

not only accessible and self-manufacturable

for unskilled users but could be a beneficial

material for use in conservation projects.

The recipe ingredients were paramount

to the characteristics and manufacturing

accessibility of the material. All but the filler

had straightforward effects within the material,

could harmlessly decompose, be ingested

safely by animals, and could be bought

or sourced in their ready-to-use forms. In

contrast, the bulk-creating filler could be any

source, both organic and natural inorganic

substances, that can be dehydrated and

finely processed. This capacity for variability

had minimal effects on the material’s

mechanical properties but was the primary

driver of the material’s appearance (see

Figure 7). It also increased the sustainable

potential of the material as it could repurpose

waste, such as kitchen scraps and paper, and

circulate them back into the environment.

Additionally, this also made the recipe more

adaptable to what the user had available and

furthered engagement in the customization of

the appearance.

The manufactured material is firm and solid

with minimal flexibility. It had high water

resistance which was in conflict with the

necessity of water for its decomposition. This

resulted in the material being able to function

for a notable amount of time outdoors

before the effects of decay would become

noticeable.

Through testing, it was hypothesized that

it could function outdoors for at least half a

year, with occasional rainfall, and for several

years in shelf-stable conditions.

Through testing, it was hypothesized that

it could function outdoors for at least half a

year, with occasional rainfall, and for several

years in shelf-stable conditions.

19

Charlotte McCarthy

Figure 6

AdNat DIY Biomaterial Recipe

Figure 7

AdNat DIY Biomaterial Appearance

20


Figure 8

Artificial Skink Shelter Designs

6.2. Artificial Skink Shelter

To demonstrate the biodiversity conservation

potential of the AdNat biomaterial two shelter

designs (see Figure 8) were developed

using two different moulding methods (see

Figure 9). Both were designed for bluetongue

skink users located in NSW private gardens

and self-manufacturable by unskilled users.

Through the process, the shelters were

shown to have the potential to improve

the urban biodiversity of the target species

and enable the engagement of household

individuals in local conservation.

Bluetongue skinks are a terrestrial lizard

species that prefer habitats plentiful with

cracks, hollows and dense, low foliage in

order to protect themselves from predators

and to nest. To replicate this, the shelters

were designed as an assemblage of at least

two overlapping pieces to create a cavity

space within the structure. With the premade

designs a guide is provided for the user

which creates arrangements with a variety of

cavity spaces to suit the lizard’s preferences.

The cornerstone for the shelter designs

were the two methods of producing moulds,

“object” and “pattern” which were developed

to remove barriers in shelter manufacturing.

These moulds were crucial in ensuring that

an unskilled user could manipulate and

set the material into designated forms. The

construction of both moulds uses the same

paper mache technique using waste paper

and a rice flour glue mixture. The mache

technique is applied to found items, retrieved

from around the user’s house, for the

object moulds and cardboard in the pattern

21

Charlotte McCarthy

Figure 9

Moulding Methods

method. This choice of supplies was chosen

specifically for their commonplace nature in

the typical urban household. As stated, the

key difference in the methods is the structure

on which the mache is applied. The object

method requires no structural preparation,

as the found objects provide that, however,

the user is limited to the given shapes of

these items. This limitation is reprieved with

the pattern method however the trade-off

is that users must construct the supporting

structure requiring more effort in exchange

for increased freedom of shape.

Through the research, it was shown the

biomaterial outcome had the potential to

improve urban biodiversity conservation.

This potential was then demonstrated in

bluetongue skink shelters that were designed

to improve the local environment for the

target species. This demonstration showed

that there was potential for both the material

and the shelter concept beyond the target

species and location as well as in other areas

aside from conservation.

22


7. Discussion

Through this design-led research project,

several notable insights into designing user

engagement in artificial wildlife shelters and

manufacturing processes were gained. While

this knowledge could be applied to similar

projects it would also be worthwhile in a

variety of situations including those looking

at more sustainable materials, alternative

manufacturing models and bottom-up

conservation engagement.

7.1. Importance of Human Engagement

in Urban Artificial Wildlife Shelters

Artificial wildlife shelters are more than simply

a cavity space. There are many facets of their

design that require careful consideration

as noted in many studies and guidelines.

One facet not properly identified is that

of human engagement which is arguably

more important in urban environments

where wildlife and humans occupy the

same locations. As observed through the

development of the shelter designs, how

human users engage with shelters influences

the acceptance and usage of the shelters

within these shared spaces. Human users

can engage at each stage of the shelter’s

life including construction, placement,

observation, maintenance and disposal.

Every engagement point brings about

multiple design decisions and accounting

for these adequately increases the chance

and ability for humans to use and engage

with the objects. Additionally, designing for

this engagement it creates a bridge between

humans and nature through which natureconnectedness

can be fostered and grown.

By fostering this connection, the likelihood of

undertaking more nature-centred actions and

behaviours increases. This indicates that by

designing for human engagement in urban

environments not only are shelters more likely

to be installed but it can shift behaviours to

more environmentally-conscious ones.

7.2. Designing for a Home User-

Manufacturing Model

During an era of environmental issues,

sustainability is always a consideration in

any project. One way of making designs

more sustainable is by decentralising

production. By splitting manufacturing across

several locations it is possible to decrease

the distance between the producer and

consumer. This in turn lowers the amount

of energy needed to distribute the objects

to the consumers. The user-manufacturing

model takes this to the extreme by placing

production at the site of the consumer and

providing them with instructions. This doesn’t

remove transportation entirely, as materials

and equipment need to be sourced, but it

has the potential to severely lower transport if

products are designed with local supplies of

the target user in mind.

The research explored three concepts

of a user-manufacturer model, kit, parts,

and just instructions, with each having a

different effect on the design decisions and

customizability. The kit model, where all

necessary items were sent to the consumer,

removed the issue of sourcing supplies

however this would require at least one

distribution location which would increase

transportation use. The parts model would

23

Charlotte McCarthy

only provide specific, difficult-to-access or

pre-made parts, such as moulds, to the

user with other required supplies sourced

by the user. While this would have less

transportation need than the kit model

transport would still be required to distribute

these parts. This would also mean the

product design would need to take into

account the accessibility of supplies that

the user had to collect to keep total product

transportation low. The instruction model

simply provides the information necessary

to produce the product meaning all supplies

need to be sourced by the user. This model

also suffers from the supply accessibility

issue however if the product is designed to

specifically use only locally available items

of the target consumers then it will have the

lowest transportation need. All three models

can be used in a commercial or open-source

setting though the instruction model lends

itself to being open-source due to the ability

to freely distribute the information.

Complexity in manufacturing could be

reduced by designing a part. If this part

is to be distributed to the consumer then

the design complexity of the part is only

felt by the designer. On the other hand, if

the part is to be constructed by the user,

the manufacturing complexity needs

to match the consumer’s skill level and

supply accessibility. Additionally, the more

parts supplied the less customizability the

consumer had during the manufacturing

suggesting that there is a trade-off between

customization and ease of production.

By considering the potential effect of the

noted on user engagement in manufacturing

and wildlife shelter products could apply

these to increase the effectiveness and

environmental impact of their designs.

Additionally, these insights are not limited to

conservation or biomaterial projects but could

be applied across a wide range of industries.

Another observation was the effect of

designing for or without distributed parts.

24


8. Conclusion References

Australia’s biodiversity is currently

undergoing a severe crisis brought on

by the poor state of the environment.

Urbanisation is one of the leading causes of

this situation however urban environments,

particularly green spaces, have the potential

to contribute to conservation. This design-led

research project explored the impact usermanufacturing

could have on conserving

urban biodiversity through the application

of DIY biomaterials and artificial wildlife

shelters. At the outcome of this research,

a DIY biomaterial, AdNat, and a set of selfmanufacturable

artificial skink shelters were

developed.

Through the development of these outcomes,

several insights were gained into the design

decisions of utilizing self-manufacturing and

engaging urban artificial wildlife shelters.

Most notable, with self-manufacturing, was

the correlation between locally accessible

supplies and lower transportation impacts

on the environment and, with shelters, that

engaging users with nature promote more

environmentally-conscious behaviours. The

contributions of this research directly improve

the fields of biodiversity conservation,

wildlife design and manufacturing methods

and expanded upon the available and

accessible urban conservation projects and

DIY biomaterial recipes. By developing a

DIY biomaterial and artificial skink shelters,

this project has shown that it is possible to

improve urban biodiversity in private gardens

using biomaterial wildlife shelters.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2020). Waste Account,

Australia, Experimental Estimates. https://www.abs.gov.au/

statistics/environment/environmental-management/wasteaccount-australia-experimental-estimates/2018-19

Australian Conservation Foundation. (2020). The

extinction crisis in Australia’s cities and towns. https://apo.

org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2020-08/aponid308370.pdf

Australian Wildlife Conservancy. (2021, November 30).

Biodegradable ‘flat-pack’ homes to help wildlife survive after

bushfires. https://www.australianwildlife.org/biodegradableflat-pack-homes-to-help-wildlife-survive-after-bushfires/

Ayala-Garcia, C. & Rognoli, C. (2019). The Materials

Generation, Advancements in Design Research (197-219).

Franco Angeli.

Bekessy, S., Garrad, G., Hurley, S., & Berthon, K.

(2018). Biodiversity Sensitive Urban Design @ Glen

Junor. Glen Junor. https://static1.squarespace.com/

static/5e6dfd39f4b7d15cf76d33d4/t/5e7c816c06e

62b6e93344021/1585218022962/BSUD+Report_

RMIT+Aug+2018.pdf

Bergstrom, D., Wienecke, B., van den Hoff, J., Hughes, L.,

Lindenmayer, D., Ainsworth, T., Baker, C., Bland, L., Bowman,

D., Brooks, S., Canadell, J., Constable13, A., Dafforn, K.,

Depledge, M., Dickson, C., Duke, N., Helmstedt, K., Holz,

A., Johnson, C. … Shaw, J. (2021). Combating ecosystem

collapse from the tropics to the Antarctic. Global Change

Biology, 27(9), 1692-1703. https://doi.org/10.1111/

gcb.15539

Bofylatos, S. (2022). Upcycling Systems Design,

Developing a Methodology through Design. Sustainability,

14(600). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020600

Bonvoisin, J. (2017). Limits of ecodesign: the case for

open source product development. International Journal of

Sustainable Engineering, 10(4-5), 198-206. https://doi.org/10.

1080/19397038.2017.1317875

Bonvoisin, J., Galla, J.K., & Prendeville, S. (2017). Design

Principles for Do-It-Yourself Production. Sustainable Design

and Manufacturing 2017 (68, 77–86). Springer, Cham.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57078-5_8

Bratman, G., Daily, G., Levy, B., & Gross, J. (2015).

The benefits of nature experience: Improved affect and

cognition. Landscape and Urban Planning, 138, 41-50. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.005

Browder, R., Aldrich, H., & Bradley, S. (2019). The

emergence of the maker movement: Implications

for entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business

Venturing, 34(3), 459-476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

25

Charlotte McCarthy

jbusvent.2019.01.005

Camburn, B. & Wood, K. (2018). Principles of maker

and DIY fabrication: Enabling design prototypes at low

cost. Design Studies, 58, 63-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

destud.2018.04.002

Cameron, R., Blanuša, T., Taylor, J., Salisbury, A., Halstead,

A., Henricot, B., & Thompson, K. (2012). The domestic

garden – Its contribution to urban green infrastructure.

Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11(2), 129-137. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.01.002

Carver, S., Convery, I., Hawkins, S., Beyers, R., Eagle,

A., Kun, Z., Van Maanen, E., Cao, Y., Fisher, M., Edwards,

S., Nelson, C., Gann, G., Shurter, S., Aguilar, K., Andrade,

A., Ripple, W., Davis, J., Sinclair, A., Bekoff, M., … Soulé, M.

(2021). Guiding principles for rewilding. Conservation Biology,

35(6), 1882-1893. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13730

Commonwealth of Australia. (2019). Australia’s Strategy

for Nature 2019-2030.

https://www.australiasnaturehub.gov.au/sites/default/

files/2020-11/australias-strategy-for-nature.pdf

Commonwealth of Australia. (2022). Australia State of the

Environment 2021. https://soe.dcceew.gov.au/

Cowan, M., Callan, M., Watson, M., Watson, D., Doherty,

T., Michael, D., Dunlop, J., Turner, J., Moore, H., Watchorn,

D., & Nimmo, D. (2021). Artificial refuges for wildlife

conservation: what is the state of the science? Biological

Reviews, 96(6), 2735-2754. https://doi.org/10.1111/

brv.12776

Cox, L. (2018, Feb 13). ‘A national disgrace’: Australia’s

extinction crisis is unfolding in plain sight. The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/13/

a-national-disgrace-australias-extinction-crisis-is-unfoldingin-plain-sight

Crowley, C., Flood, K., Caffrey, B., Dunford, B., FitzPatrick,

U., Hamilton, J., & O’Gorman, M. (2020). Engaging and

empowering people in biodiversity conservation: lessons

from practice. Biology and Environment: Proceedings of

the Royal Irish Academy, 12(2), 175-185. https://doi.

org/10.3318/bioe.2020.15

Dam, R. (2021). 5 Stages in the Design Thinking Process.

Interaction Design Foundation. https://www.interactiondesign.org/literature/article/5-stages-in-the-designthinking-process

Design Council. (n.d.). What is the framework for

innovation? Design Council’s evolved Double Diamond.

https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/whatframework-innovation-design-councils-evolved-doublediamond

Dunne, M. (2018). Bioplastic Cook Book. FABTEXTILES.

http://fabtextiles.org/bioplastic-cook-book/

Dzombak, R. (2019). There is no escaping the reach of

microplastic pollution. Pacific Standard. https://psmag.com/

environment/there-is-no-escaping-microplastic-pollution

Filazzola, A., Shrestha, N., & Maclvor, J. (2019).

The contribution of constructed green infrastructure

to urban biodiversity: A synthesis and meta-analysis.

Journal of Applied Ecology, 56(9), 2131-2143. https://doi.

org/10.1111/1365-2664.13475

Fisher, G. (2022). How Will Self-Manufacture and

the Maker Movement Reshape Consumer Preferences?.

