=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3679/paper09
|storemode=property
|title=The role of information technologies in developing innovative bioeconomic ecosystems for sustainable transformation
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3679/paper09.pdf
|volume=Vol-3679
|authors=Viktoriia Vostriakova,Iryna Hryhoruk,Yuliia Maksymiv,Tetiana Korniienko
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/cte/VostriakovaHMK23
}}
==The role of information technologies in developing innovative bioeconomic ecosystems for sustainable transformation==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3679/paper09.pdf
The role of information technologies in developing
innovative bioeconomic ecosystems for sustainable
transformation
Viktoriia Vostriakova1 , Iryna Hryhoruk2 , Yuliia Maksymiv2 and Tetiana Korniienko2
1
Vinnytsia National Technical University, 95 Khmelnytsky Hwy., Vinnytsya, 21021, Ukraine
2
Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University, 57 Shevchenko Str., Ivano-Frankivsk, 76018, Ukraine
Abstract
A prerequisite for overcoming the modern challenges that arose at the beginning of the 21st century is the
transformation of production and consumption systems per the principles of sustainable development. The
most promising approaches in this transformation are the convergence of the knowledge-based bioeconomy
and digitalization, which will contribute to developing an innovative circular bioeconomy. Innovations play
a crucial role in the dynamics of the bioeconomic transformation by generating gross added value, increasing
profitability and labor productivity, and enabling the adoption of modern technologies. The primary driving
force for changes in business activity is usually the search for a niche that provides a competitive advantage
for enterprises. This advantage can be achieved by creating new value chains or modifying the configuration
of existing ones in the bioeconomy, all within the framework of sustainable development. This article aims
to determine the role of information technologies and trends in developing innovative activities in Ukraine’s
bioeconomy sector. This determination is based on a comparative statistical assessment of key indicators of
business entities that can be attributed to the innovative bioeconomy. The analysis reveals that the share of
innovative products in the volume of industrial products sold in Ukraine averages at 1.9%, significantly lower
than European countries’ indicators. The low level of innovativeness in Ukraine’s bioeconomic sector is a direct
consequence of the limited investment in innovation, which decreased by almost 70% between 2014 and 2020. It
has been revealed that the structure of innovative products within the bioeconomic sector is primarily dominated
by enterprises utilizing medium and low-tech production processes, such as food, chemical, and woodworking
industries. On the other hand, high-tech production includes the manufacturing of primary pharmaceutical
products, pharmaceutical preparations, computers, electronic and optical products, which is mainly represented
by enterprises within the traditional sector that heavily rely on fossil resources. Research indicates that the level
of technological advancement and innovation in the Ukrainian bioeconomic sector is currently low and exhibits
a negative trend. Although enterprises operating in the bioeconomic sphere possess significant potential for
development and innovation implementation, their production, operational, and economic processes require
reorganization and modernization by integrating innovative approaches.According to the author’s vision the
conceptual model of bioeconomic digital transformation based on sustainable development, delivered in the
article, integrating modern information technologies, into the bioeconomic transformation process can facilitate
the creation of a unique digital environment called innovative bioeconomic ecosystems. These ecosystems aim
to support the sustainable bioeconomic transformation of socio-economic systems by engaging all relevant
stakeholders. By adopting the proposed approach of digital transformation within the bioeconomy, it becomes
feasible to achieve the primary objectives of sustainable development, including the creation of new employment
opportunities, enhanced competitiveness of bioeconomic products, improved quality of ecosystem services,
promotion of consumer-oriented production, resource conservation, and climate impact.
Keywords
Bioeconomic ecosystems, management, digitalization, innovations, industry
1. Introduction
In recent years, the concept of bioeconomic transformation has gained momentum and has been
incorporated into numerous national and international economic strategies as a promising solution
CTE 2023: 11th Workshop on Cloud Technologies in Education, December 22, 2023, Kryvyi Rih, Ukraine
" vikazataydukh@gmail.com (V. Vostriakova); iryna.hryhoruk@pnu.edu.ua (I. Hryhoruk); yuliia.maksymiv@pnu.edu.ua
(Y. Maksymiv); tetiana.korniienko@pnu.edu.ua (T. Korniienko)
0000-0002-4161-7483 (V. Vostriakova); 0000-0002-7945-9679 (I. Hryhoruk); 0000-0002-8614-0447 (Y. Maksymiv);
0000-0002-3977-4877 (T. Korniienko)
© 2024 Copyright for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR
ceur-ws.org
Workshop ISSN 1613-0073
Proceedings
178
Viktoriia Vostriakova et al. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 178–194
for addressing the challenges of sustainable development, such as climate change, depletion of natural
resources, and the disappearance of ecosystems. The primary objective of bioeconomic transformations
is to reduce dependence on fossil resources by introducing new bioproducts, processes, and methods
[1]. Additionally, they aim to foster the development of bio-oriented socio-economic systems based on
knowledge [2], while creating opportunities for “green growth” [3].
