Comparing Societal Impact Planning and Evaluation Approaches across Four Urban Living Labs (in Food-Energy-Water Systems)

Daniel Black (), Susanne Charlesworth, Maria Ester Dal Poz, Erika Cristina Francisco, Adina Paytan, Ian Roderick, Timo von Wirth and Kevin Winter
Additional contact information
Daniel Black: Daniel Black + Associates|db+a, Bristol BS7 9AZ, UK
Susanne Charlesworth: Centre for Agroecology, Water & Resilience, Coventry University, Coventry CV8 3LG, UK
Maria Ester Dal Poz: Institute of Economics and School of Applied Sciences, University of Campinas, Campinas 13083-970, Brazil
Erika Cristina Francisco: Institute of Economics and School of Applied Sciences, University of Campinas, Campinas 13083-970, Brazil
Adina Paytan: School of Applied Sciences, University of Campinas, Campinas 13083-970, Brazil
Ian Roderick: The Schumacher Institute, Bristol BS1 6XN, UK
Timo von Wirth: Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT), Erasmus University Rotterdam, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Kevin Winter: Department of Environmental and Geographical Science, University of Cape Town, Cape Town 7700, South Africa

Sustainability, 2023, vol. 15, issue 6, 1-20

Abstract: Achieving societal impact, as opposed to academic impact, is a growing area of focus for the research community globally. Central to this changing mission is the focus on multiple interconnected complex systems and the need for research that is not just interdisciplinary, but also transdisciplinary and grounded in stakeholder co-production. This document compares multiple approaches to impact planning and evaluation across four newly formed urban living labs in Sao Paolo (Brazil), Western Cape (South Africa), Bristol (UK) and Rotterdam (Netherlands), each of which sought to address societal issues linked to the food-energy-water nexus. A comparison matrix and a disaggregated impact table are derived from a comprehensive review of key definitions. These new tools were completed by each ULL alongside a post hoc pathway to impact statements. Comparisons are presented and discussed, the strengths and weaknesses of this approach are considered and opportunities for improvement in societal impact planning and evaluation are provided. Our main findings include the importance of establishing clear shared definitions while accepting plural understandings, the need to acknowledge resource as a critical factor in impact delivery and the headline need for far greater focus in this area from both funders and research groups.

Keywords: societal impact; socio-environmental impact; academic impact; urban living lab; co-production; impact planning; impact evaluation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/6/5387/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/6/5387/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:6:p:5387-:d:1100615

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().