Research-Technology Management, 65(4), 18-26. https://doi.

org/10.1080/08956308.2022.2071063

Fitzgerald, A., Proud, W., Kandemir, A., Murphy, R.,

Jesson, D., Trask, R., Hamerton, I., & Longana, M. (2021). A

Life Cycle Engineering Perspective on Biocomposites as a

Solution for a Sustainable Recovery. Sustainability, 13(3),

1160. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031160

Garrard, G., Williams, N., Mata, L., Thomas, J., & Bekessy,

S. (2017). Biodiversity Sensitive Urban Design. Conservation

Letters, 11(2), e12411. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12411

Ghosh, I. (2019, August 23). Mapped: The Dramatic Global

Rise of Urbanization (1950–2020). Visual Capitalist. https://

www.visualcapitalist.com/map-global-rise-of-urbanization/

Goddard, M., Dougill, A., & Benton, T. (2010). Scaling

up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban

environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 25(2), 90-98.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016

Hanson, H., Eckberg, E., Widenberg, M., & Olsson, J.

(2021). Gardens’ contribution to people and urban green

space. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 63[127198], 1-10.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127198

IGI Global (n.d.). What is Design-Led Research? https://

www.igi-global.com/dictionary/design-led-research/62368

Kaplan, R. (2001). The nature of the view from home

psychological benefits. Environment and Behavior, 33(4), 507-

542. https://doi.org/10.1177/00139160121973115

Kasandra, B., Romanos, R., Magda, S. (2021). Bioplastic

Pavilion [Thesis, University of Edinburgh]. Issuu. https://

issuu.com/kasandraba/docs/bioplastic_pavilion

Kirk, H., Garrard, G., Croesera, T., Backstrom, A.,

Berthona, K., Furlong, C., Hurley, J., Thomas, F., Webb, A.,

& Bekessy, S. (2021). Building biodiversity into the urban

fabric: A case study in applying Biodiversity Sensitive Urban

Design (BSUD). Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 62, 127176.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127176

Klarenbeek & Dros. (n.d.). Designers of VNVSVAL.https://

www.ericklarenbeek.com/

Lehmann, S. (2021). Growing Biodiverse Urban Futures:

Renaturalization and Rewilding as Strategies to Strengthen

Urban Resilience. Sustainability, 13(5), 2932. https://doi.

org/10.3390/su13052932

Ling, A. (n.d.). Design by Decay, Decay by Design. Ars

Electronica. https://ars.electronica.art/keplersgardens/

en/design-by-decay/#:~:text=*Design%20by%20

Decay%2C%20Decay%20by,renewal%20into%20

man%2Dmade%20objects

Marotta, S. (2020). Making sense of ‘maker’: Work,

identity, and affect in the maker movement.

Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 53(4).

https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X20964839

Millard, J., Sorivelle, M., Deljanin, S., Unterfrauner, E.,

& Voigt, C. (2018). Is the Maker Movement Contributing

to Sustainability?. Sustainability, 10(7), 2212. https://doi.

org/10.3390/su10072212

Moxon, S. (2020). Designing for Wildlife: Engaging City

Dwellers to Cohabitat with Nature [Paper Presentation].

International Association of Societies of Design Research

Conference 2019, London, UK.

National Geographic Society & African People & Wildlife.

(2019). Community, Conservation, and Collaboration: A

26


framework for success.

Oskam, P. & Latour, M. (n.d.). Urban Reef. https://www.

urbanreef.nl/

Parker, D., Roudavski, S., Jones, M., Bradsworth, N.,

Isaac, B., Lockett, M., & Soanes, K. (2021). A framework

for computer-aided design and manufacturing of habitat

structures for cavity-dependent animals. Methods in

Ecology and Evolution, 13, 826-841. DOI: 10.1111/2041-

210X.13806

Patel, V., Flisher, A., Hetrick, S., & McGorry, P. (2007).

Mental health of young people: a global public-health

challenge. The Lancet, 369(9569), 1302-1313. https://doi.

org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60368-7

Plumptre, A., Baisero, D., Belote, R., Vázquez-Domínguez,

E., Faurby, S., Jedrzejewski6, W., Kiara, H., Kühl, H., Benítez-

López, A., Luna-Aranguré, C., Voigt, B., Wich, S., Wint, W.,

Gallego-Zamorano, J., & Boyd, C. (2021). Where Might

We Find Ecologically Intact Communities? Frontiers in

Forests and Global Change, 4, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.3389/

ffgc.2021.626635

Richardson, M., Cormack, A., McRobert, L., & Underhill,

Ralph. (2016). 30 Days Wild: Development and Evaluation

of a Large-Scale Nature Engagement Campaign to Improve

Rognoli, V., & Ayala-Garcia, C. (2021). Chapter 9 -

Defining the DIY-Materials approach. In O. Pedgley, V.

Rognoli & E. Karana (Eds.), Materials Experience 2: Expanding

Territories of Materials and Design (227-258). Butterworth-

Heinemann.

Roudavski, S. (2020). Multispecies Cohabitation and

Future Design [Paper presentation]. 2020 International

Conference: Synergy, London. https://doi.org/10.21606/

drs.2020.402

Samus, A., Freeman, C., Dickinson, K., & van Heezik,

Y. (2022). Relationships between nature connectedness,

biodiversity of private gardens, and mental wellbeing

during the Covid-19 lockdown. Urban Forestry &

Urban Greening, 69, 127519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

ufug.2022.127519

Severijnen, P. (2018). Biodiversity by Design: Maximising

the biodiversity potential of Rivierenwijk, Utrecht by landscape

architecture design [Master’s Thesis, Wageningen University].

https://edepot.wur.nl/468095

Shaw, A. (2014). Backyard Biodiversity: Community and

wildlife attitudes and practices [Doctoral Thesis, Deakin

University]. Deakin University. http://hdl.handle.net/10536/

DRO/DU:30066204

Skar, M., & Krogh, E. (2009). Changes in children’s

nature-based experiences near home: from spontaneous

play to adult-controlled, planned and organised activities.

Children’s Geographies, 7(3), 339-354. https://doi.

org/10.1080/14733280903024506

Soanes, K., Sievers, M., Chee, Y., Williams, N., Bhardwaj,

M., Marshall, A., & Parris, K. (2018). Correcting common

misconceptions to inspire conservation action in urban

environments. Conservation Biology, 33(2), 300-306. https://

doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13193

Sorensen, C., & Thyni, E. (2020, September 10-11). A

qualitative study of the challenges faced by material designers

when developing DIY-materials [Paper presentation].

International Conference on Engineering and Product

Design Education, Herning, Denmark.

Sorensen, C., & Rosen, T. (2021, September 9-10). A

comparative case study of bio-based material development by

designers using a DIY approach in a circular context [Paper

presentation]. International Conference on Engineering and

Product Design Education, Herning, Denmark.

Thukral, C. (2021, March 11). This 3D printed urban reef

is constructed from mycelium to increase biodiversity in cities!.

Yanko Design. https://www.yankodesign.com/2021/11/03/

this-3d-printed-urban-reef-is-constructed-from-myceliumto-increase-biodiversity-in-cities/

Turner, W., Nakamura, T., & Dinetti, M. (2004). Global

Urbanization and the Separation of Humans from Nature.

BioScience, 54(60), 585–590. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-

3568(2004)054[0585:GUATSO]2.0.CO;2

United Nations (2019). World Urbanization Prospects:

2018 Revision. https://population.un.org/wup/Publications/

Files/WUP2018-Report.pdf

Unterfrauner, E., Shao, J., Hofer, M., &Fabian, C.