Research often highlights the potential of the bioeconomy in rural areas, where agriculture plays
a dominant role in the employment structure [3, 4]. However, applying bioeconomic knowledge and
biotechnologies is equally crucial in industrial sectors, particularly in processing industries that em-
ploy innovative technological solutions. The bioeconomy is a multidisciplinary field that combines
knowledge and expertise from various sectors. It opens up new technological possibilities in engineer-
ing, information technology, robotics, machine tool construction, energy, packaging, pharmaceutical
industries, and more [1].
The modern bioeconomy aims to utilize biological resources efficiently, demonstrating economic and
innovative practices, making it relevant even for large industrial cities. Furthermore, its significance
is increasing in terms of knowledge generation, as well as the establishment of innovative networks
and databases. A contemporary interpretation of the bioeconomy revolves around the production,
exploitation, and utilization of biological resources, processes, and systems in all sectors of the economy,
aligning with the principles of sustainable development [2]. Some researchers call this concept a
knowledge-based bioeconomy because it emphasizes new technologies and processes [5].
Previous bioeconomy strategies have emphasized its crucial role in the sustainable development of
rural areas, as establishing local production facilities near the sources of biomass, the raw material,
contributes to their economic growth. By creating local value chains, the financial appeal of these regions,
including attracting skilled labor, is enhanced [2, 6]. While the potential of rural areas in bioeconomic
transformation is undeniable, the role of urban regions in the bioeconomy is often underestimated. It
requires discussion in the context of supporting innovation and circularity.
In the contemporary context of the bioeconomic transformation of socio-economic systems between
rural and urban areas, there is a clear need for complementarity and the exploration of the potential for
mutual exchange of skills among a wide range of stakeholders. The establishment and advancement of
shared bioeconomic ecosystems, characterized by unhindered access and information sharing among
stakeholders at different levels, can ultimately lead to interdisciplinary innovation through research
conducted by both corporate and academic entities and their practical implementation.
To achieve the necessary innovative solutions for bioeconomic transformation, it is imperative for
various stakeholders from all system levels – including the scientific community and the business
environment – to collaborate [7]. Generating new knowledge and adapting existing approaches to
new directions often serve as the foundation for innovation [8]. Information technologies occupy a
significant role in this process, with research digital networks playing an essential part in facilitating
access to and exchange of information and experiences, thus fostering the generation of novel ideas.
This, in turn, enhances the competitiveness of companies, sectors, and entire regions [9].
Within the bioeconomic ecosystem, the connections established between industry and scientists are
particularly crucial during the early stages of the innovation process, as they facilitate the integration
of research findings into the real sector of the economy.
The adoption of an innovative state policy should establish prerequisites to support scientific co-
operation in the development of innovations in the bioeconomy by introducing appropriate financial
mechanisms. Scientists at The Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research [10] believe
that the entire bioeconomy business cycle is ready for digitization. This encompasses the extraction
and procurement of raw materials [11], bioprocessing, logistics and distribution of intermediate goods.
Information technologies are already prevalent in various aspects of the bioeconomy, including the digi-
tization and tracking of existing biological resources [12], information protection [13], the development
of new bioproducts in bioengineering [14, 15] and biochemistry [16], conducting relevant tests [17],
as well as the implementation of innovative production methods such as biofoundries [18], bio-based
three-dimensional (3D) printing [19], and cell-free synthetic biology [11]. Additionally, it is crucial
to consider the retail trade of final products for consumers, focusing on the principles of circularity
179
Viktoriia Vostriakova et al. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 178–194
and sustainability in the bioeconomy, encompassing the reuse, repair, and processing of products and
materials.
