Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Social innovation ecosystems and sustainability in cities: a study in Florianópolis, Brazil

  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The socio-environmental crisis and the complexity of urban problems highlight the importance of better understanding the emergence and configuration of social innovation ecosystems (SIEs) and their impact on cities. This article proposes a new theoretical–methodological approach that is inspired in a pragmatism perspective and presents results of its empirical application in the mapping and analysis of the SIE in the city of Florianópolis, Brazil. The study was put into practice through the creation and implementation of a collaborative digital platform that made it possible to make a cartography of the network that forms the city’s SIE, shedding light on the linkage between micro-meso-macro-scales of SIEs. The research findings contribute to raising key aspects in each scale of SIE that could foster or hinder social innovation dynamics. In this sense, besides contributing to understanding the dynamics of SIEs better, the purpose of this study was to analyze the configuration, scope, and limits of the SIE to reinforce the processes of democratic experimentation and to strengthen the sustainability of cities, especially in countries of the South, where these studies are still scarce.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Source: Observatory of Social Innovation of Florianópolis (2019)

Fig. 2

Source: Andion et al. (2020)

Fig. 3

Source: Elaborated by the authors

Fig. 4

Source: Elaborated by the authors

Fig. 5

Source: Elaborated by the authors

Fig. 6

Source: Elaborated by the authors

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The coproduction of the OBISF is described in section three. To learn more about the collaborative platform, see https://www.observafloripa.com.br/is-home.

  2. For a more in-depth look at the theoretical and methodological approach developed in this research, see Andion, Andion et al. (2019, 2020) and Magalhães et al. (2020).

  3. For more information about the 16 public arenas identified and studied by the OBISF team see https://www.observafloripa.com.br/is-page//publicProblems.

  4. This mapping was carried out from the search of the official sites that make this information available from February to May 2017. The terms "social innovation" and "innovation" were considered as search criteria in Laws, plus the terms "sustainability" and "sustainable" were used in policies and programs search. In the search, no specific program or law to support social innovation was found at the municipal and state levels.

  5. To access the representation of this network see https://www.observafloripa.com.br/is-page/ecosystemNetwork.

References

  • Acuto, M., Parnell, S., & Seto, K. C. (2018). Building a global urban science. Nature Sustainability, 1(1), 2–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Alijani, S., Luna, A., Castro-Spila, J., & Unceta, A. (2017). Building capabilities through social innovation: Implications for the economy and society. In Finance and economy for society: Integrating sustainability. Published online: 16 Dec 2016, 293–313.

  • Andion, C. (2020). Civil society mobilization in coping with the effects of COVID-19 in Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Public Administration, 54(4), 936–951

    Google Scholar 

  • Andion, C., Alperstedt, G. D., & Graeff, J. F. (2019). Social innovation ecosystems and cities: Co-construction of a collaborative platform. In J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka, A. Schröeder, & M. Zirngiebl (Eds.), Atlas of social innovation. (2nd Volume: A world of new practices). Dormunt: TU Dormunt University, European School of Social Innovation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andion, C., Alperstedt, G. D., & Graeff, J. F. (2020). Social innovation ecosystems, sustainability, and democratic experimentation: A study in Florianópolis Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Public Administration, 54(1), 181–200

    Google Scholar 

  • Alperstedt, G., & Andion, C. (2021). Social Innovation Ecosystems: A Literature Review and Insights for a Research Agenda. In J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka and A. Schröder, (Eds.), A Research Agenda for Social Innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Andion, C., Ronconi, L., Moraes, R. L., Ribeiro Gonsalves, A. K., & Duarte Serafim, L. B. (2017). Civil society and social innovation in the public sphere: a pragmatic perspective. RAP: Revista Brasileira de Administração Pública, 51(3), 369–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2007). Collaborative Governance. Theory and Practice. In: Journal of Public Administration and Theory Advance, Nov, 1–29.

  • Ansell, C. (2011). Pragmatist democracy: Evolutionary learning as public philosophy. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, C. (2012). What is democratic experiment? Contemporary Pragmatism, 9(2), 159–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, C. K., & Bartenberger, M. (2016). Varieties of experimentation. Ecological Economics., 130, 64–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Brito, A. (2018) Florianópolis lidera lista de cidades com maior número de startups. Florianópolis. Agência Brasil. Available in: http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/economia/noticia/2018-07/. Acessed in Aug 2019.

  • Callon, M., & Latour, B. (1981). Unscrewing the big leviathan: how actors macrostructure reality and how sociologists help them do so. In K. Knorr-Cetina & V. Aaron (Eds.), Advances in social theory and methodology: Toward an integration of micro-and macro-sociologies. Routledge.