(2019). The environmental value and impact of the Maker

movement—Insights from a cross-case analysis of European

maker initiatives. Business Strategy and the Environment,

28(8), 1518-1533. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2328

van Heezik, Y., Dickinson, K., & Freeman, C. (2012).

Closing the Gap: Communicating to Change Gardening

Practices in Support of Native Biodiversity in Urban

Private Gardens. Ecology and Society, 17(1), 34. http://dx.doi.

org/10.5751/ES-04712-170134

Vuylsteke, B., Ostuzzi, F., Saldien, F., & Detand, J. (2021).

Pathway for Designing with New DIY, Circular and Biobased

Materials: Insights from Three Case Studies. Sustainable

Design and Manufacturing (). Smart Innovation, Systems and

Technologies (262, 45–54). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-

981-16-6128-0_5

Vuylsteke, B., Dumon, L., Detand, J., & Ostuzzi, F. (2022).

Creating a Circular Design Workspace: Lessons Learned

from Setting up a “Bio-Makerspace”. Sustainability, 14(4),

2229. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042229

Watchorn, D., Cowan, M., Driscoll, D., Nimmo, D.,

Ashman, K., Garkaklis, M., Wilson, B., & Doherty, T. (2022).

Artificial habitat structures for animal conservation: design

and implementation, risks and opportunities. Frontiers

in Ecology and the Environment. https://doi.org/10.1002/

fee.2470

Webb, J. & Moxon, S. (2021). A study protocol to

understand urban rewilding behaviour in relation to

adaptations to private gardens. Cities & Health. https://doi.or

g/10.1080/23748834.2021.1893047

World Wildlife Foundation Australia. (2018). Backyard

Barometer Summary Report: Australian Attitudes to

Nature. https://www.wwf.org.au/ArticleDocuments/353/

pub-summary-backyard-barometer-australia n-attitudesto-nature-23may18.pdf.aspx?Embed=Y

World Wildlife Foundation. (2020). Deforestation

Fronts. https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/

deforestation_fronts___drivers_and_responses_in_a_

changing_world___full_report_1.pdf

World Wildlife Foundation. (2020). Living Planet Report

2020. https://f.hubspotusercontent20.net/hubfs/4783129/

LPR/PDFs/ENGLISH-FULL.pdf

27

Charlotte McCarthy

28

AdNat | Development: Material

Chapter 2

Development:

Biomaterial

Creating a home DIY biomaterial that

unskilled users can manufacturable

Creating a home DIY biomaterial that is manufacturable by

unskilled users with commonly available supplies

29

Charlotte McCarthy

Making for Nature

Inspired by experience in manufacturing DIY

biomaterials, this project set out to refine the

prior developed Compostable Bin recipe (see

Appendix C). It was decided from the outset

that only the “Shell Recipe” would be used

for this project to better focus on it.

In the early stages of the product

conceptualising, it was already decided that

the outcome would involve the interaction

of nature. As part of this decision the

material must also be sustainable and

be beneficial to nature. The necessity for

outdoor compatibility was not cemented until

after a literary survey had been completed.

Soon after the concept of wildlife shelters

was locked in. Material experimentation

then started with the focus of achieving the

following material characteristics:

1. Can be used outdoors (must

handle weather including rain)

2. Will eventually decay into soil (so it

does not end up in landfill)

3. Is harmless to wildlife

4. Can be made by anyone

With these in mind the experimentation

was a straightforward process of producing

batches of iterative variations, testing them

and then making more. The general process

is depicted in Figure 10.

Each iteration is listed under “Material

Experiments” (page 32) with the resulting

outcome, test results and what was altered.

Lo-Fi Testing

Each iteration was tested for solidity, flexibility,

dryness, cutting ability and water resistance.

Due to the limitations of the project, these

tests were conducted using methods that

could be done with bodily force and items

that could be found locally. The results were

marked against a 5-point scale that used

colloquial terms, such as “dry”, to match the

low-fi testing techniques.

The method for each test is as follows:

Flexibility: it was gripped at both ends with

the hands and bent in half until it both ends

touched. How it reacted was recorded on a

scale between “Brittle” and “Flexible”

Solidity: The material was pressed firmly

downward with a finger. How it reacted was

recorded on a scale between “Solid” and

“Spongy”.

Dryness: it was touched with a finger.

How it felt was recorded on a scale between

“Moist” and “Dry”

Cutting Ability: a piece was cut with a pair

of scissors and, if this did not work, with a

hacksaw. The required tool was noted.

Water Resistance: a small piece was

placed in boiling water and left for 24 hours.

After 24 hours the piece was removed from

the water and pressed. How it reacted was

noted on a scale from “Mush” to “Solid”.

While the methods of testing are basic this

makes them repeatable by unskilled users.

Additionally, this keeps in theme with the

nature of DIY biomaterials.

30


Figure 10

General Experimentation Process

Make the iteration

Dry it

Photograph before testing

Complete the non-water tests

Soak for 24 hours

Test the saturated sample

Note: There are more steps involved, including points of

visual recording, however this is a basic and brief overall.

31

Charlotte McCarthy

Material Experiments

See Appendix B for recipes and methods

MB01.01

- A bit brittle when bending

- Solid when pressed

- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch

- Mostly solid after 24hrs of

soaking

Notes: Compostable Bin

recipe (see Appendix C)

as base. Removed TGase

and NaGase as these are

speciality ingredients found

online.

MB01.02



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch

- Mostly mush after 24hrs of

soaking

Notes: Used MB01.01 recipe

and increased fibre (more

filler), added vinegar (improve

starch bonds) and reduced

water (less drying time).

MB01.03



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch

- Still a bit solid after 24hrs of

soaking

Notes: Used MB01.02

and added agar (improved

elasticity) and reduced water

(less drying time).

MB01.04



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch

- Mush after 24hrs of soaking

Notes: Used MB01.03 and

removed agar (testing if

necessary), reduced starch

(to not waste ingredients) and

increased fiber (more filler).

32


MB02.05

- A bit flexible when

bending


- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking

Notes: Used MB01.04

and removed agar (due to

high molding potential) and

replaced some water with oil

(to reduce drying and add

more water-resistance).

MB02.06



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch



reduced water (less drying

time).

MB02.07

- A bit flexible when bending


- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch

- A bit solid after 24hrs of

soaking


added more vinegar (to

ensure starch is adequately

activated).

MB02.08

- Mostly flexible when

bending

- A bit solid when pressed

- Cut with scissors

- A bit dry to touch


soaking


added more glycerin (better

water-resistance) and more

water (easier to mix).

33

Charlotte McCarthy

MB03.09


bending


- Cut with scissors

- A bit dry to touch


soaking


halved ingredients for smaller

samples. Also used half as

much starch (better water

resistance), less glycerin

(limiting waste), less water

(less drying time) and more

oil (less drying time and better

water-resistance).

MB03.10

- Brittle when bending

- Mostly solid when pressed

- Cut with scissors

- Dry to touch



doubled water (easier mixing).

MB03.11



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch



used fine tea leaves (more

fibrous than random kitchen

scraps).

MB03.12



- Cut with scissors

- Mostly dry to touch


soaking


made man adjustments (see

Appendix B).

34


MB04.13


bending


- Cut with scissors

- Dry to touch


soaking


used less gelatin (reduce

oiliness) and more glycerin

(better bonds).