One of the most significant benefits of digitalization is the ability of ICT to bring bioeconomy
ecosystems to a wider audience. Even two decades ago, to spread innovative approaches in the economy,
government representatives had to make a series of demonstration visits, organizing a significant
number of events to inform and demonstrate the benefits of innovative approaches to industry and the
general public. This process was time-consuming, and the audience reached was limited to the physical
size of the room and then spread by word of mouth.
Creating digital bioinnovation ecosystems can work on several levels. Firstly, the reach of the audience
increases significantly. Secondly, such e-ecosystems can serve not only to disseminate information
about available grants, vacancies, events, and contracts but also to create entire research databases
that can be utilized for both research and commercial purposes. This approach is not dependent on
geography and can be applied both at the international and institutional levels, providing advantages
and possibilities that warrant further research.
2. Evaluation of innovative activities in Ukraine’s bioeconomic sector
Traditionally, the majority of innovations have been produced in the processing industry. In Ukraine, the
processing industry accounts for the largest number of innovatively active enterprises, making up about
22%. The highest share of enterprises with technological innovations is also found in the processing
industry, with over 15%, as well as in the supply of electricity, gas, steam, and air conditioning, with
over 12%. Furthermore, processing industry enterprises contribute to over 15% of non-technological
innovations. However, it is unfortunate that the level of innovativeness in the Ukrainian industry, and
consequently the overall economy, is the lowest in Europe. In 2020, the share of innovative products,
referred to as product innovation, in the volume of sold industrial products in Ukraine was only 1.9%,
while in Poland, this value exceeded 9% [20].
Among the enterprises in the processing industry, those in the traditional sector, primarily dependent
on fossil resources, such as mechanical engineering, printing, and metallurgy, possess the highest level
of innovation [21, 22]. On the other hand, the low-tech production sector, including the food, light,
woodworking, and furniture industries, which predominantly belong to the bioeconomy (figure 1),
exhibits the most minor innovation.
Figure 1: The share of innovative products in the volume of sold products (goods, services) of bioeconomy
enterprises of Ukraine and Poland, 2020, in %.
The technological level of industrial production is closely correlated with the level of product
innovation (figure 2).
As can be seen from figure 2, in Ukraine, the share of innovative enterprises in the bioeconomic sector
that use low- and medium-low-level technologies is predominant and remains relatively unchanged
over the years. However, a slight increase in the number of enterprises that use medium-high-level
180
Viktoriia Vostriakova et al. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 178–194
Figure 2: Structure of innovation enterprises in bioeconomic sectors of Ukraine, by levels of technology in 2020.
technologies can be noted starting from 2019.
High-tech manufacturing encompasses basic pharmaceutical products, pharmaceuticals, computers,
and electronic and optical products. Overall, the low level of innovativeness and technology in the
Ukrainian bioeconomy is one of the key reasons for the high import dependence of the national economy
on products of intermediate and final consumption from high- and medium-high-tech industries. These
industries primarily include machine-building, textile, chemical, and pharmaceutical sectors [23, 24].
The generally low level of innovativeness of industrial products in Ukraine and the bioeconomic
sector is a direct consequence of the low level of investment in innovation. The volume of investment
in innovation decreased by more than 70% from 2012 to 2020 [25]. In the bioeconomy sector, the largest
decrease in costs for innovative activities during 2018-2020 (figure 3) is observed in the field of leather,
leather products, and other materials production (-80%) and furniture production (-59%). However, costs
for innovative activities in the food, beverage, clothing, and pharmaceutical production sector increased
on average by more than 200%.
Figure 3: Dynamics of costs of innovation in the bioeconomic sector of Ukraine in 2018-2020, UAH million.
At the same time, in the information technology sector (figure 4), which indirectly contributes to
the development of the innovative bioeconomy through the digitization and automation of processes,
there is a significant increase in spending on innovative activities in the field of computer programming
(+70%). However, there is only a three percent increase in engineering and technical testing.
181
Viktoriia Vostriakova et al. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 178–194
Figure 4: Dynamics of innovation costs in the information technology sector of Ukraine in 2018-2020, UAH
million.
