Journal of the Knowledge Economy

, Volume 8, Issue 2, pp 456–470 | Cite as

Sustainable Development of the Russian Arctic zone energy shelf: the Role of the Quintuple Innovation Helix Model

  • Elias G. Carayannis
  • Alexey E. Cherepovitsyn
  • Alina A. Ilinova
Article

Abstract

Russia is one of the most important players in the Arctic zone energy shelf with significant economic, security, and political interests in the region. This is primarily because of significant natural resources, in particular oil and gas, on the Russian Arctic territories. Arctic has considerable strategic importance to the national economy. The objective of this paper is to develop the concept of sustainable development of the Russian Arctic zone energy shelf within the framework of the Quintuple Innovation Helix Model which focuses on university-industry-government relations, public and civil society, and the natural environment. The paper presents main characteristics of the Russian Arctic and Arctic’s oil and gas recourses. We determined the strategic importance of the Russian Arctic as a wealth of petroleum and mineral resources. We offered economic and socioecological approach to the Arctic’s sustainable development and paid special attention to the creation of centers of economic growth through the public-private initiatives aimed at knowledge and innovation production and transfer. We estimated social and economic potential of oil and gas shelf projects through the analysis of the possible risks and expectations of main stakeholders. The sustainable development of the Russian Arctic zone energy shelf represents an area of economic, ecological, and social concern, to which the Quintuple Helix innovation model can be applied with greater potential. The Quintuple Helix supports here the formation of a win-win situation between ecology, knowledge, and innovation, creating synergies between economy, society, and democracy, what is the good basis for sustainable development of the Arctic territories and implementation of Arctic Shelf projects.

Keywords

Arctic Sustainable development Arctic Energy Shelf Russia Oil and gas Shelf projects Quintuple Helix Innovations 

References

  1. Arbatov, A. (1988). The role of consumption in the formation of the mineral resource base of the country: overview / A.A. Arbatov, I.G. Grtsevich // Economy minerals and exploration. M .: Geoinformmark. 180 p.Google Scholar
  2. Atnasheva, M., Konoplyanik, A. (2001). About the rational interaction of the state and others participants of investment process in oil and gas industry (part 2). Oil industry, 6 (June). http://www.konoplyanik.ru/ru/publications/293b/293b.htm
  3. Austvik, O., Moe, A. (2016). Oil and gas extraction in the Barents Region. Encyclopedia of the Barents Region (Volume II). Oslo, Pax, pp. 115–121Google Scholar
  4. Barth, T. D. (2011). The idea of a green new deal in a Quintuple Helix Model of knowledge, know-how and innovation. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 1(2), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blunden, M. (2009). The new problem of Arctic stability. Survival. Vol. 51. № 5. p. 127.Google Scholar
  6. Blunden, M. (2012). Geopolitics and the Northern Sea Route. International Affairs, 88(1), 115–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carayannis, E. G., & Alexander, J. M. (2006). Global and local knowledge. Palgrave MacMillan: Glocal transatlantic public-private partnerships for research and technological development. Houndmills.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carayannis, EG, Barth, TD, Campbell, DFJ (2012). The Quintuple Helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 2012, 1:2. URL: http://www.innovation-entrepreneurship.com/content/1/1/2
  9. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2009). “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3/4), 201–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2010). Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other? A proposed framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 1(1), 41–69 http://www.igi-global.com/bookstore/article.aspx?titleid=41959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2011). Open innovation diplomacy and a 21st century fractal research, education and innovation (FREIE) ecosystem: building on the Quadruple and Quintuple Helix innovation concepts and the “mode 3” knowledge production system. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 2(3), 327–372 http://www.springerlink.com/content/d1lr223321305579/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carayannis, E. G., & von Zedtwitz, M. (2005). Architecting gloCal (global–local), real-virtual incubator networks (G-RVINs) as catalysts and accelerators of entrepreneurship in transitioning and developing economies. Technovation, 25, 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carayannis, E. G., Cherepovitsyn, A., & Ilinova, A. (2016). Technology commercialization in entrepreneurial universities: the US and Russian experience. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(5), 1135–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cherepovitsyn, A. (2011). Oil and gas clusters: possible regional effects and problems in the development of offshore fields with the participation of foreign capital // Economic research in the north: from past to future. Proceedings of the conference, Apatity. - p. 120Google Scholar
  15. Cherepovitsyn, A., & Ilinova, A. (2016). Ecological, economic and social issues of implementing carbon dioxide sequestration technologies in the oil and gas industry in Russia. Journal of Ecological Engineering, 17(2), 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Claes, D., Osterud, O. (2010). The new geopolitics of the High North. 51st ISA Convention in New Orleans.Google Scholar
  17. Conley, H. et. al. (2013). Arctic economics in the 21st century. The benefits and costs of cold. Report of the CSIS Europe Program.Google Scholar
  18. Conley, H., Kraut, J. (2010). Strategic interests in the Arctic: an assessment of current challenges and new opportunities for cooperation: a report of the CSIS Europe program. 33 p.Google Scholar
  19. Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix: university-industry-government innovation in action. In New York. Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Triple Helix-university-industry-government relations: a laboratory for knowledge-based economic development. EASST Review, 14, 14–19.Google Scholar
  21. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (Eds.). (1997). Universities and the global knowledge economy: a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. London: Printer.Google Scholar
  22. Fadeev, A., Cherepovitsyn, A., & Larichkin, F. (2012). Increasing the competitiveness of Russian suppliers of the oil and gas industry during the development of Arctic oil and gas fields. “SCIENCE” ARC RAS ECO-Russian economic journal, 4(454), 163–181.Google Scholar
  23. Finland’s Strategy for the Arctic Region (2010). Prime Minister’s Office Publications. 8/2010.Google Scholar
  24. Gautier, D. L., et al. (2009). Assessment of undiscovered oil and gas in the Arctic. Science, 324(5931), 1175–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heininen, L. (2012). Arctic strategies and policies. Inventory and Comparative Study.Google Scholar
  26. Henderson, J. (2014). International partnership in Russia: conclusions from the oil and gas industry. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Henderson, J., Loe, J. (2014). The prospects and challenges for Arctic oil development. URL: https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/WPM-56.pdf
  28. Ilinova, A., & Dmitrieva, D. (2016a). Technology commercialization: experience of the U.S. and possibilities for oil and gas industry in Russia. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research., 11(7), 4990–4994.Google Scholar
  29. Ilinova, A., & Dmitrieva, D. (2016b). Sustainable development of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation: ecological aspect. Biosciences Biotechnology Research Asia, 13(4), 2101–2106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kapyla, J. & Mikkola, H. (2013). The global Arctic. The growing Arctic interests of Russia, China, The US and European Union. Global security research programme. The Finnish institute of international affairs.Google Scholar
  31. Keil, K. (2012). Opening oil and gas development in the Arctic: a conflict and risk assessment. Tvergastein Interdisciplinary Journal of the Environment, 2nd issue, November 2012, pp. 36–43.Google Scholar
  32. Kingdom of Denmark Strategy for the Arctic 2011–2020. Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Department of Foreign Affairs, Government of Greenland; Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of the Faroes Tinganes. August 2011. http://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/climatechange/files/Arctic-Resources/Arctic-Council/02_01_Denmark%20strategy%20for%20the%20Arctic.pdf.
  33. Laruelle, M. (2014). Russia’s Arctic strategies and future of the far north. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe Inc. 251 p.Google Scholar
  34. Moe, A. (2016). In V. Sakhuja & K. Narula (Eds.), The dynamics of Arctic development (pp. 3–13). Asia in the Arctic. Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. National strategy for the Arctic region (2013). The White House.Washington D.C. https://ru.scribd.com/document/141155221/National-Strategy-for-the-Arctic-Region.
  36. Overland, I. (2010). The Arctic is hot, part 1 (autumn 2010). Russia's Arctic energy policy International Journal., 65(4), 865–878.Google Scholar
  37. Pavlenko, V. (2013). The Arctic zone of the Russian Federation in system of ensuring national interests of the country. The Arctic: ecology and economy. No 4 (12). URL: http://www2.ibrae.ru/docs/4%2812%29/016_025_ARKTIKA_4%2812%29_12_2013.pdf
  38. Peimani, H. (2013). Energy security and geopolitics in the Arctic. Challenges and opportunities in the 21st Century.Google Scholar
  39. Rowe, E., & Blakkisrud, H. (2014). A new kind of Arctic power? Russia’s policy discourses and diplomatic practices in the circumpolar north. Geopolitics, 19(1), 66–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Russian Federation Strategy for the Development of the Arctic and National Security until 2020 (2013). http://legalacts.ru/doc/strategija-razvitija-arkticheskoi-zony-rossiiskoi-federatsii-i/.
  41. Simola, H. et al. (2013). Perspectives on Russia’s energy sector. BOFIT Online 3/2013, p. 4.Google Scholar
  42. Sweden’s Strategy for the Arctic region (2011). Government offices of Sweden. Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Department for Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Arctic Secretariat. Stockholm, Sweden, 52 p.Google Scholar
  43. Tamnes, R., Offerdal, K. (2014) Geopolitics and security in the arctic: regional dynamics in a global world (Routledge Global Security Studies).Google Scholar
  44. The project of the energy strategy of the Russian Federation for the period till 2035 (amend. of February,1 2017).Google Scholar
  45. Zyrin, V., & Ilinova, A. (2016). Ecology safety technologies of unconventional oil reserves recovery for sustainable oil and gas industry development. Journal of Ecological Engineering, 17(4), 35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zysk, K. (2011). The evolving Arctic security environment: an assessment. In S. J. Blank (Ed.), Russia in the Arctic (pp. 96–97). Strategic Studies Institute: Carlisle.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elias G. Carayannis
    • 1
  • Alexey E. Cherepovitsyn
    • 2
  • Alina A. Ilinova
    • 2
  1. 1.School of BusinessGeorge Washington UniversityWashington, D.CUSA
  2. 2.Saint-Petersburg Mining UniversitySaint PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations