*4.1. Survey Results*

As previously mentioned, the online expert survey targeted to evaluate the performance of Florianópolis in relation to Brazil's ranking in the 2018 Global Innovation Index, in which Brazil ranked 64th (out of a total of 126 countries). In comparison with the OECD and Latin American countries, Brazil was respectively ranked in the 37th and sixth position.

The respondents rated Florianópolis' innovation performance considering the national performance, defining it on a seven-scale Likert system as follows: 1 (far below), 2 (moderately below), 3 (slightly below), 4 (at national average), 5 (slightly above), 6 (moderately above), and 7 (far above). For each category, respondents were also asked to state the main reasons for their rating, as well as what could be done to improve the performance in that specific area.

The questionnaire was sent by e-mail to 100 eminent innovation specialists, of which 55 provided responses. Overall, 83% of the respondents rated Florianópolis' innovation performance as better than Brazil's performance, among which, 26% considered it slightly above, 35% moderately above, and 22% far above. Respondents also evaluated Florianópolis performance as superior to the national performance in all innovation input and output areas, as shown in Tables 4 and 5 below.


**Table 4.** Respondent views on the specific innovation input performance areas of Florianópolis (source, authors).


**Table 4.** *Cont.*

**Table 5.** Respondent views on the specific innovation output performance areas of Florianópolis (source, authors).


In order to further deepen the assessments and better understand the provided scores, respondents were asked to justify their answers, by indicating what could be done to improve the city's performance with respect to each indicator and by naming three main strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threat areas related to Florianópolis' overall innovation performance. The answers to these

open-ended questions were analyzed according to a manually created code list based on the four main dimensions of the KBUD framework, as shown in Table 6 below.


**Table 6.** Content analysis codes by knowledge-based urban development dimensions (source, authors).

In the economic development dimension of KBUD, the following four main areas were identified: business context, innovation activities, business infrastructure, and investment. Innovation activity was the subdimension most cited by respondents, with 36.5% of total mentions, 70.12% of them being positive comments. This can be explained by Florianópolis actors' engagement and the ability to act with a cluster approach (named locally as associationism), which has put together a well-structured innovation ecosystem. According to one of the respondents, "Florianópolis is a point off the curve in relation to Brazil. I see a very great leadership, especially from ACATE, in the organization and dynamization of technology companies. The opportunities that are presented by ACATE to business owners, partners or not, are varied and current". Respondents also stated that the possible improvements in this area need to focus on monitoring, evaluating, and consolidating present actions in order to foster and improve prospective innovation development.

As per the business context, it became evident that despite the recognition of expressive information and communication technology (ICT) companies' activities in the city, there was room for improvement. More than 19% of citations were about improvement and 30.23% referred negatively to this area. Respondents considered the market to be "very small", mostly represented by small to medium size enterprises (SMEs) with little intention or expression on exports and a reduced call to increase productivity.

The innovation business infrastructure has been quite well developed in Florianópolis. It comprises innovation districts, innovation centers, recognized incubators, and accredited laboratories (e.g., Embrapii). However, there is a demand for better and modern technologies, such as a comprehensive optical fiber network, and low carbon infrastructure, as well as social innovation experiment environments like the living labs. About 30% of the comments on the business infrastructure were positive, 35% were negative, and 35% were neutral or progressive, but still pointed out the need for improvements.

Public or private sector investment was perceived as a major demand, i.e., 47.61% of citations highlighted the necessity of immediate improvements, and 37.3% referred negatively to investment availability and opportunities. "Sinapse da inovação" or "The Synapse of Innovation", an incentive program for innovative entrepreneurship that offers financial resources, training, and support to transform innovative ideas into successful enterprises, was cited as one of the leading instruments developed by the market. Despite a few business angels and investment banking, the general perception was that the investment capacity was limited and precarious. One of the respondents highlighted that "it is necessary to create a culture of private investment in areas such as culture and tourism, which still rely heavily on public investment". Respondents also pointed out a lack of investment in R&D and little support for entrepreneurs and venture capitalists.

The sociocultural development dimension encompasses the following four subdimensions: labor force, educational institutes, skill sets, and cultural assets. Labor force, with 46% of positive references, is a major asset of the city, which attracts talented and creative people [37]. Nevertheless, as the innovation sector is growing, it is also a concern about 31% of the mentions on that topic were negative, 23% of them highlighted specifically the need for improvements. One respondent stated that "the city must attract even more knowledge workers, including foreign researchers, and maintain the

ones that are already working in it". Another respondent also pointed out that "educational institutions must contribute to the creation and diffusion of knowledge, as well as in the training of knowledge workers in new areas of digital transformation". Additionally, three other commonly mentioned concerns regarding the labor force were the following: the lack of entrepreneur women, innovators not being high-tech businesses, and the need for continuous qualification of the existing workforce.

Because Florianópolis has strong educational institutes, 75% of the expert comments on the education system were positive. Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC) is recognized as one of the best in Brazil, especially its engineering courses; also, the State University (UDESC), and other metropolitan universities, are committed to innovation and have contributed to the development of the innovation ecosystem by supplying talent. Appointed possibilities of improvement included a greater diffusion of the knowledge generated in universities and better collaboration between the academic and private sectors, to transform scientific knowledge into innovation.

Half of the respondents highlighted education and skill sets as key pillars for improvement in all aspects related to innovation. In this sense, despite the good universities, respondents drew special attention to the need to invest in basic education, technical training programs, knowledge diffusion and application. One of the experts remarked that "innovation should be treated and stimulated in basic education, and academia research should meet the demands and needs of the society and industry", which would require, according to another respondent, "the revision of the education policies, educational methodologies, and lecturer' qualifications".

On the one hand, the main cultural assets highlighted by the respondents were the culture of innovation, city branding, local culture, and receptivity of the city. On the other hand, provincialism, the fact that creativity is not seriously taken as a business, and egocentrism were indicated as prejudicial elements to the innovation ecosystem. According to the respondents, Florianópolis needed to open itself to the world, show what has been done, and timely consolidate itself as a technology and innovation pole. Comments on this subdimension were balanced, i.e., 30% of them were positive, 35% were negative, and about 35% were pointing to the need for consolidation.

Regarding the spatial development dimension, the most cited themes were locational characteristics, quality of life and place, spatial infrastructure, and sustainability.

In relation to the locational characteristics, although the island's natural beauty was acknowledged as an important magnet to the creative class, the concurrent land use limitations, and high prices, as well as the impediment of industrial activities were appointed as negative factors. The experts highlighted concerns with sanitary and energy issues, as well as the physical distance between Florianópolis and other important national innovation hubs such as São Paulo. As a result, most of the comments, around 60%, on locational characteristics were negative.

Quality of life and place was cited mainly as a positive contributor to the city's success (45.45%), but respondents expressed some concern about its decline in recent years. High cost of living, lower wages, and public safety issues were pointed out as sensitive areas to boost the permanence of the creative class, entrepreneurs, and skilled labor force. Most of the respondents, however, believed that Florianópolis should be positioned as "by far the best city to live in Brazil".

Spatial infrastructure was the most cited subject in the spatial dimension, with 68.51% of negative comments, mostly due to the city's grave mobility issues. Among the suggested improvements, the most critical ones were the following: investments in a better road system, multimodal public transportation, and the creation of new urban centralities with housing options accessible to various levels of income (to reduce the need to move from home to work). The distance between the airport and the innovation clusters, as well as the lack of technological structure to support new technologies, were also indicated as important concerns. As one of the respondents highlighted, "Florianópolis' transportation and sanitation are far behind from some Brazilian states, which ultimately undermines corporate productivity and ecological sustainability in a more general way".

Sustainability was also highlighted as a significant concern by 48.27% of the respondents. Citations indicated a desire for more public investments in sustainable infrastructure, renewable energy sources, environmental and sustainable technologies, environment preservation areas, as well as the need for greater compliance with housing, land use, and environmental regulations. Some respondents also suggested that "specific programs related to the UN Sustainable Development Goals should be developed".

Lastly, the institutional dimension was pointed out as the most challenging area in the city. The lack of ideal governance characteristics; institutions, partnerships, and international relations; support mechanisms; and regulatory environment were cited by almost all respondents. Most of the citations (54.56%) mentioned the necessity to improve governance standards and practice, and 36.75% of them were extremely critical of the current governance system.

The main concerns regarding governance characteristics revolved around the non-continuity of political actions, the ineffectiveness of public agencies, the lack of accountability, and inadequate management of innovation. "The state and municipal government has adopted much more rhetoric of valuing innovation than concrete actions coordinated with private agents", argued one of the respondents. Possible improvements could be obtained, according to the respondents, through greater agility and dynamic management of public entities, policy transparency and open data, long-term and community-driven policies, governmental will, interest and openness to innovation, well-conducted and communicated policy evaluations, and e-participation.

Institutions, partnerships, and international relations were pointed out as the governance subdimension of greater importance to innovation development in the city. Respondents emphasized the importance of quadruple-helix partnerships, even though criticizing them for their usual inertia and impracticality. Respondents highlighted the necessity to strengthen public-private partnerships and technical-scientific cooperation agreements between the university and productive sectors. Other cited issues were the need for greater city internationalization to build an adequate environment for international business, through international exchange programs, networking, international missions, and international cooperation programs.

Experts praised the city's associationism and active leadership, consistent with the several innovation support mechanisms developed through the years, such as incubators, institutional arrangements, innovation entities (ACATE, CERTI, and business hubs) and some tax incentives. Nonetheless, respondents pointed out that Florianópolis needs to offer significant tax incentives, benefits, and facilities to attract knowledge-intensive companies and to support even more the already existing creative and innovative industry. As one of the respondents observed, "there is no strong micro-credit financing policy. This year the Municipality of Florianópolis launched zero interest financing for small business owners, but there is a lack of stronger government action".

Finally, the regulatory environment was heavily criticized and pointed out as the sector that, if refined, could boost the development of Florianópolis as a smart innovation island. Even though the Florianópolis Municipal Law of Innovation was referred to as a good starting point, the need for de-bureaucracy was mentioned by many experts, as well as the need to improve legal certainty, to facilitate business implementation, to ease patent registration, to have more flexible and agile regulatory bodies, and to define specific public policies to stimulate the innovative sector.
