4to. Congreso Internacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación para la Sociedad. Memoria académica

Este volumen acoge la memoria académica de la Cuarta edición del Congreso Internacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación para la Sociedad, CITIS 2017, desarrollado entre el 29 de noviembre y el 1 de diciembre de 2017 y organizado por la Universidad Politécnica Salesiana (UPS) en su sede de Guayaquil. El Congreso ofreció un espacio para la presentación, difusión e intercambio de importantes investigaciones nacionales e internacionales ante la comunidad universitaria que se dio cita en el encuentro. El uso de herramientas tecnológicas para la gestión de los trabajos de investigación como la plataforma Open Conference Systems y la web de presentación del Congreso http://citis.blog.ups.edu.ec/, hicieron de CITIS 2017 un verdadero referente entre los congresos que se desarrollaron en el país. La preocupación de nuestra Universidad, de presentar espacios que ayuden a generar nuevos y mejores cambios en la dimensión humana y social de nuestro entorno, hace que se persiga en cada edición del evento la presentación de trabajos con calidad creciente en cuanto a su producción científica. Quienes estuvimos al frente de la organización, dejamos plasmado en estas memorias académicas el intenso y prolífico trabajo de los días de realización del Congreso Internacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación para la Sociedad al alcance de todos y todas

Southern-hemisphere PMSE: Where are they?

We are happy to acknowledge the support of Commandante Hector Soldi (Expedition Leader) and Teniente Italo Huertas (Base Commander) in insuring the installation and ongoing support of Peru's Machu Picchu Base. Additional support from both Peru's Comision Nacional de Asuntos Antartidos (CONAAN) and Consejo Nacional de Ciencias y Technologia (CONCYTEC), the Argentinean Navy, and the Uraguayan Air Force are greatly appreciated. The untiring assistance of S. Villegas and J. Fernandez, who have been associated with this project since its inception, is also gratefully acknowledged. This research is based upon work supported by NSF's Office of Polar Programs under Grant #DPP 922446.Consejo Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Tecnológica - Concyte

Configurations of sustainable development goals that promote sustainable entrepreneurship over time