3. Conceptual vision of the need to develop innovative bioeconomy
ecosystems
Despite the fact that, as a rule, large companies invest in research and development (R&D) in international
practice, recent scientific opinion [26] indicates that the situation is changing. New players and
innovators, rather than mature companies, are leading in bioeconomic research and development. This
can be partly explained by the fact that these enterprises start with a specific goal in mind – the creation
of bioeconomic value. As a result, radical innovation becomes the core of their business rather than
just an experimental risk on the side, allowing them to focus on transformational activities.
The development of a bioeconomic strategy that can stimulate a high level of bioeconomic en-
trepreneurship will not only enable a rapid transition to a bioeconomic model but also bring about
positive indirect effects, such as creating additional jobs through startups. This will benefit overall
economic development. To activate entrepreneurial, innovative activity, it is necessary to create prereq-
uisites and potential opportunities for entrepreneurial initiatives, which can stem from the bioeconomic
transformation.
Such entrepreneurial initiatives carry a relatively high risk inherent in the bioeconomy [27]. The high
level of risk in bioeconomy entrepreneurship arises from the need to compete with mature and efficient
markets dominated by companies that still create value using fossil resources. Consequently, limited data
and information about market conditions, such as consumer acceptance of new bioproducts, increase
the risk level in entrepreneurial activities, making them less attractive to large corporations. This
problem can be addressed through entrepreneurs’ distinct approach to innovation management, which
significantly differs from how large corporations implement their innovation projects. Some scientists
call this approach an “entrepreneurial experiment” [28, 29]. By swiftly testing new technologies,
developing applications, and creating new products based on these technologies, entrepreneurs can
mitigate risks and uncertainties regarding the viability of their inventions. They can quickly obtain
feedback after testing the product in the market, thus attracting consumers at an early stage. Rapid
prototyping and testing can have a similar effect by reducing risk and cost. Entrepreneurial activity
can be likened to scientific activity [30], focusing on verifying business models rather than generating
new scientific knowledge. Consequently, developing innovative business models in the bioeconomy
becomes a primary task of entrepreneurial activity that exceeds the capabilities of other interested
parties. The process of bioeconomic transformation has the potential to not only replace key fossil
resources with biological ones but also introduce entirely new methods of generating added value [31].
Entrepreneurship is indeed significantly impacted by the transition to the bioeconomy at the micro
level. This transition involves converting bioeconomic opportunities into innovative biotechnological
business models through experiential learning processes. However, not all entrepreneurial individuals
possess the necessary technological and organizational expertise to effectively market their bioproducts
or scale up bio-innovations in the market. Additionally, entrepreneurial initiatives in the bioeconomy
182
Viktoriia Vostriakova et al. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 178–194
often face substantial financial challenges. For instance, establishing a biorefinery necessitates significant
investments, which can hinder potential entrepreneurial ventures. These limitations highlight the
importance of establishing a regional institutional environment that fosters governance and supports
aspiring entrepreneurs.
The mere intensification of individual entrepreneurial activity is insufficient to ensure the bioeconomic
transformation of socio-economic systems. The environment in which entrepreneurial activity occurs
represents a crucial aspect of the researched issue. To obtain a comprehensive understanding, it is
essential to focus on entrepreneurship and enterprises as grassroots socio-economic systems and their
innovative infrastructure. At the regional level, or the meso-level of the economy, the main institutional
environment determines the potential for realizing innovative bioeconomic opportunities in specific
market conditions. Therefore, foreign scientific literature on the bioeconomy emphasizes the role of
centers, clusters, or innovative (eco)systems [32] – dynamic bioeconomic systems that collaboratively
implement bioeconomic innovations.
As this study concentrates on the role of information technologies in the development of innovative
bioeconomic ecosystems, it is appropriate to define a bioeconomic ecosystem. Such ecosystems can
be understood as regional, complex agglomerations of bioeconomic activities that offer formal and
informal support services for bio-innovative entrepreneurship. These ecosystems benefit the broader
economic and social environment and enhance the prospects of success for bioeconomic transformation
at all levels. In essence, bioeconomic ecosystems act as catalysts for the impact of bio-innovative en-
trepreneurship on bioeconomic transformation. They contribute to entrepreneurship in the bioeconomy
by increasing flexibility [33], facilitating the transfer of knowledge and technologies, and creating value
networks among various participants [34]. They are an important element of the overall transformation.
To function effectively, bioeconomy ecosystems must include diverse stakeholders and institutions,
providing innovative entrepreneurs with interdisciplinary skills, knowledge, and experience. The
functioning of the bioeconomic ecosystem attracts entrepreneurs and investors to a particular region
because it creates a positive image of innovation and market potential, which contributes to future
transformative processes. Such ecosystems are not externally controlled; they are mostly self-regulating
[35] and driven by a culture of innovative entrepreneurship characterized by creativity, openness,
innovation, and a positive attitude toward risk. Thus, the creation of bioeconomic ecosystems reduces
barriers for entrepreneurs and enables them to develop innovative ideas more easily.
Understanding that regional agglomerations, or bioeconomic ecosystems, can facilitate bioeconomic
transformation raises the question of whether such entrepreneurial ecosystems emerge spontaneously
or must be deliberately created. Quite often, such entrepreneurial ecosystems develop due to the
activities of universities [36] or research centers. Kircher et al. [37] state that market demand for
bio-products can also contribute to creating a bioeconomic ecosystem. Often, the less formal exchange
of knowledge, typical in entrepreneurial activity, can have more significant potential than direct
collaboration with academic institutions. The dissemination of knowledge among the elements of the
bioeconomic ecosystem requires entrepreneurs to be close to other entrepreneurs and participants,
such as scientists, politicians, producers, and end consumers. The greater the number of participants
and diverse stakeholders involved in the ecosystem, the more comprehensive the range of knowledge
available [38], which is crucial for the bioeconomic transformation process.
4. Assessment of the development of the information technology
sector in Ukraine
The knowledge-based bioeconomy and digitalization are two promising technological approaches
that need to be considered together to contribute to the transformation and trigger the necessary
technological dynamics. However, such a broad transformational process requires the participation of
all stakeholders in society. Innovative bioeconomic ecosystems can become centers for the formation of
future policy projects supporting bioeconomic transformation, but further research into the potential
of using digital solutions and highly qualified personnel is needed. The transition to innovative
183
Viktoriia Vostriakova et al. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 178–194
bioeconomic development based on information and leading information technologies is particularly
relevant for preserving the integrity and independence of Ukraine, restoring its industrial potential, and
transitioning to sustainable development. For this purpose, information technologies should be laid as a
basis for the preservation at this stage and the subsequent revival of all components of the economy of
the regions, which will become a condition for the reconstruction of the country in the post-war period.
The information technology sector in Ukraine is at the stage of formation and development, as
evidenced by the dynamics of the growth of the information technology market in recent years (figure 5)
Figure 5: The dynamics of the development of the information technology market in Ukraine 2014-2020.
Unfortunately, despite the significant human potential, the information technology market is con-
stantly undergoing changes, particularly in light of recent economic and political events in Ukraine.
The aggression of the Russian Federation in 2014 has led to the outflow of enterprises and IT specialists
abroad. However, despite these challenges, the IT sector has shown positive growth trends, as evidenced
by the dynamics of the results of IT sector enterprises (figure 6).
Figure 6: Dynamics of the results of the activities of enterprises in the information technology sector from 2014
to 2020
5. Analysis of the role of information technologies in the development
of bio-innovative ecosystems
Conducting biotechnological and bioeconomic experiments has historically been challenging due to the
scarcity of data. However, in the 21st century, the situation has undergone a significant transformation.
184
Viktoriia Vostriakova et al. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 178–194
Developing technologies in high-performance experimental measurements has facilitated the creation
of large data sets associated with biomaterials. Consequently, the need arose to develop tools that
simplify the analysis and interpretation of biological data [39]. Table 1 provides a systematic overview
of the role of digital technologies in bio-innovative development.
Table 1
Overview of IT contribution to the development of bio-innovative ecosystems.
Field Problem Possible solution
In the engineering design cycle, The task of conducting successful tests in engineering design
the test phase, or testing, is the can be solved with the help of biology and the automation of
biggest problem. iterative processes [40]
Most biotechnologies still need Creating integrated engineering design technology platforms
to meet specific criteria of bio- with biotechnology can unlock the commercial potential of
engineering today, primarily due scientific developments, especially when combined with dig-
Integration of biotechnology with the engineering design cycle
to the significant differences be- itization and automation. The data sets generated through
tween the scientific method and this process can be embedded in machine learning models,
an engineering project. which have the potential to reduce human involvement in the
design-build-test cycle [14].
Reproducibility is a persistent The emergence of global supply chains requires coordination
problem in research, the essence through blockchain technology. Further development will lead
of which is that design tools for to an increase in the portfolio of products and information.
process research and development What accompanies it, especially considering the need to con-
(R&D) are inadequate. sider the cost minimization principle and regulatory pressure.
Therefore, software integration should go far beyond integra-
tion in laboratory conditions [15].
Experimental high-throughput Overcoming testing bottlenecks requires implementing new
measurements produce large evaluation methods for high-throughput measurements and
amounts of data that are difficult applying sophisticated metrology approaches. These ap-
to process and store. proaches often involve bioimaging techniques and information
workflows that are typically automated and reliant on complex
software. The software’s task is to collect and manage both
qualitative and quantitative data [17]. Process automation
enables reliability, predictability, and reproducibility when
scaling up laboratory studies and implementing them in pro-
duction.
Reliability and predictability are Creation of new specialized bioengineering programming lan-
two other aspects that affect re- guages (Antha) to solve the problem of reproducibility. It is
producibility. claimed that Antha allows conducting experiments of an en-
tirely new level of complexity. It can provide a departure from
experimentation, changing one factor at a time, fixed in the sci-
entific method, by identifying the interaction between many
different experimental factors [41].
Subsidies for R&D aimed at achieving the reproducibility of bioproduction processes. Pre-competitive
design of R&D programs (for the level of laboratory research) and programs for adaptation to market
conditions can guarantee the success of research only if it can be reproduced and utilized in the real
economy sector. Market research is also an equally important issue, including the reliability of designs,
titers, yield, and productivity under the influence of various variables on bioprocesses, such as changing
environmental conditions, internal gradients like oxygen and redox, and resistance to cell destruction,
among others. The combination of digital and biological tools represents the most effective way to
reduce the time required to confirm the accuracy of research results, considering the complexity of
biological processes.
In addition, it is important at the state level to ensure support for the necessary platform technologies
that underpin the bioeconomy ecosystem (e.g., biofoundry, distributed research and development
networks, digital platforms, data control, and digital/genetic data storage). Such support can only be
185
Viktoriia Vostriakova et al. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 178–194
provided at the state level because the investment risks for the private sector are too high, which hinders
the development of innovations and their competitiveness in the market. Subsidizing research and
development alone is not sufficient in such a situation; innovative forms of public-private partnership
need to be developed. This form of cooperation will allow both public and private entities to have
equitable access to equipment and services while ensuring data security and intellectual property
protection. Table 2 presents the contribution of information technologies to the development of green
biotechnology, security, and data storage.
Table 2
Overview of IT contribution to the development of green biotechnology, security and data storage.
Field Problem Possible solution
Convergence The main problem that prevents Combining industrial biotechnology approaches
of in- the mass production of bioequiva- with green chemistry and information technol-
dustrial lent chemical substances is their low ogy/computing can solve these problematic issues.
biotech- competitiveness compared to tradi- There are many opportunities for digitization to en-
nology tional raw materials. Three critical hance the manufacturing benefits of combining indus-
and green indicators of bioprocesses are often trial biotechnology and environmental chemistry. For
chemistry worse than in petrochemicals: titer, example, [16] proposed automated molecular design
yield and productivity. These rates (CAMD) for bio-based product molecules.
are often too low to scale because
most natural microbial processes are
incompatible with an industrial pro-
cess [42].
Data anal- Overcoming the problems of the DNA as a storage medium may offer a way to avert
ysis and testing and convergence phase leads the storage crisis. It seems that this is not real, but it
storage to new challenges and obstacles in is already possible to translate digital information into
the analysis and storage of data due genetic information [43]. DNA storage is too expensive
to their excessive amount. In the as a storage medium because the technology is still in
next two decades, a data storage cri- its infancy.
sis is brewing, as silicon-based stor-
age methods cannot keep up with
demand.