MB04.14


bending


- Cut with scissors

- Dry to touch


soaking


increased glycerin (better

bonds).

MB04.15


bending


- Cut with scissors

- Dry to touch



decreased starch (less waste),

decreased glycerin (less

waste) and increased water

(better mixing).

MB05.16


bending


- Cut with scissors



soaking


increased vinegar:starch to

3:4 (to better activate starch).

35

Charlotte McCarthy

MB05.17


bending


- Cut with scissors



soaking


decreased fibre (to ensure

thoroughly coated by wet mix).

MB05.18


bending


- Cut with scissors



soaking


increased vinegar:starch to

1:1 (to better activate starch).

MB05.19



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


tried fine blended fibre (to

better coat fibre in wet mix and

form compact mesh).

MB05.20



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch

- Solid to touch after 24hrs of

soaking


reduced starch. It appears

less starch does increase

water resistance.

36


MB05.21


bending


- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch- Mostly solid

after 24hrs of soaking


made changes.

MB06.22



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking

Notes: Used MB05.21

but at 1/4 size to save on

ingredients. Using only whole

grams to make it easier.

MB06.23



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


removed glycerin.

MB06.24



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used 50% the amount of

glycerin.

37

Charlotte McCarthy

MB06.25


bending


- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking

Notes: Used MB06.22

and used 150% amount of

glycerin.

MB06.26


bending


- Cut with scissors

- Dry to touch


soaking

Notes: Used MB06.22

and used 200% amount of

glycerin.

MB06.27



- Cut with scissors

- Dry to touch



removed gelatin.

MB06.28



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking



gelatin.

38


MB06.29



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used 150% amount of gelatin.

MB06.30



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used 200% amount of gelatin.

MB06.31


bending


- Cut with scissors

- Dry to touch


soaking


removed starch.

MB06.32



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking



starch.

39

Charlotte McCarthy

MB06.33



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used 150% amount of starch.

MB06.34



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used 200% amount of starch.

MB06.35



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


removed vinegar.

MB06.36



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking



vinegar.

40


MB06.37



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used 150% amount of vinegar.

MB06.38



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used 200% amount of vinegar.

MB06.39



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


removed water.

MB06.40



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking



water.

41

Charlotte McCarthy

MB06.41



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used 150% amount of water.

MB06.42



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used 200% amount of water.

MB06.43



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


removed oil.

MB06.44



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used 50% the amount of oil.

42


MB06.45



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used 150% amount of oil.

MB06.46



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used 200% amount of oil.

MB07.47



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking

Notes: Used MB06.29 as

control.

MB07.48


bending


- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


fine blended paper for filler

(was compacted into cup due

to being springy).

43

Charlotte McCarthy

MB07.49



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used tea grounds for filler.

MB07.50



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used powdered egg shell for

filler.

MB07.51



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used 50/50 of paper/grass for

filler.

MB08.52



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used rice flour for starch.

Microwaved for 3mins

(instead of 2mins) and started

smouldering.

44


MB08.53



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used rice flour for starch.

MB08.54



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used corn starch for starch.

MB08.55



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used potato starch for starch.

MB08.56



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used topica starch for starch.

45

Charlotte McCarthy

MB08.57



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used crushed topica pearls for

starch.

MB08.58



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used glutinous rice flour for

starch.

MB08.59



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used flour as starch.

MB08.60



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used corn flour as starch.

46


MB09.61



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used expired flour for filler.

MB09.62



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used builder’s sand for filler.

MB09.63



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used beach sand for filler.

MB09.64



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used potting mix for filler.

47

Charlotte McCarthy

MB09.65



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used orange peel for filler.

MB09.66



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used kitchen scraps for filler.

MB09.67



- Cut with hacksaw

- Dry to touch


soaking


used pencil shavings for filler.

48


49

Charlotte McCarthy

50

AdNat | Development: Shelter

Chapter 3

Development:

Skink Shelters

A desire to help nature evolved into a

biodiversity conservation project

The process traversed through literary and design research

methods to arrive at the final concepts

51

Charlotte McCarthy

Engaging with Nature

A simple passion for nature seeded the

direction of this project which was eventually

developed into a product concept following a

length methodology (see Figure 11).

To get to this point a literature survey was

undertaken to broadly look at topics and

issues involving engaging, using and

conserving nature. This was then funnelled

into a rapid concept brainstorm session

which in turn led to a second, refined

literature survey. By compiling all the key

interest information (see Figure 12) a

research gap, of using DIY biomaterials

to help urban biodiversity, and research

questions were identified.

Following this, the first design phase involved

market research and producing rough ideas.

Using these methods the process arrived at

the preliminary concept of a DIY biomaterial

artificial skink shelter.

This early concept was then developed

in design phase 2 which was split into

the product and material streams. At the

conclusion of this process phase the

outcomes, biomaterial, shelter designs and

maker’s manual, were achieved.

The pages following detail parts of this

process, particularly the outcomes of the

methods used in the second design phase.

52


Figure 11

Conceptual Framework

Initiating

Focus

Discover

Define

Research

Phase

Research

Gap

Literature

Survey

Literature

Survey

Engaging with nature

Engaging with conservation

Biophilic Design

Design in conservation

Conservation strategies

Concept

Brainstorming

DIY Biomaterials

Urban Biodiversity

Urban private gardens

Urban garden wildlife

DEVELOP

Design

Phase 1

Market

Research

Thumbnail Sketches

Biodiversity Products

Conservation Products

Wildlife housing

Refine

Ideation

Preliminary

Concept

ITERATE

Shelter

Design

Part 1

EVALUATE

ITERATE

Form

Lang.

Design

Phase 2

Material

Design

ITERATE

Shelter

Design

Part 2

EVALUATE

Refined

Product

EVALUATE

Refined

Material

Final

Design

53

Charlotte McCarthy

Figure 12

Conceptual Framework

Australian Conservation

Foundation. (2020). The

Extinction Crisis in

Australia’s cities and

towns.

Bekessy, S., et al. (2018).

Biodiversity Sensitive

Urban

Design @ Glen Junor.

World Wildlife

Foundation. (2018).

Australian Attitudes

to Nature 2017.

Problem Space

Shaw, A. (2014). Backyard

Biodiversity: Community

and wildlife attitudes and

practices.

Webb, J. & Moxon, S. (2021). A

study protocol to understand

urban rewilding behaviour

in relation to adaptations to

private gardens.

Bofylatos, S. (2022).

Upcycling Systems Design,

Developing a Methodology

through Design.

Australian Bureau of

Statistics. (2020). Waste

Account, Australia,

Experimental Estimates.

2

3

1

Research Question 3:

In what ways can

design improve

wildlife biodiversity?


In what ways can

Australian urban private

gardens and their users

contribute to improving

urban biodiversity?


In what ways can

organic household

waste be re-purposed

into objects using

methods accessible to

household users?

Design research & theory informing practice

1a

3b

3a

Kasandra, B.,

et al. (2021).

Bioplastic

Pavilion.

Dunne, M. (2018).

Bioplastic Cook

Book.

Ayala-Garcia, C. &

Rognoli, C. (2019).

The Materials

Generation.

1b

Carver, S., et al.

(2020).

Guiding principles

for rewilding.

Hanson, H., et al. (2021).

Gardens’ contribution

to people and urban

green space.

2a

Parker, D., et al.

(2021). A framework

for computeraided

design and

manufacturing of

habitat structures

for cavitydependent

animals

3c

Australian Wildlife

Conservancy. (2021).

Biodegradable ‘flatpack’

homes to help

wildlife survive after

bushfires.

Watchorn, D., et al. (2022).

Artificial habitat structures for

animal conservation: design

and implementation, risks and

opportunities.

Roudavski, S. (2020).

Multispecies

Cohabitation and

Future Design.

Moxon, S. (2020).

Designing for Wildlife:

Engaging City

Dwellers to Cohabitat

with Nature.

Oskam, P. & Latour, M.

(2021). Urban Reef.

Solution Space

54


Figure 13

Diagram of wildlife-friendly garden actions

55

Charlotte McCarthy

Figure 14

Information on artificial wildlife shelters

56


Figure 15

Information on designing bluetongue skink shelters

57

Charlotte McCarthy

Figure 16

Diagram of artificial wildlife shelter designs

58


Concept Development

CB01.01

CB01.04

CB01.02

CB01.06

CB01.05

CB01.03

CB01.01

- Starting hemisphere design

- Features holes for wildlife to use but would

also create dappled light inside to mimic

undergrowth

CB01.02

- Modular design inspired by building blocks

- Main issues is how would the parts be stuck

together which might require a secondary

“glue” biomaterial recipe

CB01.03

- Iterated on the modular concept with the idea

of using connector edges

- Main issue is that would require very tight

tolerances that the biomaterial would need to

be capable of holding

CB01.04

- A design that is freely formed like clay

- This would only be possible if the biomaterial

has a clay-like stage before drying

CB01.05

- Iterated on connector design by simplifying it

to rods and holes

- Still suffers from the tolerance issue though

there is more room for error now

CB01.06

- Considered design the shelters to have an

underground feature

- While this would be good for skinks it would

require more effort from users which they

would not be able to see

59

Charlotte McCarthy

CB02.07 - CB02.11

- These were focused on making a gradient of

designs that would require different levels of

skill in trade for freedom of form

CB02.07

Easiest Methods

CB03.12 - CB03.13

- Iteration of prior designs to simplify it down to

two ends of the scale with a free-form design

and a modular design

CB04.14 - CB04.20

- This was a brainstorm of shapes that could

be made use simple moulds

- Main issue raised through this was the

limitation of moulds and the necessity to

know what shapes a design would need first

CB02.08

CB05.21 - CB05.26

- Moved to using sketch modelling to better

understand shapes and play with modular

systems

- Main issue is how structured and man-made

these designs are

CB02.09

CB05.28 - CB05.29

- Discovered that by making the form first and

then splitting it into simple mouldable parts it

was possible to make more organic forms

CB06.30 - CB06.31

- With the insights from the prior concepts

decided on a multi-part approach that layers

parts

- This was applied to the free-form and modular

design directions

Most Design Control

CB02.10

CB07.32 - CB07.34

- CAD sketched up some mould designs

- Realised that the major issue of these designs

is that they would require manufacturing and

distribution to the consumer

CB02.11

60


CB05.21

CB05.22

CB03.12

CB03.13

CB04.14

CB04.15

CB04.16

CB05.23

CB05.25

CB05.24

CB04.17

CB04.18

CB05.27

CB05.26

CB04.19

CB04.20

CB05.28

CB05.29

61

Charlotte McCarthy

CB08.35 - CB08.36

- Prototyped two forms with the WIP biomaterial

- The form that used found objects as a rough

mould was very effective and easy

- The form that was rolled up in cardboard was

difficult to make and unmould

CB09.37

- Prototyped a layered, multi-part design

- Discovered rice flour glue made a very

effective and sturdy paper mache

- Realised that the moulds would need to be

simpler to construct if this path is taken

- Also thickness of moulds would not translate

across when moulding material

CB06.30

CB10.38

- Tested moulding method of paper mache on

found object which was very simple to do

- Test moulding WIP material into mould which

was also simple to do

- Discovered that paper mould can go in oven

which will speed up drying process

CB06.31

CB11.39 - CB11.42

- Sketched and tested another mould making

idea using layered cardboard

- Realised this would be very time consuming

and not material efficient

CB07.32

CB11.43

- Discovered that simple flat shapes can be

bent into interesting and organic forms

- Very easy to do in cardboard

CB07.33

CB12.44 - CB12.47

- Tested cardboard pattern mould method

- Very effective and requires less paper mache

layers as cardboard is part of structure

CB07.34

62


CB09.37

CB08.35

CB10.38

CB11.39

CB11.40

CB08.36

CB11.41

CB11.42

63

Charlotte McCarthy

CB13.48 - CB13.53

- Roughly sketched out more ideas however

these would be more complicated to turn into

patterns or moulds

CB13.54 - CB13.57

- Moved to model sketching

- Other than CB13.54, would be hard to mould

- Forms have an organic look

CB11.43

CB13.58 - CB13.65

- Started to test pattern shapes

- Hard edges off CB13.64 don’t look organic

- CB13.61 has potential as it’s easy to draw

and organic entrance hole

CB12.44

CB13.66 - CB13.83

- Expanded upon flat pattern idea combined

with layered parts

- Overall the best shapes have curves

CB12.45

CB14.84 - CB14.85

- Tested paper mache mould making, one with

non-stick paper and one without the paper

- Discovered that non-stick paper is necessary

to prevent mould sticking to object

CB12.46

CB15.86 - CB15.94

- Looked at other ways the forms can be

customised by the user

- Won’t be part of pre-made designs as these

add another level of complexity for users

CB12.47

CB16.95 - CB16.97

- Looked at other ways the forms can be

customised by the user

- Won’t be part of pre-made designs as these

add another level of complexity for users

CB13.48

CB13.51

CB13.49

CB13.52

CB13.50

CB13.53

64


CB13.54

CB13.55

CB13.66 CB13.67 CB13.68

CB13.56

CB13.57

CB13.69

CB13.70

CB13.73

CB13.72

CB13.71

CB13.58

CB13.61

CB13.59

CB13.74 CB13.75 CB13.76

CB13.60

CB13.62

CB13.79

CB13.63

CB13.64

CB13.65

CB13.78

CB13.77

65

Charlotte McCarthy

CB16.98 - CB16.104

- Looked at basic form types

- Realised spiral and “paper lantern” form

would be too complex for unskilled users

CB17.105

- Finalised the found object mould method

- Very simple design requires just two different

sized bowls

CB17.106

- Simplified forms sketched to help understand

the layering of parts

- Not super helpful due to limited dimensions

CB13.80

CB13.83

CB13.81

CB13.82

CB17.107 - CB17.151

- More sketch models iterating on pattern

mould concept

- Most organic-looking forms were those

that had curvy outlines, often resulting in

ambiguous shapes

- Realised that just making simple darts was

enough to force patterns into 3D forms

CB14.84

CB14.85

CB15.86

CB15.87

CB15.88

CB15.89

CB15.90

CB15.91

CB15.92

CB15.93

CB15.94

CB16.95

CB16.96

CB16.97

66


CB16.98

CB16.99

CB16.100

CB16.102

CB17.112

CB16.103

CB17.107

CB17.110

CB16.104

CB16.101

CB17.108

CB17.109

CB17.111

CB17.114

CB17.105

CB17.113

CB17.115

CB17.116

CB17.106

CB17.117 CB17.118 CB17.119

67

Charlotte McCarthy

CB17.120 CB17.121 CB17.122

CB17.132

CB17.133

CB17.134

CB17.123 CB17.124 CB17.125

CB17.135 CB17.136 CB17.137

CB17.126 CB17.127 CB17.128

CB17.138

CB17.139

CB17.140

CB17.129 CB17.130 CB17.131

CB17.141 CB17.142 CB17.143

68


CB17.144 CB17.145 CB17.146

CB17.147 CB17.148 CB17.149

CB17.150

CB17.151

69

Charlotte McCarthy

70

AdNat | Outcome: Material

Chapter 4

Outcome:

AdNat Biomaterial

A material anyone, no skills needed, can

make and use, indoors or out

User-manufacturable at home with accessible supplies and

a forgiving recipe so unskilled users can make it

71

Charlotte McCarthy

72


Aesthetic Variety

The filler dictates the material appearance

Fine-Blended Grass

Fine-Blended Paper

Used Tea Grounds

Crushed Egg Shell

Paper and Grass

Expired Flour

Builder’s Sand

Beach Sand

Potting Mix

Blended Orange Peel

Blended Kitchen Scraps

Pencil Shavings

73

Charlotte McCarthy

1 cup Dry Filler

20g Starch

32g Gelatin

Material Recipe

1. Get a microwave-safe bowl.

2. Pour in starch and filler and mix well.

3. Put bowl to the side.

4. Get a second bowl, must be heat-proof.

5. Pour in gelatine, glycerin, vinegar and oil.

6. Pour in boiling water and mix well.

7. Retrieve the microwave-safe bowl.

8. Pour wet mixture into first bowl.

9. Mix until all ingredients have combined.

10. Cover and microwave for 2 mins on high.

11. Form the material.

12. Dry in oven at 180*C for 3 hours or in a

warm spot until dry to touch.

52g Boiling

Water

32g Glycerin

Microwave

Bowl (Large)

20g White

Vinegar

Scales

Heat-Proof

Bowl (Small)

12g

Vegetable Oil

Measuring Cup

Microwave

Cover

Spatula

Egg Beater

Microwave

Oven

74


75

Charlotte McCarthy

76

AdNat | Outcome: Shelter

Chapter 5

Outcome:

Skink Shelters

Home DIY wildlife garden shelters for

NSW bluetongue skinks

Enabling anyone to get involved regardless of their ability

with supplies commonly available to households

77

Charlotte McCarthy

78


Two Mould Making Methods

Giving users a choice between ease and creativity

Found Object

Limited by available objects but

easy to create

Cardboard Pattern

Require some creativity but gives

more design freedom

1. Find an object

to mould

2. Cover object in

non-stick paper

1. Draw pattern on

cardboard

2. Cut out shape

3. Paper mache 10

layers on object

4. Remove object

once dry

3. Cut darts into

shape

4.Tape darts and bend

into shape

5. Clean up mould 6. Mould is ready 5. Paper mache 3

for use

layers pn shape

6. Mould is ready

for use

79

Charlotte McCarthy

Drip Shelter Design

80


Bowl Shelter Design

81

Charlotte McCarthy

82

AdNat | Outcome: Manual

Chapter 6

Outcome:

Maker’s Manual

Instructing unskilled users on making the

AdNat biomaterial and skink shelters

Fully illustrated in black and white so the information is easy

to understand but saves on ink if printed

83

Charlotte McCarthy

Exhibition Biography

84



85

Charlotte McCarthy


86



87

Charlotte McCarthy


88



89

Charlotte McCarthy


90



91

Charlotte McCarthy


92



93

Charlotte McCarthy

94

AdNat | Appendices

Chapter 7

Appendices

95

Charlotte McCarthy

Appendix A

Figure A1

Charlotte McCarthy

Charlotte is an interdisciplinary designer and artist based in rural NSW

with projects spanning film, art and design. Formally trained in animation,

graphic and product design her experience encompasses many

other creative fields such as textiles, craft and landscaping.

A lifetime surrounded by untouched wilderness has deeply rooted

her connection to nature. In her pieces, this influence is both directly

depicted and reflected as recurring themes of life, chaos, diversity and

change. The worsening state of the environment features strongly in

many of her works to raise awareness.

Her pieces are emotional, earthly and often fantastical in nature evoking

a sense of captured moments in time. She incorporates a range of materials

to produce her illustrations, sculptures and products. Natural and

homemade materials are a signature of her pieces and a result of her

eco-conscious creative practices.


96

AdNat | Appendices

Appendix A

Figure A2

“With a Hand” Youtube Bio

97

Charlotte McCarthy

Appendix A

Figure A3

Design CV Bio

98

AdNat | Appendices

Appendix A

Figure A4

AdNat Shelters

for bluetongues

By UTS Design Honours Student

Charlotte McCarthy

Putting conservation in the

hands of backyard users.

he Australian natural environment is

T rapidly eroding and fragmenting due

Ad Nat Photo Rendering.

Art: Charlotte McCarthy.

6

Conservation Article Project Explainer

99

Charlotte McCarthy

Appendix A

Figure A5

Hi and thank you for reaching out to hear about this project.

My product design honours research project, AdNat, is a biomaterial

bluetongue skink shelter that can be self-manufactured in the kitchen

using accessible items and materials including organic waste. It’s for the

average, unskilled backyard user, who wants to get more engaged in

nature and conservation and, unlike other artificial wildlife shelters, it’s

designed to decay harmlessly into the environment after several months in

wet weather thereby returning important nutrients back to the soil.

The project came about through research where I identified a lack of

research into the application of biomaterials in conservation. I further

refined this to deal with urban biodiversity, as Australia has such a large

urban population, with a focus on private gardens as they take up a

significant portion of existing green space in urban areas. From here there

was a lot of exploration and development to produce both the biomaterial

and the skink shelter designs.

What’s really significant about this project isn’t that I just designed a

product to help backyard bluetongues but that a new biomaterial had been

developed and I’d demonstrated that it’s possible to design a product that

is open-source and user-manufactured. It showed the potential of different

approaches to helping the environment whether that be directly engaging

with nature, decentralising manufacturing which reduces emissions from

transportation, or by using sustainable materials that are designed to

decay.

Thanks for hearing me out.

“Elevator Pitch” Transcript Project Explainer

100

AdNat | Appendices

Appendix A

Figure A6

Facebook Post Project Explainer

101

Charlotte McCarthy

Appendix B

Table B1

MB01.V01

3/4c Filler (garlic peel)

50g Starch (rice)

20g Gelatin

30g Glycerin

80g Water (boiling)

1. Combine fibre, starch, gelatine, glycerine

and water.

