Environment, Development and Sustainability (2022) 24:1259–1281

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

Social innovation ecosystems and sustainability in cities:

a study in Florianópolis, Brazil

Carolina Andion1,4   · Graziela Dias Alperstedt2 · Julia Furlanetto Graeff3 ·

Luciana Ronconi1

Received: 7 February 2020 / Accepted: 3 May 2021 / Published online: 17 May 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2021

Abstract
The socio-environmental crisis and the complexity of urban problems highlight the impor-
tance of better understanding the emergence and configuration of social innovation eco-
systems (SIEs) and their impact on cities. This article proposes a new theoretical–meth-
odological 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 Florianópo-
lis, 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 experi-
mentation and to strengthen the sustainability of cities, especially in countries of the South,
where these studies are still scarce.

Keywords  Social innovation · Social innovation ecosystems · Cities · Urban development ·

Sustainability

* Carolina Andion
andion.esag@gmail.com
1
Department of Public Administration and Graduate Program in Administration, State University
of Santa Catarina (UDESC)
https://www.udesc.br/
2
Department of Business Administration and Graduate Program in Administration, State University
of Santa Catarina (UDESC), Florianópolis, Brazil
3
Research Center on Social Innovation in the Public Sphere (NISP), State University of Santa
Catarina (UDESC), Florianópolis, Brazil
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

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 1260 C. Andion et al.

1 Introduction

Cities and urban areas are conceived as critical spaces for global sustainability, as they
house a large part of the planet’s population, which includes 863 million people below
the poverty line. In addition, they account for 75% of carbon emissions and face numer-
ous problems, such as the lack of urban mobility, waste generation, inequality, lack of
security, and criminality (Acuto et al., 2018).
Throughout the world, there has been a call to deepen the knowledge related to social
innovation and cities and to combine the findings of scientific research with practices
to reinforce public policies to promote sustainability Wolfram and Frantzeskaki (2016).
The recent literature shows an increasing interest in linking social innovation and the
resilience of cities. The diversity of urban ecosystems services (McPhearson et  al.,
2015), the co-production of social innovation to promote “smart cities” (Mehmood,
2016; Castelnovo et al., 2016), design thinking and new technologies applied to solving
social problems (Gutierrez et al., 2016; Vechakul et al., 2015), networked and collabo-
rative governance (Tosun & Schoenefeld, 2017), and the use of digital platforms (Gut-
ierrez et al., 2016) are some of the main topics in the current scientific debate that show
the importance of multiple social innovation experiments to co-create more sustainable
cities.
However, authors such as Calzada and Cobo (2015), Castelnovo et  al. (2016) and
Kaika (2017) offer some important critiques on the “smart cities” approach, showing
that it remains technologically determined and path dependent on old methodological
tools, techno-managerial solutions, and normative frameworks. The majority of clas-
sic studies that link cities and innovation focus on the structural configuration of urban
systems or urban sectors. Only a few of these studies try to understand the interactions
between the actors that form the social innovation ecosystems (SIEs), their particulari-
ties, their practices, and their real consequences in the local realities.
This is the main objective of this study, which started from the assumption that SIEs
are social networks formed by a myriad of actors and experiences that could be sources
of collective intelligence and creativity and contribute to solving urban problems, cre-
ating new paths of development, and reinforcing democracy in cities (Andion et  al.,
2020). SIEs are formed by associations among multiple actors, institutions, and arti-
facts from different sectors that are focused on solving problematic situations in “public
arenas.” The public arenas are interpreted here as public spaces beyond institutional,
technical, and legal devices where multiple actors (from the civil society, market, gov-
ernment, and universities) perform public actions (Cefaï, 2002).
Thus, studying social innovation implies observing these experiences or the day-
to-day politics of the different collectives mobilized around the city’s public problems
and their consequences. The SIE cartography becomes a strategy to observe how differ-
ent audiences engage, interpret, discuss, publicize, and promote solutions to the public
problems that they face through processes of “public inquiry” (Cefaï, 2014) in these
multiple public arenas.
Therefore, observing the practices of the actors that configure and reconfigure these
ecosystems (as support agents or promoters of social innovation) and their role in the city’s
governance is essential to understanding the dynamics of the diverse public arenas in the
city. Thus, in partnership with some of the main actors of the SIE of Florianópolis, a digital

13
Social innovation ecosystems and sustainability in cities:… 1261

and collaborative platform was implemented: the Observatory of Social Innovation of Flo-
rianópolis (OBISF).1
This article exposes the theoretical approach and a methodological framework devel-
oped for mapping and analyzing the SIE of Florianópolis, in Brazil, and also discusses the
preliminary results of its empirical application through the OBISF. Florianópolis is recog-
nized as a center of social innovation in Brazil because it brings together different groups,
organizations, and institutions that have been promoting initiatives to respond to public
problems. The research permits mapping and understanding how these initiatives interact
and to what extent this network drives or hinders social innovation and produces social
change in the urban context.
The article explores the contributions of the analytical approach adopted in the research,
which seeks to overcome some gaps found in the recent literature on SIEs, as discussed in
the second section. This approach allowed to shed light on the interface between “macro-
meso-micro” scales of the SIE (Alijani et al., 2017) and to conceive an innovative method
of SIE cartography founded in a pragmatist perspective inspired in the idea of “public
inquiry” or “social inquiry” as first proposed by Dewey (1938). It results in the cocon-
struction of a collaborative online platform to map the city’s SIE; the implementation is
discussed in the third section. The research results, presented and discussed in the fourth
and fifth sections, allow identifying key aspects that can strengthen or hamper dynamics of
social innovation in the city. The research findings and conclusion provide valuable clues
for researchers, professionals and public managers involved in the field of social innova-
tion, who seek to expand the impact of these dynamics in cities, especially in developing
countries.

2 A pragmatist approach to social innovation ecosystems: scientific

and methodological contributions

The link between social innovation and territories gained traction at the beginning of the
2000s, with some studies highlighting the limitations of the territorial approaches to inno-
vation that were being applied to the study of social problems. As noted by Moulaert and
Sekia (2003), the notion of “territorial innovations,” employed to understand social innova-
tions, causes conceptual imprecisions. In this debate, innovations are interpreted as deter-
mined by technologies and driven by the market, which is not always the case in the public
sphere.
In their seminal article “Social Innovation and Governance in European Cities” Mou-
laert et al. (2007) launched a debate that has substantially expanded in the last decade and
that has focused on the interaction among social innovation, cities, and urban problems.
Several studies show the relevance of social innovation experiments to build cities that are
safer and more resilient, sustainable, and inclusive (Kaika, 2017). Today, as indicated by
Alijani et al. (2017 p. 295), there is a consensus in the OECD and European countries that
“social innovation trajectory and dynamics are affected by the institutional contexts as well
as discourses and policies at the micro, meso, and macro level” and that these dynamics
could be a way to expand the resilient capacity of cities.