[EN] This paper examines sustainable entrepreneurship over time by focusing on the identification of the combinations of environmental factors (clean water and sanitation, affordable clean energy, urgent action to combat climate change, and life on land) and economic development factors (decent work and economic growth). Based on data from 50 countries, it examines the causal configurations behind the manifestations of these factors using fuzzy-set qualitative comparison analysis. The variables and data were derived from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor and the Sustainable Development Goals Index. Our key finding is that protecting and sustainably using terrestrial ecosystems always have a sufficiently positive effect to ensure a high level of sustainable entrepreneurship. Also, high levels of sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems and sustainable growth and decent work, plus good access to affordable and sustainable energy and clean water are related to promote sustainable entrepreneurship.Moya Clemente, I.; Ribes-Giner, G.; Pantoja-Diaz, O. (2020). Configurations of sustainable development goals that promote sustainable entrepreneurship over time. Sustainable Development. 28(4):572-584. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2009S572584284Avery, G. C., & Bergsteiner, H. (2011). Sustainable leadership practices for enhancing business resilience and performance. Strategy & Leadership, 39(3), 5-15. doi:10.1108/10878571111128766Bloomfield, G., Bucht, K., Martínez-Hernández, J. C., Ramírez-Soto, A. F., Sheseña-Hernández, I., Lucio-Palacio, C. R., & Ruelas Inzunza, E. (2017). Capacity building to advance the United Nations sustainable development goals: An overview of tools and approaches related to sustainable land management. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 37(2), 157-177. doi:10.1080/10549811.2017.1359097Boons, F., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013). Business models for sustainable innovation: state-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 9-19. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.007Bottema, M. J. M., & Bush, S. R. (2012). The durability of private sector-led marine conservation: A case study of two entrepreneurial marine protected areas in Indonesia. Ocean & Coastal Management, 61, 38-48. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.01.004Burch, S., Schroeder, H., Rayner, S., & Wilson, J. (2013). Novel Multisector Networks and Entrepreneurship: The Role of Small Businesses in the Multilevel Governance of Climate Change. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 31(5), 822-840. doi:10.1068/c1206Cohen, B., & Winn, M. I. (2007). Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 29-49. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.12.001Crals, E., & Vereeck, L. (2005). The affordability of sustainable entrepreneurship certification for SMEs. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 12(2), 173-183. doi:10.1080/13504500509469628Cumming, D., Johan, S., & Zhang, M. (2014). The Economic Impact of Entrepreneurship: Comparing International Datasets. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 22(2), 162-178. doi:10.1111/corg.12058Dean, T. J., & McMullen, J. S. (2007). Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: Reducing environmental degradation through entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), 50-76. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.09.003Devece, C., Peris-Ortiz, M., & Rueda-Armengot, C. (2016). Entrepreneurship during economic crisis: Success factors and paths to failure. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5366-5370. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.139Dhahri, S., & Omri, A. (2018). Entrepreneurship contribution to the three pillars of sustainable development: What does the evidence really say? World Development, 106, 64-77. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.01.008Diaz-Sarachaga, J. M., Jato-Espino, D., & Castro-Fresno, D. (2018). Is the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) index an adequate framework to measure the progress of the 2030 Agenda? Sustainable Development, 26(6), 663-671. doi:10.1002/sd.1735DiVito, L., & Bohnsack, R. (2017). Entrepreneurial orientation and its effect on sustainability decision tradeoffs: The case of sustainable fashion firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(5), 569-587. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.05.002Fischer, D., Mauer, R., & Brettel, M. (2017). Regulatory focus theory and sustainable entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 24(2), 408-428. doi:10.1108/ijebr-12-2015-0269Fiss, P. C. (2011). Building Better Causal Theories: A Fuzzy Set Approach to Typologies in Organization Research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393-420. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.60263120Gast, J., Gundolf, K., & Cesinger, B. (2017). Doing business in a green way: A systematic review of the ecological sustainability entrepreneurship literature and future research directions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 147, 44-56. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.065Gigerenzer, G., & Brighton, H. (2009). Homo Heuristicus: Why Biased Minds Make Better Inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 107-143. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01006.xHall, J. K., Daneke, G. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2010). Sustainable development and entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 439-448. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.01.002Hanchett S.(2016).Sustainable sanitation for all. CLTS Knowledge Hub Learning Paper.https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780449272Hockerts, K., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2010). Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids — Theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 481-492. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.07.005Jiang, W., Chai, H., Shao, J., & Feng, T. (2018). Green entrepreneurial orientation for enhancing firm performance: A dynamic capability perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 198, 1311-1323. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.104Johnsen, C. G., Olaison, L., & Sørensen, B. M. (2017). Put Your Style at Stake: A New Use of Sustainable Entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 39(2-3), 397-415. doi:10.1177/0170840617717551Judge, W. Q., Hu, H. W., Gabrielsson, J., Talaulicar, T., Witt, M. A., Zattoni, A., … Kibler, B. (2015). Configurations of Capacity for Change in Entrepreneurial Threshold Firms: Imprinting and Strategic Choice Perspectives. Journal of Management Studies, 52(4), 506-530. doi:10.1111/joms.12121Kuckertz A. Berger E. S. &Allmendinger M.(2015).What drives entrepreneurship? A configurational analysis of the determinants of entrepreneurship in innovation‐driven economies. A Configurational Analysis of the Determinants of Entrepreneurship in Innovation‐Driven Economies 273–288.Lans, T., Blok, V., & Wesselink, R. (2014). Learning apart and together: towards an integrated competence framework for sustainable entrepreneurship in higher education. Journal of Cleaner Production, 62, 37-47. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.036Mandl, C., Berger, E. S. C., & Kuckertz, A. (2016). Do you plead guilty? Exploring entrepreneurs’ sensemaking-behavior link after business failure. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 5, 9-13. doi:10.1016/j.jbvi.2015.12.002Markussen, S., & Røed, K. (2017). The gender gap in entrepreneurship – The role of peer effects. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 134, 356-373. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2016.12.013Miralles-Quirós, J. L., Miralles-Quirós, M. M., & Nogueira, J. M. (2018). Diversification benefits of using exchange-traded funds in compliance to the sustainable development goals. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(1), 244-255. doi:10.1002/bse.2253Muñoz, P., & Cohen, B. (2017). Sustainable Entrepreneurship Research: Taking Stock and looking ahead. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(3), 300-322. doi:10.1002/bse.2000Nations U. (2019).Sustainable development goals. Retrieved fromhttps://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable‐development‐goals/Nicolopoulou, K., Karatas-Ozkan, M., Janssen, F., & Jermier, J. (Eds.). (2016). Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation. doi:10.4324/9781315748665Parra, S. (2013). Exploring the Incorporation of Values for Sustainable Entrepreneurship Teaching/Learning. Journal of technology management & innovation, 8(1), 11-20. doi:10.4067/s0718-27242013000100002Partzsch, L., & Ziegler, R. (2011). Social entrepreneurs as change agents: a case study on power and authority in the water sector. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 11(1), 63-83. doi:10.1007/s10784-011-9150-1Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2011). Recognizing Opportunities for Sustainable Development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(4), 631-652. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00386.xPinkse, J., & Groot, K. (2015). Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Corporate Political Activity: Overcoming Market Barriers in the Clean Energy Sector. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(3), 633-654. doi:10.1111/etap.12055Pinkse, J., & Kolk, A. (2011). Multinational enterprises and climate change: Exploring institutional failures and embeddedness. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(3), 332-341. doi:10.1057/jibs.2011.56Ploum, L., Blok, V., Lans, T., & Omta, O. (2018). Exploring the relation between individual moral antecedents and entrepreneurial opportunity recognition for sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 1582-1591. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.296Ragin C. C. Strand S. Rubinson C. Drass K. &Davey S.(2008).User's guide to fuzzy‐set/qualitative comparative analysis.Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning Social Inquiry. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226702797.001.0001Rahdari, A., Sepasi, S., & Moradi, M. (2016). Achieving sustainability through Schumpeterian social entrepreneurship: The role of social enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production, 137, 347-360. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.159Ras, P. J., & Vermeulen, W. J. V. (2009). Sustainable production and the performance of South African entrepreneurs in a global supply chain. The case of South African table grape producers. Sustainable Development, 17(5), 325-340. doi:10.1002/sd.427Rey-Martí, A., Tur Porcar, A., & Mas-Tur, A. (2015). Linking female entrepreneurs’ motivation to business survival. Journal of Business Research, 68(4), 810-814. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.033Ribes-Giner, G., Moya-Clemente, I., Cervelló-Royo, R., & Perello-Marin, M. R. (2018). Domestic economic and social conditions empowering female entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 89, 182-189. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.005Rodgers, C. (2010). Sustainable entrepreneurship in SMEs: a case study analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17(3), 125-132. doi:10.1002/csr.223Schaltegger, S., Beckmann, M., & Hockerts, K. (2018). Collaborative entrepreneurship for sustainability. Creating solutions in light of the UN sustainable development goals. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 10(2), 131. doi:10.1504/ijev.2018.092709Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: categories and interactions. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(4), 222-237. doi:10.1002/bse.682Schaper, M. (2016). Making Ecopreneurs. doi:10.4324/9781315593302Sen, S. K., & Ongsakul, V. (2018). Clusters of Sustainable Development Goals: A Metric for Grassroots Implementation. Sustainability: The Journal of Record, 11(3), 118-126. doi:10.1089/sus.2018.0007Shepherd, D. A., & Patzelt, H. (2011). The New Field of Sustainable Entrepreneurship: Studying Entrepreneurial Action Linking «What is to be Sustained» with «What is to be Developed». Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 137-163. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00426.xStål, H. I., & Bonnedahl, K. (2016). Conceptualizing strong sustainable entrepreneurship. Small Enterprise Research, 23(1), 73-84. doi:10.1080/13215906.2016.1188718Sunny, S. A., & Shu, C. (2017). Investments, incentives, and innovation: geographical clustering dynamics as drivers of sustainable entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 52(4), 905-927. doi:10.1007/s11187-017-9941-zTerjesen, S., Hessels, J., & Li, D. (2013). Comparative International Entrepreneurship. Journal of Management, 42(1), 299-344. doi:10.1177/0149206313486259Thiem, A., & Duşa, A. (2013). QCA: A Package for Qualitative Comparative Analysis. The R Journal, 5(1), 87. doi:10.32614/rj-2013-009Urbaniec, M. (2018). Sustainable Entrepreneurship: Innovation-Related Activities in European Enterprises. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 27(4), 1773-1779. doi:10.15244/pjoes/78155Ward P. R. and M. (2017).Enabling green skills: Pathways to sustainable development.https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.20316.23685Weidinger, C., Fischler, F., & Schmidpeter, R. (Eds.). (2014). Sustainable Entrepreneurship. CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-38753-1Woodside, A. G. (2013). Moving beyond multiple regression analysis to algorithms: Calling for adoption of a paradigm shift from symmetric to asymmetric thinking in data analysis and crafting theory. Journal of Business Research, 66(4), 463-472. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.12.021Wu, P.-L., Yeh, S.-S., Huan, T.-C. (. T. C. )., & Woodside, A. G. (2014). Applying complexity theory to deepen service dominant logic: Configural analysis of customer experience-and-outcome assessments of professional services for personal transformations. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1647-1670. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.03.01