  • Calzada, I., & Cobo, C. (2015). Desconstructiong smart city. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(1), 23–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Castelnovo, W., Misuraca, G., & Savoldelli, A. (2016). Smart cities governance: The need for a holistic approach to assessing urban participatory policy making. Social Science Computer Review, 34(6), 724–739

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattacin, S., & Zimmer, A. (2016). Urban governance and social innovations. In T. Brandsen, S. Cattacin, A. Evers, & A. Zimmer (Eds.), Social Innovations in the Urban Context. (pp. 21–44). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cefaï, D. (2002). Qu’est-ce qu’une arène publique? Quelques pistes pour une approche pragmatiste In D. Cefaï, I. Joseph, (Org.). L’héritage du pragmatisme. Conflits d’urbanité et épreuves de civisme. Paris: La Tour d’Aigues; Éditions de l’Aube, 51–82.

  • Cefaï, D. (2009). Como nos mobilizamos? A contribuição de uma abordagem pragmatista para a sociologia da ação coletiva. Dilemas Revista de Estudos de Conflitos e Controle social, 2(4), 11–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Cefaï, D. (2014). Investigar los problemas públicos con más y allá de Joseph Gusfield. In J. Gusfield (ed.) La cultura de los problemas públicos. Buenos Aires : Siglo XXI, 11–54.

  • Cefaï, D. (2017). Públicos, problemas públicos e arenas públicas. O que nos ensina o pragmatismo. Novos Estudos CEBRAP. São Paulo, 6, 187–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Cefaï, D., & Terzi, C. (2012). L’expérience des problèmes publics. Perspectives Pragmatistes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chateauraynaud, F. (2011). Argumenter dans un champ de forces. Essai de balistique sociologique. Petra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Swallow Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1938). Logica. Teoria de la Investigación. Fondo de Cultura Econômica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domanski, D., Howaldt, J., & Kaletka, C. (2020). A comprehensive concept of social innovation and its implications for the local context–on the growing importance of social innovation ecosystems and infrastructures. European Planning Studies, 28(3), 454–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domanski, D., Kaletka, C. (2018). Social innovation ecosystems. In J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka, A. Schröder, M. Zirngiebl (Eds.), Atlas of social innovation: New practices for a better future, 208–210.

  • Ewers, J. (2015). MCTI e Revista Inovação mapeiam as dez cidades mais inovadoras do país. Revista Eletrônica de PD&I, setembro. Available in https://www.inovacao.unicamp.br/especial/mcti-e-revista-inovacao-mapeiam-as-dez-cidades-mais-inovadoras-do-pais/. Accessed in Aug 2019.

  • Frega, R. (2019). Pragmatism and the wide view of democracy. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gascó, M. (2017). Living labs: Implementing open innovation in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 34(1), 90–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonsalves, A. K. R., & Andion, C. (2019). Ação pública e inovação social: uma análise do Sistema de Garantia de Direitos da Criança e do Adolescente de Florianópolis. Organizações & Sociedade, 26, 221–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutierrez, V., et al. (2016). Co-creating cities of the future. Sensors. https://doi.org/10.3390/s16111971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, M., Geels, F. W., & McMeekin, A. (2017). Reconfiguring urban sustainability transitions, analysing multiplicity. Sustainability, 9(2), 299

    Google Scholar 

  • Howaldt, J. (2018). The unanswered question: Social innovation and social change. In J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka, A. Schooder, & M. Zirngiebl (Eds.), Atlas of social innovation: New practices for a better future (pp. 89–91). Dortmund: TU Dortmund University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howaldt, J., Kaletka, C., Schooder, A., & Zirngiebl, M. (2018). Atlas of social innovation: New practices for a better future. TU Dortmund University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howaldt, J., Kaletka, C., Schröder, A., & Zirngiebl, M. (2019). Atlas of Social Innovation. Second Volume - A World of New Practices. Dortmund: TU Dortmund University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howaldt, J., Schröder, A., Kaletka, C., Rehfeld, D., & Terstriep, J. (2016). Mapping the World of Social Innovation: A Global Comparative Analysis across Sectors and World Regions. A deliverable of the project Social Innovation. Dortmund, TU Dortmund University: Driving Force of Social Change (SI-DRIVE).

    Google Scholar 

  • Innovation & Entrepreuneurship (2009) Available in http://www.infodev.org/highlights/Florianópolis-silicon-valley-brazil. Acessed in Aug 2019.

  • INSTITUTO BRASILEIRO DE GEOGRAFIA E ESTATÍSTICA (IBGE). Censo Brasileiro de 2010.

  • INSTITUTO BRASILEIRO DE GEOGRAFIA E ESTATÍSTICA (IBGE). Projeção da População Brasileira, 2019.

  • Kaika, M. (2017). Don’t call me resilient again! The New Urban Agenda as Immunology …or …what happens when communities refuse to be vaccinated with “smart cities” and indicators. Environment and Urbanization., 29(1), 89–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaletka, C., Makmann, M., & Pelka, B. (2016). Peelling the onion. An exploration of the layers of social innovation ecossystems. Modelling a context sensitive perspective on driving and hindering factors for social innovation. European Public Social & Social Innovation Review., 1(2), 83–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Lascoumes, P., & Le Galès, P. (2007). Sociologia da ação pública. Edufal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1998). On recalling ANT. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after. (pp. 15–25). Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2012). Reagregando o social: Uma introdução à teoria do ator-rede. Edufba.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2014) Course: scientific humanities. Paris: Sciences Po.—MOOC from the FUN-2014. Available in www.science spo. Accessed in May 2014.

  • Law, J. (1999). After ANT: Complexity, naming and topology In J. (pp. 1–14). Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lévesque, B. (2016). Économie sociale et solidaire et entrepreneur social: Vers quels nouveaux écosystèmes? Revue Interventions Économiques, 54, 1–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Magalhães, T., Andion, C., Alperstedt, G. D. (2020). Social innovation living labs and public action An analytical framework and a methodological route based in pragmatism. Cadernos EBAPE BR, p. 680–696.

  • Mason, C., & Brown, R. (2014). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth-oriented entrepreneurship. Final report to OECD, Paris, 30(1), 77–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • McPhearson, T., Andersson, E., Elmqvist, T., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2015). Resilience of and through urban ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 12, 152–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehmood, A. (2016). Resilient places. Planning for urban resilience. European Planning Studies, 24(2), 407–419

    Google Scholar 

  • Moraes, R. L., & Andion, C. (2018). Civil society and social innovation in public arenas in Brazil: Trajectory and experience of the Movement Against Electoral Corruption (MCCE). VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29, 801–818

    Google Scholar 

  • Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., Gonzalez, S., & Swyngedouw, E. (2007). Introduction: Social innovation and governance in European cities. European Urban and Regional Studies, 14(3), 195–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Moulaert, F., & Sekia, F. (2003). Territorial innovation models: A critical survey. Regional Studies, 37(3), 289–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Quéré, L. and Terzi, C. (2015). Pour une sociologie pragmatiste de l’experience publique. Quelques apports mutuels de la philosophie pragmatiste et de l’ethnométhodologie. SociologieS. [en ligne]. Dossiers. Pragmatisme et sciences sociales: explorations, enquêtes, experimentations, 1–18.

  • Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759–1769

    Google Scholar 

  • TEPSIE. (2014). Building the social innovation ecosystem. A deliverable of the project: “The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe” (TEPSIE), European Commission: 7th Framework Programme, Brussels: European Commission, DG Research.

  • Terstriep, J., Rehfeld, D., & Kleverbeck, M. (2020). Favourable social innovation ecosystem (s)? An explorative approach. European Planning Studies, 28(5), 881–905

    Google Scholar 

  • Tosun, J., & Schoenefeld, J. (2017). Collective climates actions and networked climate governance. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Climate Change., 8(1), e440

    Google Scholar 

  • Vechakul, J., Shrimali, B. P., & Sandhu, J. (2015). Human-centered design as an approach for place-based innovation in public health: A case sudy from Oakland. California. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 19(12), 2552–2559

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfram, M., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2016). Cities and systemic change for sustainability: Prevailing epistemologies and an emerging research Agenda. Sustainability, 8(2), 1–18

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank to Foundation for Research and Innovation Support of the State of Santa Catarina (FAPESC), the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), and the Santa Catarina State University (UDESC) for the financial support given to this research. Also, the authors thank to the Brazilian Federal Agency for Coordination of Superior Level Staff Improvement (CAPES) for the Post-Doctoral Scholarship received from one of the authors to produce this research. Last but not least, the authors thank the entire team of researchers involved in this research project.

Funding

This study was financed by Foundation for Research and Innovation Support of the State of Santa Catarina (FAPESC), the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), and the Santa Catarina State University (UDESC). Also, Julia Furlanetto Graeff received a Post-Doctoral Scholarship from Federal Agency for Coordination of Superior Level Staff Improvement (CAPES).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Administration and Graduate Program in Administration, State University of Santa Catarina (UDESC) https://www.udesc.br/

    Carolina Andion & Luciana Ronconi

  2. Department of Business Administration and Graduate Program in Administration, State University of Santa Catarina (UDESC), Florianópolis, Brazil

    Graziela Dias Alperstedt

  3. Research Center on Social Innovation in the Public Sphere (NISP), State University of Santa Catarina (UDESC), Florianópolis, Brazil

    Julia Furlanetto Graeff

  4. Department of Public Administration and Professional Graduate Program in Administration, State University of Santa Catarina (UDESC), 2037 Madre Benvenuta Avenue, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, 88035-001, Brazil

    Carolina Andion

Authors
  1. Carolina Andion
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Graziela Dias Alperstedt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julia Furlanetto Graeff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luciana Ronconi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carolina Andion.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Andion, C., Alperstedt, G.D., Graeff, J.F. et al. Social innovation ecosystems and sustainability in cities: a study in Florianópolis, Brazil. Environ Dev Sustain 24, 1259–1281 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01496-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01496-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation