IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i12p7163-d836421.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Food, Energy and Water Nexus: An Urban Living Laboratory Development for Sustainable Systems Transition

Author

Listed:
  • Maria Ester Soares Dal Poz

    (School of Applied Sciences, University of Campinas, Campinas 13083-970, Brazil)

  • Paulo Sergio de Arruda Ignácio

    (School of Applied Sciences, University of Campinas, Campinas 13083-970, Brazil)

  • Aníbal Azevedo

    (School of Applied Sciences, University of Campinas, Campinas 13083-970, Brazil)

  • Erika Cristina Francisco

    (School of Applied Sciences, University of Campinas, Campinas 13083-970, Brazil)

  • Alessandro Luis Piolli

    (School of Applied Sciences, University of Campinas, Campinas 13083-970, Brazil)

  • Gabriel Gheorghiu da Silva

    (School of Applied Sciences, University of Campinas, Campinas 13083-970, Brazil)

  • Thaís Pereira Ribeiro

    (School of Applied Sciences, University of Campinas, Campinas 13083-970, Brazil)

Abstract

From a climate change perspective, the governance of natural common-pool resources—the commons —is a key point in the challenge of transitioning to sustainability. This paper presents the main strategic advances of the São Paulo Urban Living Laboratory (ULL) regarding Food, Energy and Water (FEW Nexus) analysis and modelling at the border of a high biodiverse forest in a peri-urban region in southeast Brazil. It is a replicable and scalable method concerning FEW governance. The FEW Nexus is an analytical guide to actions that will enable a colossal set of innovative processes that the transition to sustainability presupposes. Sustainable governance of the FEW dimensions, seen as an innovation-based process, is approached by a decision making tool to understand the past and future dynamics of the system. The governance framework is based on a multi-criteria and multi-attribute set of sustainability-relevant factors used as indicators to model complex system dynamics (SD) and the stakeholders’ future expectations through a Delphi approach. Based on the three main dimensions of the Ecosystem Services Approach—Physical and Material Conditions, Attributes of Communities, and Rules-in-Use—the tool comprises thirteen specific sustainability indicators such as water and carbon footprints, land use social development, payment for ecosystem services, and land use gain indices. Its development was designed to generate a long-term network of socioenvironmental stakeholders’ decision making processes and collective learning about a higher level of sustainable systems. System Dynamics modelling demonstrates the associations between sustainability indicators and the impacts of payment for ecosystem services on the land use social development index, or on the trophic state index. The Delphi foresight approach, using the Promethee-Gaia method, allows us to understand the positions of multiple agents regarding the transition process. In this context, decision making tools can be very useful and effective in answering the “how to” questions of ULLs and paving the way for transition, providing collective planning and decision support frameworks for sustainability transition management.

Suggested Citation

  • Maria Ester Soares Dal Poz & Paulo Sergio de Arruda Ignácio & Aníbal Azevedo & Erika Cristina Francisco & Alessandro Luis Piolli & Gabriel Gheorghiu da Silva & Thaís Pereira Ribeiro, 2022. "Food, Energy and Water Nexus: An Urban Living Laboratory Development for Sustainable Systems Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-22, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:12:p:7163-:d:836421
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7163/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7163/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elinor Ostrom, 2010. "Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 641-672, June.
    2. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    3. Zeng, X.T. & Zhang, J.L. & Yu, L. & Zhu, J.X. & Li, Z. & Tang, L., 2019. "A sustainable water-food-energy plan to confront climatic and socioeconomic changes using simulation-optimization approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 743-759.
    4. Norman Dalkey & Olaf Helmer, 1963. "An Experimental Application of the DELPHI Method to the Use of Experts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 458-467, April.
    5. David J. Teece & Gary Pisano & Amy Shuen, 1997. "Dynamic capabilities and strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(7), pages 509-533, August.
    6. Levinthal, Daniel A, 1998. "The Slow Pace of Rapid Technological Change: Gradualism and Punctuation in Technological Change," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 7(2), pages 217-247, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Geels, Frank W., 2020. "Micro-foundations of the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions: Developing a multi-dimensional model of agency through crossovers between social constructivism, evolutionary economics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    2. Darcy W E Allen, 2020. "When Entrepreneurs Meet:The Collective Governance of New Ideas," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number q0269.
    3. Geels, Frank W., 2010. "Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 495-510, May.
    4. Giovanni Dosi & Marco Grazzi, 2006. "Technologies as problem-solving procedures and technologies as input--output relations: some perspectives on the theory of production," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 15(1), pages 173-202, February.
    5. Jan Ende & Wilfred Dolfsma, 2004. "Technology-push, demand-pull and the shaping of technological paradigms - Patterns in the development of computing technology," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 83-99, January.
    6. Giovanna Devetag & Enrico Zaninotto, 2001. "The imperfect hiding: Some introductory concepts and preliminary issues on modularity," ROCK Working Papers 010, Department of Computer and Management Sciences, University of Trento, Italy, revised 13 Jun 2008.
    7. Archibugi, Daniele & Filippetti, Andrea & Frenz, Marion, 2013. "Economic crisis and innovation: Is destruction prevailing over accumulation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 303-314.
    8. Murmann, Johann Peter & Frenken, Koen, 2006. "Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 925-952, September.
    9. Etienne Montaigne & Alfredo Coelho & Samson Zadmehran, 2021. "A comprehensive economic examination and prospects on innovation in new grapevine varieties dealing with global warming and fungal diseases," Post-Print hal-03461901, HAL.
    10. Haarhaus, Tim & Liening, Andreas, 2020. "Building dynamic capabilities to cope with environmental uncertainty: The role of strategic foresight," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    11. Rajneesh Narula & Andrea Martínez-Noya, 2014. "International R&D Alliances by Firms: Origins and Development," John H Dunning Centre for International Business Discussion Papers jhd-dp2014-06, Henley Business School, University of Reading.
    12. Mary Tripsas, 2008. "Customer preference discontinuities: a trigger for radical technological change," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(2-3), pages 79-97.
    13. Wilfred Dolfsma & Patrick J. Welch, 2009. "Paradigms and Novelty in Economics: The History of Economic Thought as a Source of Enlightenment," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(5), pages 1085-1106, November.
    14. Yunis, Manal & Tarhini, Abbas & Kassar, Abdulnasser, 2018. "The role of ICT and innovation in enhancing organizational performance: The catalysing effect of corporate entrepreneurship," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 344-356.
    15. David J. Teece, 2008. "Firm organization, industrial structure, and technological innovation," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 11, pages 265-296, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    16. Hussinger, Katrin, 2007. "Inventors? Response to Firm Acquisitions," ZEW Discussion Papers 07-078, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    17. Vachara Peansupap & Derek Walker, 2006. "Innovation diffusion at the implementation stage of a construction project: a case study of information communication technology," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(3), pages 321-332.
    18. Angel Sevil & Alfonso Cruz & Tomas Reyes & Roberto Vassolo, 2022. "When Being Large Is Not an Advantage: How Innovation Impacts the Sustainability of Firm Performance in Natural Resource Industries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-20, December.
    19. Giovanni. Gavetti & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2004. "50th Anniversay Article: The Strategy Field from the Perspective of Management Science: Divergent Strands and Possible Integration," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(10), pages 1309-1318, October.
    20. Khraisha, Tamer, 2020. "Complex economic problems and fitness landscapes: Assessment and methodological perspectives," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 390-407.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:12:p:7163-:d:836421. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.