Innovation-driven development of Russian regions based on sustainable construction: trends, issues and progress
https://doi.org/10.21285/2227-2917-2021-4-716-729
Abstract
In the present work, we discuss reasons and solutions for the insufficient inclusion of sustainable construction standards in Russia as a factor in intensifying innovation-driven growth of regions and the entire country. A comparative analysis was conducted to assess the current level of innovative development, as well as the degree of implementation of environmental projects in the construction industry. It was found that "green" technologies are yet to be implemented in domestic practices. One major reason comprises undeveloped environmental certification standards, which was confirmed by comparing domestic and foreign practices using mathematical methods. The main directions for solving the identified problems include increasing state interest in implementing environmental projects, forming necessary staffing and resource support for transforming the construction industry as a condition for enhancing the innovation activity in regions and justifying the efficiency of "green" construction. The implementation of the above approaches will improve environmental construction in the country, at the same time as creating favourable conditions for its innovative development.
About the Authors
O. N. Kiseleva
Yuri Gagarin State Technical University of Saratov
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Oksana N. Kiseleva - Dr. Sci. (Econ.), Professor of the Department of Economic Security and Innovation Management, Yuri Gagarin State Technical University of Saratov.
77, Politechnicheskaya St., Saratov, 410008
Competing Interests:
None
E. A. Sukhinina
Yuri Gagarin State Technical University of Saratov
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Elena A. Sukhinina - Cand. of Architecture, Associate Professor of the Department of Architecture, Yuri Gagarin State Technical University of Saratov.
77, Politechnicheskaya St., Saratov, 410008
Competing Interests:
None
References
1. Kornienko SV. Green construction – an innovative and socially significant element of increasing environmental sustainability. Zdaniya vysokikh tekhnologii = Sustainable building technologies. 2017;3(3):60-80. (In Russ.).
2. Abashkin VL, Abdrakhmanova GI, Bredikhin SV, Varzanovtseva IO, Vlasova VV, Gershman MA, et al. Rating of innovative development of the subjects of the Russian Federation. Iss. 7. Moscow: HSE; 2021. 274 p. (In Russ.).
3. Burduli V. Imperatives and directions of development of "green" economy and its interaction with innovative economy. Materials of Conference: Current problems of formation of green economy (Tbilisi, 21-22 June 2019). Tbilisi: Paata Gugushvili Institute of Economics of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University; 2019. p. 44-57. (In Russ.).
4. Khandazhapova LM, Lubsanova NB. Environmental innovation and the green economy's development in Russian regions. Nacional'nye interesy: prioritety i bezopasnost' = National interests: priorities and security. 2016;2: 131-138. (In Russ.).
5. Fischer-Kowalski M, Swilling M, von Weizsäcker EU, Ren Y, Moriguchi Y, Crane W, et al. Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth, A Report of the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel. Available from: http://unep.org/resourcepanel/decoupling/files/pdf/Decoupling_Report_English.pdf [Accessed 05th October 2021].
6. Mityakov SN, Mityakova OI, Mityakov ES, Alenkova IV. Innovative development of the regions of Russia: environmental innovations. Innovacii = Innovation. 2018;3(233):72-78. (In Russ.).
7. Makharadze DV. Russian and foreign experience in the application of environmental innovations in construction. Molodoi uchenyi = Young Scientist. 2020;15(305):159-162. (In Russ.).
8. Ivanova KA, Zhurenkova AS. "Green" standards in construction. Molodoi uchenyi = Young Scientist. 2016;9.1(113.1):31-34. (In Russ.).
9. Filipenko VM, Abakumov RG. The development of modern "green" construction in Russia. Innovacionnaya nauka. 2017;1(4):207-210. (In Russ.).
10. Murzin AD, Filippova AV, Shvydenko NV. Analysis of foreign and Russian experience of ecological construction. Sovremennoe nauchnoe znanie, idei i koncepcii: cb. nauchnykh trudov po mat-lam I Mezhdunar. nauch.-prakt. foruma molodykh uchenykh (Yekaterinburg, 10th May 2017). Yekaterinburg: Professional'naya nauka, 2017. No. 3. p. 217-222. (In Russ.).
11. Kozhevnikov SA, Lebedeva MA. Problems of transition to green economy in the region (based on materials of the European North of Russia). Problemy razvitiya territorii = Problems of Territory's Development. 2019;4(102):72-88. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.15838/ptd.2019.4.102.4.
12. Shuvalova M. Ecodevelopment: why has green construction not yet become widespread in Russia? Available from: https://www.garant.ru/article/1291287/ [Accessed 30 September 2021].
13. Samarina VP. Assessment of the impact of economic activity on the degree of overland flow contamination in the zone of the Kursk-Belgorod magnetic anomaly: case study of the Oskol river. Vodnye resursy = Water resources. 2007;34(5):582-586. (In Russ.).
14. Akulov AO. Decoupling effect in the industrial region (the case of the Kemerovo oblast). Ekonomicheskie i social'nye peremeny: fakty, tendencii, prognoz = Economic and social changes: facts, trends, forecast. 2013;4: 177-185. (In Russ.).
15. Tereshina MV, Asaliev AM. Decoupling effect in the development of territorial systems of environmental management (by the example of Krasnodar region). Sovremennaya ekonomika: problemy i resheniya = Modern economics: problems and solutions. 2013;12:63-73. (In Russ.).
16. Amiri A, Emami N, Ottelin J, Sorvari J, Marteinsson B, Heinonen J. Embodied emissions of buildings - A forgotten factor in green building certificates. Energy and Buildings. 2021;241:110962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.110962.
17. Mattoni B, Bisegna F, Evangelisti l, Guattari C, Gori P, Asdrubali F. Critical review and methodological approach to evaluate the differences among international green building rating tools. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2018;82(1):950-960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.105..
18. Champagne C, Aktas CB. Assessing the Resilience of LEED Certified Green Buildings. Procedia Engineering. 2016;145:380-387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.04.095.
19. Kamsu-Foguem B, Abanda H, Doumbouya MB, Tchouanguem F. Graph-based ontology reasoning for formal verification of BREEAM rules. Cognitive Systems Research. 2019;55:14-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2018.12.011.
20. Liu Ch, Wang F, Mackillop F. A critical discussion of the BREEAM Communities method as applied to Chinese eco-village assessment. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2020;59:102172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102172.
21. Korneeva YuV. Green technology - new opportunities for development of the region. Rossiiskie regiony v fokuse peremen: cb. dokladov XI Mezhdunar. konf. (Yekaterinburg, 17-19th November 2016). Yekaterinburg: UMC UPI LLC; 2016. p. 691-700. (In Russ.).
22. Anikina ID, Anikin AA. Analysis of methods and tools for supporting environmental projects: best practices and performance evaluation. Regional'naya ekonomika i upravlenie: elektronnyi nauchnyi zhurnal = Regional economics and management: electronic scientific journal. 2020;3(63):19. Available from: https://eee-region.ru/article/6319/ [Accessed 05th October 2021].
Review
For citations:
Kiseleva O.N., Sukhinina E.A. Innovation-driven development of Russian regions based on sustainable construction: trends, issues and progress. Izvestiya vuzov. Investitsii. Stroitelstvo. Nedvizhimost. 2021;11(4):716-729. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21285/2227-2917-2021-4-716-729
Views:
120
Email this article 