Hydrophobic Metal-Organic Frameworks

Metal–organic frameworks (MOFs) have diverse potential applications in catalysis, gas storage, separation, and drug delivery because of their nanoscale periodicity, permanent porosity, channel functionalization, and structural diversity. Despite these promising properties, the inherent structural features of even some of the best-performing MOFs make them moisture-sensitive and unstable in aqueous media, limiting their practical usefulness. This problem could be overcome by developing stable hydrophobic MOFs whose chemical composition is tuned to ensure that their metal–ligand bonds persist even in the presence of moisture and water. However, the design and fabrication of such hydrophobic MOFs pose a significant challenge. Reported syntheses of hydrophobic MOFs are critically summarized, highlighting issues relating to their design, characterization, and practical use. First, wetting of hydrophobic materials is introduced and the four main strategies for synthesizing hydrophobic MOFs are discussed. Afterward, critical challenges in quantifying the wettability of these hydrophobic porous surfaces and solutions to these challenges are discussed. Finally, the reported uses of hydrophobic MOFs in practical applications such as hydrocarbon storage/separation and their use in separating oil spills from water are summarized. Finally, the state of the art is summarized and promising future developments of hydrophobic MOFs are highlighted

Assessing the cardiology community position on transradial intervention and the use of bivalirudin in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management: results of an EAPCI survey.

AIMS: Our aim was to report on a survey initiated by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) collecting the opinion of the cardiology community on the invasive management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), before and after the MATRIX trial presentation at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) 2015 Scientific Sessions. METHODS AND RESULTS: A web-based survey was distributed to all individuals registered on the EuroIntervention mailing list (n=15,200). A total of 572 and 763 physicians responded to the pre- and post-ACC survey, respectively. The radial approach emerged as the preferable access site for ACS patients undergoing invasive management with roughly every other responder interpreting the evidence for mortality benefit as definitive and calling for a guidelines upgrade to class I. The most frequently preferred anticoagulant in ACS patients remains unfractionated heparin (UFH), due to higher costs and greater perceived thrombotic risks associated with bivalirudin. However, more than a quarter of participants declared the use of bivalirudin would increase after MATRIX. CONCLUSIONS: The MATRIX trial reinforced the evidence for a causal association between bleeding and mortality and triggered consensus on the superiority of the radial versus femoral approach. The belief that bivalirudin mitigates bleeding risk is common, but UFH still remains the preferred anticoagulant based on lower costs and thrombotic risks