2. Add additional water until sticky and moist.

3. Mould.

4. Freeze for 10 mins.

5. Remove from mould.

6. Microwave 30 secs x 4.

7. Let dry.

MB01.V02

1c Filler (mixed waste)

50g Starch (rice)

20g Gelatin

30g Glycerin

10g Vinegar (white)

70g Water (boiling)

1. Combine dry together.

2. Combine wet together.

3. Combine both together.


5. Mould.

6. Freeze for 10 mins.


8. Microwave 1 min x 2.

9. Let dry.

MB01.V03


50g Starch (rice)

20g Gelatin

30g Glycerin

10g Vinegar (white)

60g Water (boiling)

5g Agar Agar





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min


8. Let dry.

MB01.V04

1 1/2c Filler (mixed waste)

40g Starch (rice)

20g Gelatin

30g Glycerin

10g Vinegar (white)

60g Water (boiling)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min


8. Let dry.

102

AdNat | Appendices

MB02.V05


40g Starch (rice)

20g Gelatin

20g Glycerin

10g Vinegar (white)

60g Water (boiling)

10g Oil (Vegetable)

1. Combine dry (exc. gelatin) together.

2. Combine wet & gelatin together.



5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min


8. Let dry.

MB02.V06

MB02.V07


40g Starch (rice)

20g Gelatin

20g Glycerin

10g Vinegar (white)

40g Water (boiling)

10g Oil (Vegetable)


40g Starch (rice)

20g Gelatin

20g Glycerin

20g Vinegar (white)

40g Water (boiling)

10g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min


8. Let dry.





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min


8. Let dry.

MB02.V08


40g Starch (rice)

20g Gelatin

30g Glycerin

20g Vinegar (white)

50g Water (boiling)

10g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min


8. Let dry.

103

Charlotte McCarthy

MB03.V09


10g Starch (rice)

10g Gelatin

10g Glycerin

10g Vinegar (white)

20g Water (boiling)

10g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min


8. Let dry.

MB03.V10


10g Starch (rice)

10g Gelatin

10g Glycerin

10g Vinegar (white)

40g Water (boiling)

10g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min


8. Let dry.

MB03.V11

1c Filler (tea waste)

10g Starch (rice)

10g Gelatin

10g Glycerin

10g Vinegar (white)

40g Water (boiling)

10g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min


8. Let dry.

MB03.V12


20g Starch (rice)

10g Gelatin

20g Glycerin

10g Vinegar (white)

80g Water (boiling)

10g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min


8. Let dry.

104

AdNat | Appendices

MB04.V13

1c Filler (rough grass)

40g Starch (rice)

10g Gelatin

10g Glycerin

10g Vinegar (white)

40g Water (boiling)

10g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min


8. Let dry.

MB04.V14


40g Starch (rice)

10g Gelatin

20g Glycerin

10g Vinegar (white)

40g Water (boiling)

10g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min


8. Let dry.

MB04.V15


30g Starch (rice)

10g Gelatin

15g Glycerin

10g Vinegar (white)

50g Water (boiling)

10g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min


8. Let dry.

MB05.V16


40g Starch (rice)

20g Gelatin

30g Glycerin

30g Vinegar (white)

50g Water (boiling)

10g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min

7. Oven for 180*C for 3 hours.


10. Let dry.

105

Charlotte McCarthy

MB05.V17


40g Starch (rice)

20g Gelatin

30g Glycerin

20g Vinegar (white)

50g Water (boiling)

10g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB05.V18


40g Starch (rice)

20g Gelatin

30g Glycerin

40g Vinegar (white)

50g Water (boiling)

10g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB05.V19

1c Filler (fine grass)

40g Starch (rice)

20g Gelatin

30g Glycerin

20g Vinegar (white)

50g Water (boiling)

10g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB05.V20


20g Starch (rice)

20g Gelatin

30g Glycerin

20g Vinegar (white)

50g Water (boiling)

10g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

106

AdNat | Appendices

MB05.V21


40g Starch (rice)

20g Gelatin

30g Glycerin

40g Vinegar (white)

50g Water (boiling)

10g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB06.V22

1/4c Filler (fine grass)

5g Starch (rice)

5g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB06.V23


5g Starch (rice)

5g Gelatin

0g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB06.V24


5g Starch (rice)

5g Gelatin

4g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

107

Charlotte McCarthy

MB06.V25


5g Starch (rice)

5g Gelatin

12g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB06.V26


5g Starch (rice)

5g Gelatin

16g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB06.V27


5g Starch (rice)

0g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB06.V28


5g Starch (rice)

3g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

108

AdNat | Appendices

MB06.V29


5g Starch (rice)

8g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB06.V30


5g Starch (rice)

10g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB06.V31

1/4c Filler(fine grass)

5g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB06.V32


3g Starch (rice)

5g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

109

Charlotte McCarthy

MB06.V33


8g Starch (rice)

5g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB06.V34


10g Starch (rice)

5g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB06.V35


5g Starch (rice)

5g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB06.V36


5g Starch (rice)

5g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

3g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

110

AdNat | Appendices

MB06.V37


30g Starch (rice)

10g Gelatin

15g Glycerin

8g Vinegar (white)

50g Water (boiling)

10g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB06.V38


30g Starch (rice)

10g Gelatin

15g Glycerin

10g Vinegar (white)

50g Water (boiling)

10g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB06.V39


5g Starch (rice)

5g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB06.V40


5g Starch (rice)

5g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

7g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

111

Charlotte McCarthy

MB06.V41


5g Starch (rice)

5g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

20g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB06.V42


5g Starch (rice)

5g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

26g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB06.V43


5g Starch (rice)

5g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

0g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB06.V44


5g Starch (rice)

5g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

2g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

112

AdNat | Appendices

MB06.V45


5g Starch (rice)

5g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

5g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB06.V46


5g Starch (rice)

5g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

6g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB07.V47


5g Starch (rice)

8g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB07.V48

1/4c Filler (fine blended paper)

5g Starch (rice)

8g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

113

Charlotte McCarthy

MB07.V49

1/4c Filler (waste tea)

5g Starch (rice)

8g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB07.V50

1/4c Filler (fine egg shell)

5g Starch (rice)

8g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB07.V51

1/4c Filler (50% fine paper &

50% fine grass)

5g Starch (rice)

8g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB08.V52


5g Starch (rice)

8g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 3 mins.



10. Let dry.

114

AdNat | Appendices

MB08.V53


5g Starch (rice)

8g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 mins.



10. Let dry.

MB08.V54


5g Starch (corn)

8g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB08.V55


5g Starch (potato)

8g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB08.V56


5g Starch (topica)

8g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

115

Charlotte McCarthy

MB08.V57


5g Starch (crushed topica

pearls)

8g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB08.V58


5g Starch (glutinous rice flour)

8g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB08.V59


5g Starch (wheat flour)

8g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB08.V60


5g Starch (corn flour)

8g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

116

AdNat | Appendices

MB09.V61

1/4c Filler (wheat flour)

5g Starch (rice)

8g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB09.V62

1/4c Filler (builder’s sand)

5g Starch (rice)

8g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB09.V63

1/4c Filler (beach sand)

5g Starch (rice)

8g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB09.V64

1/4c Filler (potting mix)

5g Starch (rice)

8g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

117

Charlotte McCarthy

MB09.V65

1/4c Filler (fine orange peel)

5g Starch (rice)

8g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB09.V66

1/4c Filler (fine kitchen scraps)

5g Starch (rice)

8g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

MB09.V67

1/4c Filler (pencil shavings)

5g Starch (rice)

8g Gelatin

8g Glycerin

5g Vinegar (white)

13g Water (boiling)

3g Oil (Vegetable)





5. Mould.

6. Microwave 2 min



10. Let dry.

118

AdNat | Appendices

Appendix C

Figure C1

Compostable Bin Recipe

Developed in a prior project

119

Charlotte McCarthy

120

AdNat - Product Design Project

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?