1
  The coproduction of the OBISF is described in section three. To learn more about the collaborative plat-
form, see https://​www.​obser​vaflo​ripa.​com.​br/​is-​home.

13
 1262 C. Andion et al.

Regardless, it can be observed that, even in the countries of the global North, only a
few studies have focused on understanding, from a non-normative, systemic, and empirical
perspective, the configuration and practices of SIEs. Based on a literature review (Andion
et  al., 2020 and Alperstedt & Andion, 2021)), we perceive that some recent studies like
those by Calzada and Cobo (2015), Kaletka et al. (2016), Lévesque (2016), Alijani et al.
(2017), Hodson et al. (2017), Kaika (2017), Domanski and Kaletka (2018), Howaldt et al.
(2018 e 2019) and Domanski et al. (2020) have joined the initial criticism put forward by
Moulaert and Sekia (2003). The authors remark on the path dependence of the studies on
SIEs and social innovation in cities on a logic of quasi-experimentation that emphasizes
metrics, techno-managerial solutions, and market.
That said, we identified some gaps in the recent literature on SIEs, which: (1) mainly
focus on the support infrastructure of the ecosystems (i.e., support institutions in terms of
financing, technical support, acceleration, incubation, among others), (2) leave aside the
relationship of the SIEs with the demand and publics affected by the socio-environmental
problems, (3) emphasize the role of one sector (such as civil the society or social enter-
prises) in the promotion of social innovation, (4) assume technological determinism, and
(5) propose one-size-fits-all models that can be applied in countries, regions, cities, sec-
tors, and companies without considering the characteristics of the territory where SIEs are
located (Andion et al., 2020; Alperstedt and Andion 2021).
Authors like Stam (2015), Lévesque (2016), Domanski et al. (2020), and Terstriep et al
(2020) bring attention to the need for less normative frameworks that avoid the trap of
establishing standard solutions or tautological models to explain social innovation and its
consequences and that consider the multiplicity of experiences in terms of social innova-
tion, giving importance to empirical researches.
The recent literature shows the advance of a broader and more complex approach to
SIEs. These studies argue that SIE research goes beyond just adapting the models and
methodologies from the business world within the context of social innovation. They
suggest new research agendas and provide insights into a broader understanding of SIEs
beyond economics, production, or technology, exploring experiences, practices, and the
various scales of SIEs. This broader view gives importance to networks and interactions
produced in these ecosystems, as well as the practices and experiences and their influence
on the patterns of governance to promote new styles of development in territories.
To advance this debate and overcome some of the literature gaps briefly explored above,
we focus on the “social practices” in the SIE of Florianópolis. Our goal is to start from
a non-normative approach to consider the particularities of the dynamics of “democratic
experimentations” (Ansell, 2012; Ansell & Bartenberger, 2016; Frega, 2019) in cities,
especially in developing countries, whose experiences have so far been little studied in the
literature.
To achieve this, the research is based on a pragmatist view of social innovation pro-
cesses, connecting them to the dynamics of social change promoted by the mobilization
and participation of different collectives to respond to public problems in practical fields
(Ansell, 2011, 2012; Cefai & Terzi, 2012; Howaldt, 2018). It involves understanding to
what extent and in what way ordinary citizens that compose the network of Florianópo-
lis’ SIE promote “public inquiry” in the sense developed by John Dewey in his seminal
book “The public and its problems.” This plurality of “publics” can interpret, mobilize,
and react to the city’s public problems, and in so doing, co-produce social innovations. It
is particularly interesting to understand the emergence, diffusion, and effects of open social
innovations, recognized as autonomous and indeterminate social dynamics of "coping with
problematic situations" in the city’s public arenas (Cefaï, 2002, 2014, 2017).

13
Social innovation ecosystems and sustainability in cities:… 1263

This approach permits to look at the city as a space of multiple “democratic experimen-
tations” (Ansell, 2011, 2012). As highlighted by Cefaï (2002) and Chateauraynaud (2011),
public arenas are seen as “political laboratories” formed by individual, organizational, and
institutional actors who commit themselves to a collective effort to identify and manage
public problems. Therefore, it is not a place of consensus but a patchwork of ways of judg-
ing and seeing the world and acting. In public arenas, ordinary actors could construct day-
by-day living labs (Gascó, 2017; Magalhães et al., 2020) of “democratic experimentation”,
in which "design experiments" and collective learning about the fields of public policy can
be co-constructed (Ansell, 2012; Howaldt., 2018).
In short, based on previous works (Andion et al., 2017, Moraes & Andion, 2018; Gon-
salves & Andion, 2019) and dialogue with some of the lines of thought of contemporary
pragmatism and pragmatic sociology, particularly the actor-network theory (Callon &
Latour, 1981; Latour, 1998, 2012, 2014; Law, 1999) and the sociology of public problems
and public action (Cefaï, 2002, 2009, 2014, 2017; Cefaï & Terzi, 2012; Chateauraynaud,
2011; Lascoumes & Le Galès, 2007; Quéré & Terzi, 2015), the research design was built
based on some assumptions summarized below.2

Assumption 1  Social innovation ecosystems are embedded in a long history of framing

public problems in specific territories (presenting an insertion in time and space) (Chateau-
raynaud, 2011).

Assumption 2  Social innovation dynamics are processes of change (incremental or deeper

changes) that produce outcomes, and that emerge from associations made among multiple
human and/or non-human actors (e.g., individuals, collectives, organizations, institutions,
technologies, and methodologies) in public arenas (Cefai, 2002, 2014, 2017; Latour, 2012,
2014).

Assumption 3  Social innovation dynamics emerge in fields of experiences in which dif-

ferent audiences are engaged in solving public problems and in the processes of “public
inquiry” (Dewey, 1927, 1938).

Assumption 4  To analyze the impact and consequences of social innovation dynamics, it

is necessary to reconnect the experiences to the wider processes of social change, relating
the macro-, meso- and micro-scales of social reality (Cefai & Terzi, 2012).

Grounded on these assumptions, the analytical framework and the methodological route
were conceived and implemented. The principal strategy to put this in practice was the
creation of a digital and collaborative platform as described next.

3 Methodological Framework and empirical strategy

Beyond understanding the configuration of the network that constitutes the city’s SIE,
its actors and its interactions our greatest interest in this study consists in promoting
“public inquiry” processes in the various public arenas of the city. This concerns putting

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).

13
 1264 C. Andion et al.

into practice a research perspective based on “design experimentalism,” as defined by

Ansell (2012), which: (1) focuses on real and lived experiences, and not on those pro-
duced in the intramural “laboratories” of the university; (2) promotes the interaction
between subject and object, by valuing and taking seriously the justifications, knowl-
edge and practices of the actors; (3) takes into account the multiple forms of cause-
action link, measurements and tests, in particular the metrics developed by the differ-
ent audiences and the people affected, considered as “experimenters”; (4) allows room
for error, learning, formulation and reformulation of hypotheses, discussion, debate
and validation of research results in an abductive manner of doing research in action;
(5) promotes theoretical “excavation” and methodological craftsmanship, dialogue and
triangulation of different approaches and methodologies of qualitative and quantitative
research; and (6) favors the idea of a​​ “political ecology” and a plurality of relations and
interactions over an ideal of universality.
To put it in practice in the analysis of the city´s SIE, the main research strategy was the
co-creation of the Observatory of Social Innovation of Florianópolis (www.​obser​vaflo​ripa.​
com.​br) that consists of an online and collaborative platform that allows us to know, follow,
and analyze the SIE of the city (Fig. 1). In the platform implementation, we consider: (1) a

Fig. 1  Home page of the OBISF Source: Observatory of Social Innovation of Florianópolis (2019)

13
Social innovation ecosystems and sustainability in cities:… 1265

Fig. 2  Analytical and methodological framework. Source: Andion et al. (2020)

multi-scale and multidisciplinary perspective, understanding the SIE as a nexus of practices

involving multiple sectors and various public policy fields and public arenas; (2) a longitu-
dinal and socio-spatial analysis, through the georeferencing and longitudinal monitoring of
different initiatives in the city; (3) a collaborative and experiential learning approach, creating
spaces to co-construct knowledge with the actors surveyed.
The analytical and methodological framework used to create and put into operation the
OBISF is structured in four main stages that were not developed in a linear way and are
explored in Andion et al. (2019, 2020). Each stage generated new inputs and questions that
formed the research design. The four stages are summarized in Fig. 2 and described below.

3.1 Territorial and institutional exploration

This first analysis begins examining the institutional context (laws, regulations, policies, and
public programs) that supports social innovation in the city through document and content
analysis. In addition to legal provisions, we look at the territorial dimension and history of the
SIE, including the emergence and development of the SIE, and its territorial dynamics, with
an emphasis on identifying the main public problems and social demands of the city.
With the preliminary information on the institutional context and the understanding of the
formation and development of the SIE, we provide a broad view of what we call a “macro-
scale,” which was considered for analysis along with the meso- and micro-scales.

3.2 Social innovation ecosystem cartography

This stage began in April 2016 with interviews with the main actors supporting social
innovation in the city. We used questionnaires that were afterward incorporated into the
digital platform to collect the following information: (1) contact details, (2) scale of opera-
tion, (2) function and activities in the SIE, (3) the social initiatives supported, and (4) part-
nerships with other support actors. Using the snowball technique, we expanded the sample

13
 1266 C. Andion et al.

to 115 support actors, and the platform was conceived and implemented based on this ini-
tial information.
The OBISF team first collected free-access information about the social innovation
initiatives indicated, including legal format, the causes that the initiatives work with, key
audiences, and contact information for georeferencing purposes. Next, the social innova-
tion initiatives that were initially mapped were observed (through on-site visits with ques-
tionnaires) to understand their mobilization around the public problems, the solutions they
proposed, how they measured their results, who was engaged with the actions, the meth-
odologies and technologies they used, and whether they influenced the public sphere and
their partners, supporters, and funders.
In this process, more than ten “network-actors” were identified as the main articula-
tors in the fields of social entrepreneurship, government, academia (universities), and civil
society. These actors were invited to become partners of the OBISF and helped identify the
new social innovation initiatives supported by them in the ecosystem, increasing the sam-
ple of observed initiatives. The involvement of the main actors in the ecosystem as partners
of the OBISF was also important to validate the data, legitimate the project, and co-create
the platform.
From then on, the SIE’s map expanded, and with the launch of the OBISF digital plat-
form in September 2017, the questionnaires could be completed online. A georeferenced
map of the support actors, the interrelationships between them, and the social innova-
tion initiatives were built. This information about social innovation initiatives and sup-
port actors became part of the map along with its interrelations. The information shaped
the meso-scale of analysis that composed the online and free-access platform of the
Observatory.
In June 2019, when we made this preliminary study of the data collected by the OBISF,
we mapped 220 support actors and 293 social innovation initiatives. Among the latter,
101 were observed. The number of social innovation initiatives observed has since grown
considerably thanks to undergraduate students who have been involved in disciplines
related to the project, carrying out fieldwork, and putting into practice actions to strength-
ening the initiatives. This involvement contributes to integrating research and teaching and
has increased the university community and the SIE actors’ commitment to the OBISF.

3.3 Ethnography in public arenas

To follow the “fields of experience” of the Florianópolis social innovation initiatives, we

undertook fieldwork with an ethnographic approach to study some of the specific public
arenas of the city (Magalhães et  al., 2020). These public arenas were chosen because of
their importance in the ecosystem, related to their number of social innovation initiatives,
or because of their strategic significance in terms of the dynamics reinforcing democracy
and sustainability.
From the previous cartography and based on the observation of the social innovation
initiatives, some relevant “democratic experiments” (Ansell, 2012) in the public arenas
were identified.3 These experiences were followed by systematic observations (and in
some cases by ethnography) done by postgraduation students in some public arenas as: the

3
  For more information about the 16 public arenas identified and studied by the OBISF team see https://​
www.​obser​vaflo​ripa.​com.​br/​is-​page//​publi​cProb​lems.

13
Social innovation ecosystems and sustainability in cities:… 1267

networks that act to promote rights of children and adolescents, women, and homeless peo-
ple; the urban solid-waste treatment network; the municipal public policy forum and the
articulation around urban agriculture.
In this way, we could observe the "fields of experience" of the public arenas analyzed
and not just isolated initiatives. Therefore, along with the platform, a kind of "living lab"
was co-constructed to follow and facilitate “public inquiry” (Dewey, 1927, 1938) processes
in the public arenas studied. The Laboratory for Education in Sustainability and Social
Innovation (LEDS) acting jointly with the OBISF, aims to be a collaborative space for the
co-construction of knowledge, promoting the interaction between the know-how produced
at the university and in the communities of practices studied.

3.4 Relating scales

The purpose of the research is to promote a multi-scale longitudinal reading of the SIE
of Florianópolis, relating its historical, territorial, and institutional dimensions (macro-
scale) with an analysis of its network, forms of cooperation and interaction (meso-scale),
the actors’ practices and the SIE’s impact on the public sphere (micro-scale). This involves
observing in loco how the SIE is formed at the interface of the already established institu-
tions and the creative potential of the different actors.

4 Research results

In this section, we present the preliminary results involving the findings at each of the
research stages discussed earlier, until June 2019.

4.1 Territorial and institutional exploration

The analysis in this stage of the research made it possible to understand better the particu-
larities of the trajectory and configuration of the Florianópolis SIE and its main key actors
and groups. It also enables characterizing the institutional infrastructure in terms of laws
and other regulatory devices that drive social innovation—these elements aid in contextu-
alizing the SIE and understanding its territorial embeddedness.
Florianópolis is the capital of the state of Santa Catarina, located in South Brazil. The
city has the largest part of its territory (97.23%) localized on an island that is approxi-
mately 54  km long and 18  km wide. The population of Florianópolis is estimated as
492,977 inhabitants (IBGE, 2019).
The city ranks first among Brazilian capitals for quality of life by United Nations Devel-
opment Program (UNDP). It has the best Municipal Human Development Index (MHDI)
in the South of Brazil and the third-best MHDI in Brazil. Despite all these indexes, Flo-
rianópolis faces the same national public problems as the rest of the country. The issues
are even more difficult and urgent in 64 “areas of social vulnerability interest” in the city,
which counts 123,239 people (24.6% of its population) in a situation of extreme poverty,
earning at most half a minimum wage per month (IBGE, 2010).
Since the second half of the twentieth century, a large innovation network has been
formed in the city that is composed of various institutions that operate in the technology
and information fields and that promote knowledge and entrepreneurship, as shown in
Fig. 3.

13
 1268 C. Andion et al.

Fig. 3  Florianópolis’ Innovation Ecosystem Timeline. Source: Elaborated by the authors

As a result of this trajectory, Florianópolis is now positioned and recognized as the

national capital of innovation. The Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innova-
tion elected Florianópolis as the first among the ten cities with the most innovative poten-
tial in the country (Ewers, 2015). According to a survey by the Brazilian Startup Associa-
tion (ABStartups), Florianópolis is the Brazilian city with the largest number of startups
per inhabitant (Brito, 2018), and Newsweek Magazine considered Florianópolis one of the
ten most dynamic cities in the world (Innovation & Entrepreneurship, 2009).
Given this trajectory and the position that Florianópolis currently has in the national
and international context and considering the city’s challenges, the questions that arose
and guided the research were: To what extent has this movement reinforced the dynam-
ics of social innovation in the city? In other words, has the “Brazilian silicon island,” as
Florianópolis is called, been able to respond to its social and environmental problems more
effectively than other cities?
The territorial analysis shows that the city’s trajectory is marked by important institu-
tional advances. However, these achievements refer mainly to technological, productive,
and scientific innovation. In fact, there are few incentives, both in terms of regulation and
policies and programs, to foster social innovation in the municipality and the state. This
finding became evident in the research when analyzing the content of laws, policies, and
programs to support social innovation at the municipal, state, and federal levels.4 In con-
trast to developed countries (Howaldt et al., 2018), the regulatory framework and incentive
mechanisms in Brazil and in other Latin American countries do not highlight the impor-
tance of social innovation.
In line with these findings, other questions arise: Can we say that, in practice, there is
an emerging SIE in the city? If yes, how is this SIE configured? What kind of actors form
this ecosystem? What are the relationships between them? What solutions are being imple-
mented to address the city’s public problems? What are the drivers and obstacles to foster
social innovation? Can the city be considered more resilient and sustainable because of this
emerging SIE? In the next sections, we discuss these questions.

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 cri-
teria 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.

13
Social innovation ecosystems and sustainability in cities:… 1269

4.2 Social innovation ecosystem cartography

The cartography of the Florianópolis SIE permits to explore its configuration and the
conditioning factors that facilitate or hinder social innovation and that promote (or not)
more resilience in the urban ecosystem. These results will be presented in next sections.

4.2.1 The network of support actors

As mentioned above, we mapped 220 support actors and 293 social innovation initi-
atives in Florianópolis. The proportion of support actors for each initiative was 0.75,
indicating a broad network of actors involved in fostering social innovation in the city.
Most of the support actors have more than one function in the ecosystem; however, the
functions that are most common are described in Table 1.
There is an imbalance between the different functions that strengthen the SIE. A total
of 54% of the responses to the questionnaire refer to technical support, articulation and
training. Based on Mason and Brown (2014), it is possible to affirm that more support
services are offered to initiatives, in their development stage, or to individuals. How-
ever, the provision of support services to the initiatives that have already been imple-
mented (organizations) is lower. In this case, the small number of accelerators, incuba-
tors, and funders stand out.
However, when we observe the beneficiaries of this support network, we can see
a balanced spread. The majority of support actors mapped, 116 (53%), claim to sup-
port non-profit civil society organizations (associations, foundations, cooperatives, and
social movements). The other 47% sustained social businesses and/or entrepreneurs. In
terms of financing, we observe the same balance among the different sectors. Forty-
four support actors affirm acting as funders. Among these, 14% are from the market,
14% are from non-profits, and 16% are from the government. However, the forms of
financing are conventional, as most of the funding comes from non-returnable monetary
resources; crowdfunding, venture capital, and other forms of funding are rarer.
Howaldt et al. (2018) emphasize the interaction between government, civil society, uni-
versities, and the market as an important strengthening factor for SIEs. In Florianópolis
(Fig.  4), 46% of the support actors came from non-profits and associations. Twenty-five
percent have their origin in the business sector. Only 21% are from the government, and
8% are from the universities. The majority (65%) of the support actors act on local and
regional scales. Only 18% are national, and 17% are international. In this sense, the support
for the SIE is locally based.
These results permit us to conclude that the environment of support for social innovation
in Florianópolis emerges more from bottom-up dynamics—as the regulation and policies
of incentives discussed before—whose origin is linked to the main actors of the ecosystem
itself rather than from public institutional arrangements promoted by the government. The
performance of universities also seems to be weak in terms of the social innovation support
network of the city. In this sense, it should be noted that the network support in the SIE is
more of a spontaneous phenomenon that still requires greater institutionalization, which
may compromise the SIE’s long-term sustainability.

13
 1270

13
Table 1  Functions of support actors in the Florianópolis SIE
Functions Main activities Percentage of
support actors %

Acceleration Leverage of social innovation initiatives, promotion of scalability 3.66

Technical support Advising, consulting, monitoring and technical support 21.94
Articulation and links Promotion of interaction and partnerships between the SIE actors 19.35
Research and learning Co-creation and diffusion of knowledge, research promotion and transfer 6.88
Certification Provides quality seals and creates benchmarks 1.29
Communication and dialogue Promotes communication and interaction between actors 8.82
Funding and grants Provides funds, grants, prizes or other forms of financing 17.20
Training Promotes technical training 12.90
Incubation Incubates social innovation initiatives 1.72
Promotion of social entrepreneurship Encourages social entrepreneurship and the creation of social businesses 6.24

Source: Elaborated by authors based in TEPSIE (2014) and Stam (2015)

C. Andion et al.
Social innovation ecosystems and sustainability in cities:… 1271

55

102

17

46

Associaons Market Government Universies

Fig. 4  Support actors by origin. Source: Elaborated by the authors

4.2.2 The social innovation initiatives mapped

If we look at the 293 social innovation initiatives mapped, some results stand out. First, a
great dispersion in terms of causes can be observed. In the questionnaires, the initiatives
cite 24 different types of causes with which they work (Fig. 5).
However, when we observe the most cited causes, some of them are prominent, such as
(1) education, (2) children and adolescents’ rights, and (3) social assistance. If we add these
causes to the other areas mentioned related to social welfare, such as healthcare, culture, arts,
and sports and recreation, we see that they form over half (52%) of the causes cited. However,
other groups of causes appear relevant, such as environment and sustainability (23%), com-
munity and urban development (12%), and advocacy and defence of rights (11%).
By comparing these data with the information gathered from 11 official reports on the
city’s public problems, it can be seen that many of the public problems that mobilize the
network and in which the initiatives are involved (such as the inclusion of people with dis-
abilities, homeless people, gender and racial equality or food security and nutrition) are not
publicized and have few or no official data publicized in the city. So, the initiatives help
uncover public problems that are already there but have not (yet) made it into the policy
debate and official papers. In this sense, a better understanding of the dynamics and a sys-
tematization of the knowledge co-produced in these public arenas becomes essential.
These results show also that the SIE is configured around the fields of public policy
(Howaldt, 2018) that are important in each territory. In the case studied, the network of
social innovation initiatives mobilizes around the most urgent issues of the city, working
with the most excluded communities. The target audiences are, in the majority, initiatives
that work with children, teenagers, families, and communities.
Regarding the origin of the initiatives (Fig.  6), the majority derive from civil society
(58%), 10% are characterized as social businesses, and 20% are developed by universities.

13
 1272 C. Andion et al.

Use Of Technology For Social Change 1.42%

Transport And Mobility 0.65%
Work And Income Generaon 5.05%
Social Assistance 10.23%
Food Security And Nutrion 1.68%
Safety 0.52%
Healthcare 6.22%
Environment And Biodiversity 9.46%
Inclusion Of People With Disabilies 2.07%
Racial Equality 1.30%
Housing 0.39%
Waste Management 8.68%
Water Management And Sanitaon 1.42%
Gender 0.52%
Sports And Recreaon 1.55%
Educaon 18.78%
Animals Rights 0.39%
Children And Adolescents Rights 12.31%
Urban Development And Sustainability 0.78%
Community Development 3.76%
Defense Of Rights 4.40%
Culture And Art 2.46%
Conscious Consumpon 2.98%
Acvism And Polical Mobilizaon 2.98%
0.00% 2.00% 4.00% 6.00% 8.00%10.00%12.00%14.00%16.00%18.00%20.00%

Fig. 5  Causes of mapped social innovation initiatives. Source: Elaborated by the authors

Others 3.11%
Networks 2.08%
Informal Groups 3.46%
Cooperaves 0.35%
Individual Entrepeneur 0.35%
Social Business 10.03%
Foundaon 2.77%
Social Movement 3.46%
Pla­orm or app 3.11%
Social Responsability programs 1.38%
Government programs 3.46%
Civil Society Organizaons programs 4.15%
Universies programs 20.42%
Associaons 41.87%
0.00% 5.00% 10.00%15.00%20.00%25.00%30.00%35.00%40.00%45.00%

Fig. 6  Types of mapped social innovation initiatives. Source: Elaborated by the authors

Only 3% of the initiatives mapped came from the government. Thus, we can confirm the
fragile involvement of the government in the SIE in the case studied.

4.2.3 Interaction and governance

Through the links mentioned involving relations between the support actors and the
mapped social innovation initiatives, it was possible to build the network that forms the

13
Social innovation ecosystems and sustainability in cities:… 1273

ecosystem and analyze the intensity and diversity of these interactions.5 As noted by Ansell
and Gash (2007), McPhearson et al. (2015), and Howaldt et al. (2018), the collaboration
between actors is a central element of collaborative governance, and the cooperation is also
central for the production of collective learning among the actors of the SIE.
This first picture of the SIE network allowed us to observe diffused governance, few
collaborations between the social innovation initiates, and a clear segmentation in the SIE.
In other words, the network is perceived as exhibiting a "club" effect, whereby similar ini-
tiatives have more interactions with each other. For example, it is easy to see that the ini-
tiatives linked to the "social entrepreneurship" movement establish partnerships with each
other and with the supportive environment that has more affinity to this group, for example,
coworking groups, groups that promote social entrepreneurship, or the use of technologies,
accelerators, and incubators. On the other hand, traditional associations and social move-
ments are mobilized around public policy councils and articulated through mechanisms
linked to the municipality’s public policies.
In the network configuration, it is still possible to identify certain actors that represent
key roles and act as bridges between these different segments.

4.3 Observation of social innovation initiatives and experiences

The close observation of 101 cases makes it possible to identify the “fields of experience”
(Cefaï, 2014) of these social innovation initiatives and permits us to better characterize
their “regimes of action” in the public arenas of the city. The analysis made it possible to
identify four groups of initiatives distinguished by the problems around which they are
mobilized and by the way they respond to these social problems. Inspired by Howaldt
(2018), we can distinguish four “fields of practice,” as explained below.
The first group comprises 39 cases that work in the policy field of social welfare mobi-
lized around children and adolescents’ rights, education, healthcare, culture and art, and
sport and recreation. As shown before, this group represents the majority of the social
innovation initiatives mapped by the OBISF. The origin of many of these initiatives is
linked with the traditional association groups related to churches (evangelical, catholic,
and spiritism) and community-based organizations. They serve a vulnerable public mainly
comprised of children and adolescents and their families and communities in a situation of
socioeconomic exclusion.
The initiatives’ regime of action is generally inscribed in public policies, especially
social assistance, education, and healthcare. Therefore, these initiatives’ answers to social
problems are characterized by being more regular, including public services that must be
continued. The initiatives’ incidence in the public arenas in which they act is evident in
these cases, both through participation in the formal provisions of policies (policy councils
and terms of collaboration with the City Hall) as well as by influencing agenda-setting and
advocating through the Forum of Public Policy and other spaces of participation.
In this sense, far from pursuing a “philanthropic” regime of action, these initiatives have
been important partners of governmental actors in the co-construction of methodologies,
tools, processes, and practices to improve public policies. Therefore, we observe that social

5
  To access the representation of this network see https://​www.​obser​vaflo​ripa.​com.​br/​is-​page/​ecosy​stemN​
etwork.

13
 1274 C. Andion et al.

innovation is not a "novelty" in the city. The formation of the SIE in the municipality has
a long history linked to traditional associations, which must be considered in the studies.
A second group of initiatives involved in the policy fields of environment and sus-
tainability can be identified. We examined 35 cases in this group. The public problems
that mobilize these initiatives are expansive and diversified, associated with new lifestyles,
development processes and their dilemmas, including issues linked with biodiversity, waste
and water management, sanitation, animal rights, and conscious consumption. The ini-
tiatives are more pluralistic and come from different sectors. The regimes of action are
not the same as for the first group. The initiatives are connected nationally and globally,
and they more often use new methodologies and technologies to promote social change.
Among these initiatives, we identified 11 firms that can be characterized as "social busi-
nesses". These social business seek to solve problems such as mobility, urban waste man-
agement, and the expansion of the supply of organic products, among others. How "social
businesses" affect the public sphere differs from the previous group. Most of these initia-
tives do not participate in the traditional spaces of political coordination in the city. Some
of them affirm that they do not even have a political incidence. However, these initiatives
extensively use social networks and organize campaigns, events, and localized interven-
tions that also produce new forms of political mobilization.
A third group of 14 social innovation initiatives mobilizes to defend specific rights and
to develop advocacy. These groups perceive that the social problems go beyond protecting
the most vulnerable, and what binds these initiatives is related to the expansion of "other
possibilities" and new rights (Cefai, 2017), for example: racial and gender equality, the
inclusion of people with disabilities and homeless people and activism and political mobi-
lization. In this sense, responses to the social problems built by such initiatives also assume
other forms. The generation of specific "social technologies" such as "the active listening
methodology" at the Center of Valorization of Life (CVV) or the creation of a social coop-
erative and a "brand" that aims to promote the inclusion of people with disabilities into
the labor market, as in the case of COEPAD, are some examples. Here, social innovations
are closer to "inventions", revealing creative potential and "producing new combinations"
by the groups studied. Concerning their incidence in the public arenas, it is evident that
in addition to participating in forums and public policy councils in their respective areas
of activity, the initiatives in this group are characterized by a high degree of mobiliza-
tion among their communities and their public policy fields through events, campaigns and
other forms of collective mobilization and public engagement.
Finally, the least numerous group observed is composed by six cases that act in com-
munity and urban development, working in public arenas linked with transport and
mobility, work and income generation, safety, housing, food security, urban agriculture,
etc. Although this group has not yet been extensively observed, it includes social innova-
tion initiatives with strong and expressive activities in the city, such as the Semear Network
and the Baldinhos Revolution, which seek to promote the urban agricultural network and
agroecological production in the city.
In short, this research demonstrates that social innovation is not produced in the same
way by these groups. We can see that social innovation is embedded in long trajectories of
practices and that it is deeply rooted in the public arenas in which it is produced. As How-
aldt (2018 p. 89) asserts, innovation is also social to the extent that “it varies social action,
and is socially accepted and diffused.”

