Local Knowledge and Resources as Driving Forces of Sustainable Bioeconomy

  • Maris KlavinsEmail author
  • Vaira Obuka
Part of the World Sustainability Series book series (WSUSE)


A major driving force to promote the idea of sustainable bioeconomy could be local experiences, skills and knowledge in respect to the use of local and natural materials (at first, biomaterials). Sustainable bioeconomy is a concept under development, and as such it requires argumentation and demonstration of efficiency. The aim of this chapter is to study the local knowledge of the Baltic region in terms of the applicability of local biomaterials in production. In the context of bioeconomy, there is an evident need to identify the possibilities for the use of natural and local materials as well as the knowledge to manage these resources. Natural materials of the Baltic region, such as hemp, straw, timber, grain processing products (husk), reeds, moss and flax, will be studied in the historical context and in the use for innovations in modern bioeconomy. In addition, such resources as clay, organic lake sediments (sapropel), peat, sludge, ash, coal and biochar will be evaluated as potential source materials for the manufacture of innovative products. Regarding the use of natural resources, different sectors will be analysed, for example, agriculture and construction. The obtained results will give an insight into the knowledge and traditions of the Baltic region concerning the use of natural materials as a key for sustainability.


Sustainable development Bioeconomy Natural materials Building materials Knowledge integration 


  1. Balčiūnas G, Žvironaite J, Vejelis S, Jagniatinskis A, Gaidučis S (2016) Ecological, thermal and acoustical insulating composite from hemp shives and sapropel binder. Ind Crops Prod J 91:286–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Binici H, Eken E, Dolaz M, Aksogan O, Kara M (2014) An environmentally friendly thermal insulation material from sunflower stalk, textile waste and stubble fibres. Constr Build Mater 51:24–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. European Commission (2010). Europe 2020: a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.
  4. European Commission (2012). Commission adopts its strategy for a sustainable bioeconomy to ensure smart green growth in Europe.
  5. Lehmann J, Joseph S (eds) (2012). Biochar for environmental management: science and technology. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Leonova GA, Bobrov VA, Lazareva EA, Bogush AA, Krinovogov SK (2011) Biogenesis contribution of minor elements to organic matter of recent lacustrine sapropels (Lake Kirek as example). Lithol Min Resour 46(2):99–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Liužinas R, Jankevičius K, Šalkauskas M (2005) Improvement of lake sapropel quality: a new method. Geogrfijos Metraštis 3(82):44–55Google Scholar
  8. Mounika M, Ramaniah K, Ratna Prasad VA, Mohana Rao K, Hema Chandra H (2012) Thermal conductivity characterization of bamboo fiber reinforced polyester composite. J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 3(6):1109–1116Google Scholar
  9. Obuka V, Korjakins A, Brencis R, Preikšs I, Purmalis O, Stankeviča, Ķļaviņš M (2013) Sapropeļa – kūdras, sapropeļa kokskaidu siltumizolācijas plāksnes un to īpašības. Rīgas Tehniskās universitātes zinātniskie raksti, Materiālzinātne un lietišķā ķīmija 29:127–136Google Scholar
  10. Obuka, V., Šinka, M., Kļaviņš, M., Stankeviča, K., Korjakins, A. (2015). Sapropel as a binder: properties and application possibilities for composite materials. In: 2nd international conference on innovative materials, structures and technologies IOP Publishing IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 96:1–10Google Scholar
  11. Obuka V, Veitmans K, Vincēviča-Gaile Z, Stankeviča K, Kļaviņš M (2016) Sapropel as an adhesive: assessment of essential properties. Res Rural Dev 2:77–82Google Scholar
  12. Oliver P (2006) Built to meet needs: cultural issues in vernacular architecture. Architectural Press, Elsevier, OxordGoogle Scholar
  13. Priefer C, Jorissen J, Fror O (2017) Pathways to shape the bioeconomy. Resources 6:1–23. Scholar
  14. Sassi P (2006) Strategies for sustainable architecture. Taylor & Francis Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Schmid O, Padel S, Levidov L (2012) The Bio-economy concept and knowledge base in a public goods and farmer perspective. Bio-based Appl Econ 1(1):47–63Google Scholar
  16. Shah B (2009) Textbook on pharmacognosy and phytochemistry. Elsevier India, DelhiGoogle Scholar
  17. Shea A, Lawrence M, Walker P (2012) Hygrothermal performance of an experimental hemp–lime building. Constr Build Mater 36:270–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sinka, M., Radina, L., Sahmenko, G., Korjakins, A., Bajare, D. (2015). Enhancement of lime-hemp concrete properties using different manufacturing technologies. In: First international conference on bio-based building materials, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  19. Stankeviča K, Kļaviņš M (2013) Sapropelis un tā izmantošanas iespējas (Sapropel and its application possibilities). Sci J Riga Tech Univ Mater Sci Appl Chem 29:113–131 (in Latvian)Google Scholar
  20. Stankevica K, Vincevica-Gaile Z, Klavins M (2016) Freshwater sapropel (gyttja): its description, properties and opportunities of use in contemporary agriculture. Agron Res 14(3):929–947Google Scholar
  21. Stankeviča K, Kļaviņš M, Rutiņa L (2012) Accumulation of metals in sapropel. Mater Sci Appl Chem 26:99–105Google Scholar
  22. Urge-Vorsatz D, Danny Harvey LD, Mirasgedis S, Levine MD (2007) Mitigating CO2 emissions from energy use in the worlds buidings. Build Res Inf 35(2):129–137Google Scholar
  23. Zach J, Hroudová J, Brožovský ZK, Gailius A (2013) Development of thermal insulating materials on natural base for thermal insulation systems. Procedia Eng 57:1288–1294CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental ScienceUniversity of LatviaRigaLatvia

Personalised recommendations