13
Social innovation ecosystems and sustainability in cities:… 1275

5 Discussion and policy, managerial and scientific implications

The results presented in the previous section allow to better understand the interface
between the macro-, meso-, and micro-levels of SIEs, offering a multiscale and multidi-
mensional framework to study their configuration and impacts in the cities. This frame-
work’s application highlights some key dimensions and aspects of the SIE in Florianópolis,
which are significant for reinforcing or hampering its social innovation dynamics. These
elements are summarized in Table 2 and are briefly discussed below.
Regarding the institutional dimension, the analysis shows some aspects related to the
political and legal context that influence the dynamic of the SIE. In the case of Florianópo-
lis, as in many cities in developing countries, the fragility of these “framework conditions”
(Tepsie, 2014) is evident. Despite the existence of a dense network of actors coming from
different sectors, there is a lack of institutional mechanisms in terms of legal instruments,
incentives, and public policies and programs to support and encourage the dynamics of
social innovation in the city.
On the meso-scale, through the cartography, it was possible to highlight the diversity of
actors that perform the SIE and to comprehend some important elements of its configura-
tion regarding supply, demand, interaction, and governance.
In terms of supply (network of support actors), it was possible to identify a diverse
network that benefits the classic associations and new social enterprises in a balanced way.
However, the network of support actors presents some fragilities such as (1) an imbalance
in the support functions, emphasizing technical support, articulation, and training; (2) few
possibilities to support initiatives in terms of finance, incubation, and acceleration; (3) little
diversification in the forms of financing; (4) little representation of government and univer-
sity actors in the support network; and (5) few interconnections at the national and interna-
tional levels.
In terms of demand, it is possible to affirm that social innovation initiatives act in a
plurality of causes. However, if we consider the “fields of practices” (Howaldt, 2018),
we can observe four main fields around which they mobilize: (1) social welfare, the most
expressive field that is composed by the more urgent public issues; (2) environment and
sustainability; (3) protection of rights and advocacy; and (4) communitarian and urban
development. In each field, we identified different “public arenas” around which a diversity
of showing different forms of engagement.
Regarding governance and interaction, we observed diffuse governance, marked by
segmentation and little partnership between supporting actors, initiatives, and few inter-
actions between them. This “club effect” creates some barriers to the diffusion of social
innovation and co-creation of knowledge and to collective intelligence and new capabilities
in the public arenas. These elements are very important for strengthening the resilience of
the SIE.
Finally, the micro-scale analysis of the 101 cases of social innovation initiatives led
to a better understanding of the initiatives’ regimes of action in terms of social innovation,
allowing us to verify that social innovation performances vary depending on the field of
public policy and the public arena being treated. In this sense, the next step for the research
is to deepen the study of the "fields of experience" in the different public arenas and gain a
better understanding of how social innovation emerges, of the interface between these dif-
ferent initiatives, and their effects.
All these elements allow us to affirm that the SIE of Florianópolis can be characterized
as a more proactive rather than a planned phenomenon. The network is still more dispersed

13
 1276

Table 2  Dimensions and elements that reinforce or hinder social innovation in the city

13
Scales of analysis Methodology Dimensions Elements that reinforce or hinder social innovation in the
city

Macro Documentary analysis and interviews Institutional Territorial trajectory of the SIE
Laws and other regulations and support devices for social
innovation
Main social problems discussed in public policy fields and
in the city’s public arenas
Meso SIE cartography and analysis SIE supply—network of support actors Diversity of actors and segments that support the SIE
Complementarity and collaboration between the support
actors from different sectors
Balanced performance among support functions
SIE demand—network of social innovation initiatives Diversity of social innovation initiatives in terms of public
policy fields and causes
Relationship between the policy fields, the causes treated,
and the social problems of the city
Characteristics of mapped social innovation initiatives
Interaction and Governance Relationship between supporting actors, initiatives, and
interactions between them
Reinforcement of collaborative governance
Micro Direct observation Practices and Consequences—Social innovation Regimes of action in the social innovation initiatives
initiatives and their actions in public arenas Answers to public problems
Technologies and methodologies used
Incidence in the city’s public arenas

Source: Elaborated by authors

C. Andion et al.
Social innovation ecosystems and sustainability in cities:… 1277

than connected. This raises the question of the extent to which the SIE network of actors
and experiences will be able to produce an enduring social change to address the city’s
dilemmas and influence to produce a more resilient and sustainable city. As discussed by
McPhearson et al. (2015), Alijani et al. (2017), and Howaldt et al. (2018), among others,
these issues could weaken the creative, transformative, and resilient capacity of this urban
ecosystem and bring into question its long-term sustainability.
In terms of implications, these results generate important clues not only to the actors
that compose the SIE network but also to reinforce public policies, actions and programs to
support social innovation and to improve the SIE governance in the city. Also, the creation
and maintenance of an online platform formed by a common database of free access ena-
bles the co-construction, validation, diffusion, and appropriation of the knowledge between
the different community of practices that compose and act in the public arenas of the city
and respond to its socio-environmental problems, reinforcing “public inquiry” and “public
experimentations” around the urban challenges and issues.
These findings are inspiring to the city of Florianópolis and provide evidence of the
challenges and key aspects that could strengthen or weaken practices in SIE networks to
promote sustainability in cities, especially in other developing countries like Brazil. This
problem has been scarcely explored in the recent literature on SIEs, which is dominated
by studies on cities in developed countries that present different institutional and territorial
characteristics and practices than the reality of the global South.

6 Conclusions

This article started from a dialogue with the recent literature on SIEs. Based on the gaps
in this literature, we proposed a theoretical and analytical approach to SIE´s cartography
based on a pragmatist perspective applied in the analysis of the network of actors that
forms the SIE of the city of Florianópolis, in Brazil. A methodological path was proposed
and implemented, including the cocreation of a collaborative online and open-access plat-
form as a key strategy to involve the main actor-network of the SIE in the research.
In addition to starting with documentary analysis and collecting free-access secondary
data, primary data were collected through the platform with questionnaires applied to the
220 support actors and 293 social innovation initiatives that were mapped. Also, 101 social
innovation initiatives that were previously mapped were observed during visits, making it
possible to investigate these cases further. Recalling the gaps of recent studies on SIEs—
discussed earlier in this text—the approach adopted and results of this research bring some
contributions that we would like to highlight to conclude.
Firstly, it is important to consider the relations and interfaces between the different
dimensions (of supply and demand) and scales (institutional, networks, and experiences) in
the SIE analysis. It is important not to focus on the study of just one sector, actor, or type of
social innovation, seeking to adopt an intersectoral perspective. In this sense, government,
firms, academia, and civil society have a role in seeking desirable changes.
However, research practice shows that it is not easy to identify what type of organization
or initiative is involved in social innovation. This is because many actors of social innova-
tion are hybrid organizations (Howaldt et al., 2016). Another issue arises because several
actors who actively participate in social innovation initiatives do not use the term "social
innovation", even though they are working in this direction. Considering the complexity of
social innovation ecosystems, our study showed that academic knowledge on the subject is

13
 1278 C. Andion et al.

still very scarce, and the field needs to put forward more empirical researches of different
realities and experiences.
Second, the technological issue, although important, does not seem to be decisive for
the existence and maintenance of the SIE. In this sense, considering interactions, practices
and experiences, is essential in this kind of study rather than analyzing institutions and
rules. As many recent studies have pointed out, social innovations emerge in the frontier
between the creativity of action and the regularity of the social world (Frega, 2019). There-
fore, understanding social innovations and their ecosystems can provide important clues to
comprehend how communities promote (or not) changes in the development trajectories in
the territories in which they live.
Finally—although little considered and valued in recent studies—the territorial and
temporal inscription of SIE matters. In this sense, the configuration and dynamics of SIE
networks in cities in developed countries and the factors that influence them are not the
same as in southern countries (as we can see in this research). The institutional and pub-
lic problems paths are specific and influence the social innovation experiences differently.
These experiences, in their turn, present singular regimes of action and practices.
Thus, the continuity of a research agenda that take in account the particularities of cit-
ies’ SIE and also compare the realities of cities (South/South and South/North) is extremely
relevant in view of the complexity and urgency of urban problems and sustainability chal-
lenges faced locally today, showing that “social innovations are highly embedded in their
environment” (Cattacin & Zimmer, 2016, p. 21).

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 Scholar-
ship from Federal Agency for Coordination of Superior Level Staff Improvement (CAPES).

Declarations 

Conflict of interest  The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References
Acuto, M., Parnell, S., & Seto, K. C. (2018). Building a global urban science. Nature Sustainability, 1(1),
2–4
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 sustainabil-
ity. 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
Andion, C., Alperstedt, G. D., & Graeff, J. F. (2019). Social innovation ecosystems and cities: Co-con-
struction 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.

13
Social innovation ecosystems and sustainability in cities:… 1279

Andion, C., Alperstedt, G. D., & Graeff, J. F. (2020). Social innovation ecosystems, sustainability, and dem-
ocratic experimentation: A study in Florianópolis Brazil. Brazilian Journal of Public Administration,
54(1), 181–200
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).
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.
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.
Ansell, C. (2012). What is democratic experiment? Contemporary Pragmatism, 9(2), 159–180
Ansell, C. K., & Bartenberger, M. (2016). Varieties of experimentation. Ecological Economics., 130, 64–73
Brito, A. (2018) Florianópolis lidera lista de cidades com maior número de startups. Florianópolis.
Agência Brasil. Available in: http://​agenc​iabra​sil.​ebc.​com.​br/​econo​mia/​notic​ia/​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
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
Cattacin, S., & Zimmer, A. (2016). Urban governance and social innovations. In T. Brandsen, S. Catta-
cin, A. Evers, & A. Zimmer (Eds.), Social Innovations in the Urban Context. (pp. 21–44). Springer.
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 socio-
logia da ação coletiva. Dilemas Revista de Estudos de Conflitos e Controle social, 2(4), 11–48
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
Cefaï, D., & Terzi, C. (2012). L’expérience des problèmes publics. Perspectives Pragmatistes.
Chateauraynaud, F. (2011). Argumenter dans un champ de forces. Essai de balistique sociologique. Petra.
Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Swallow Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logica. Teoria de la Investigación. Fondo de Cultura Econômica.
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.
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.​inova​cao.​unica​mp.​br/​espec​ial/​mcti-e-​
revis​ta-​inova​cao-​mapei​am-​as-​dez-​cidad​es-​mais-​inova​doras-​do-​pais/. Accessed in Aug 2019.
Frega, R. (2019). Pragmatism and the wide view of democracy. Palgrave Macmillan.
Gascó, M. (2017). Living labs: Implementing open innovation in the public sector. Government Informa-
tion Quarterly, 34(1), 90–98
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
Gutierrez, V., et al. (2016). Co-creating cities of the future. Sensors. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​s1611​1971
Hodson, M., Geels, F. W., & McMeekin, A. (2017). Reconfiguring urban sustainability transitions, ana-
lysing multiplicity. Sustainability, 9(2), 299
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.

13
 1280 C. Andion et al.

Howaldt, J., Kaletka, C., Schooder, A., & Zirngiebl, M. (2018). Atlas of social innovation: New prac-
tices for a better future. TU Dortmund University.
Howaldt, J., Kaletka, C., Schröder, A., & Zirngiebl, M. (2019). Atlas of Social Innovation. Second Volume -
A World of New Practices. Dortmund: TU Dortmund University.
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).
Innovation & Entrepreuneurship (2009) Available in http://​www.​infod​ev.​org/​highl​ights/​Flori​anópolis-​silic​
on-​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 Bra-
sileira, 2019.
Kaika, M. (2017). Don’t call me resilient again! The New Urban Agenda as Immunology …or …what hap-
pens when communities refuse to be vaccinated with “smart cities” and indicators. Environment and
Urbanization., 29(1), 89–102
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
Lascoumes, P., & Le Galès, P. (2007). Sociologia da ação pública. Edufal.
Latour, B. (1998). On recalling ANT. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after. (pp.
15–25). Blackwell Publishing.
Latour, B. (2012). Reagregando o social: Uma introdução à teoria do ator-rede. Edufba.
Latour, B. (2014) Course: scientific humanities. Paris: Sciences Po.—MOOC from the FUN-2014. Avail-
able in www.​scien​ce spo. Accessed in May 2014.
Law, J. (1999). After ANT: Complexity, naming and topology In J. (pp. 1–14). Blackwell.
Lévesque, B. (2016). Économie sociale et solidaire et entrepreneur social: Vers quels nouveaux écosys-
tèmes? Revue Interventions Économiques, 54, 1–38
Magalhães, T., Andion, C., Alperstedt, G. D. (2020). Social innovation living labs and public action An ana-
lytical 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.
McPhearson, T., Andersson, E., Elmqvist, T., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2015). Resilience of and through urban
ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 12, 152–156
Mehmood, A. (2016). Resilient places. Planning for urban resilience. European Planning Studies, 24(2),
407–419
Moraes, R. L., & Andion, C. (2018). Civil society and social innovation in public arenas in Brazil: Trajec-
tory and experience of the Movement Against Electoral Corruption (MCCE). VOLUNTAS: Interna-
tional Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29, 801–818
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
Moulaert, F., & Sekia, F. (2003). Territorial innovation models: A critical survey. Regional Studies, 37(3),
289–302
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 Plan-
ning Studies, 23(9), 1759–1769
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 Com-
mission: 7th Framework Programme, Brussels: European Commission, DG Research.
Terstriep, J., Rehfeld, D., & Kleverbeck, M. (2020). Favourable social innovation ecosystem (s)? An explor-
ative approach. European Planning Studies, 28(5), 881–905
Tosun, J., & Schoenefeld, J. (2017). Collective climates actions and networked climate governance. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews-Climate Change., 8(1), e440
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 Jour-
nal, 19(12), 2552–2559
Wolfram, M., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2016). Cities and systemic change for sustainability: Prevailing episte-
mologies and an emerging research Agenda. Sustainability, 8(2), 1–18

13
Social innovation ecosystems and sustainability in cities:… 1281

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

13