Blockchain The globalization of markets will re- Blockchain, which uses highly secure distributed
to share quire new architectures, algorithms database technology, has many advantages for dif-
benefits and software to improve quality, ef- ferent types of scientific projects and companies.
and pro- ficiency and cost-effectiveness, as Blockchain is well suited for managing areas such
tect con- well as data analysis, visualization as supply chain, privacy, transaction processing, con-
fidential and sharing of big data. Cyber se- tracts and licensing, as well as confidential medical
informa- curity is also problematic in the bio- records and enforcement of intellectual property rights
tion logical industry, which produces bio- [11].
chemical substances and materials.
Digital se- Biomanufacturing relies heavily on Many different types of organizations are involved in
curity data, intellectual property and re- biosafety. They range from raw material suppliers and
search that needs to be protected so customers to information technology (IT) profession-
that companies can reap financial als from law firms and offices. Cyber security is only
benefits from their investments. as strong as its weakest link in the overall defence
system [13]. Unfortunately, the pace of defence de-
velopment has lagged behind their willingness to use
digital technologies to drive innovation, and there are
many ways to launch a cyberattack against a biotech
company today.
Cloud com- The need to optimize complex Cloud solutions can make data available for different
puting biotechnological processes in order levels of testing while meeting security and regulatory
to reduce business costs. requirements. In addition, the cloud provides compre-
hensive analysis of data from the Internet of Things
and devices in real time [13].
186
Viktoriia Vostriakova et al. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 178–194
The widespread adoption of digital technologies necessitates the development of standardization
and interoperability policies, drawing parallels to the experiences of the microprocessor industry. A
similar approach is also observed in the field of engineering biology, although the contemporary context
emphasizes certain differences. Specifically, the issues of open access, information protection, and
intellectual property rights must be carefully addressed to meet the requirements of academia and
adequately incentivize private investment.
The matter of standardization, ensuring compatibility among products and processes, also holds
significant importance for legal settlements. Regulatory frameworks may mandate licenses to be either
royalty-free or royalty-free under terms that are considered “fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory”,
a system widely employed in the ICT sector [44]. Furthermore, it is crucial to establish regulations
governing user access to proprietary and standardized databases or inventions. Table 3 presents the
overview of IT contributions to the development of bioeconomy frontiers.
Table 3
Overview of IT contributions to the development of bioeconomy frontiers.
Field Problem Possible solution
Frontiers Information technology supports Bifoundries can integrate tools, technologies, and gen-
of biopro- future promising bioproduction eral process analysis into a platform to enable more
duction strategies: biofoundries, bio-based efficient biological engineering. By shortening the cy-
three-dimensional (3D) printing cle time and increasing capacity, biofoundries can help
and cell-free synthetic biology. achieve sustainable development goals [18].
3D bioprinting uses the layer-by-layer precise place-
ment of biological materials, biochemical substances,
and living cells [19] with special equipment to produce
3D structures.
Currently, the most relevant application of cell-free
synthetic biology concerns metabolic engineering for
producing fuels, chemicals, and materials [19].
Skills and The crux of the problem is the need Educational training of specialists should combine bi-
educa- for much more interdisciplinary ed- ology and engineering fields. It is necessary to review
tion for ucation. the role of mechatronics in forming educational pro-
the bioe- grams for training future specialists in bioengineering.
conomy Competencies that combine a mechatronic engineer
workforce relate to mechanics, electronics and information tech-
nology, which can be used to create simpler, more
economical and more reliable systems [45].
Digitization Managing complex systems re- The ecosystem of local bioprocessing industries and
of bio- quires IT tools such as applications, value chains can include hundreds of thousands of
logical websites, consumer platforms bioresource owners, entrepreneurs and companies spe-
resources and databases. In addition, it is cializing in service, procurement, transport and logis-
often necessary to use them in tics, as well as the production of bioproducts or energy.
an integrated manner to manage Digitization can offer solutions for bioresource indus-
demand and extend their influence tries that will add value to the bioeconomy [10].
throughout the value chain.
Satellite Satellite technologies can be a crit- Satellite technologies enable the national bioresource
technolo- ical tool for the bioeconomy, moni- monitoring system to collect and provide economically
gies toring biodiversity and combating efficient and controlled, high-quality information on
illegal extraction of biological re- the three pillars of the bioeconomy (social, economic
sources. and environmental) [12].
According to table 3, the main problematic issues that information technologies can solve for the
further development of the bioeconomy are the introduction of new production technologies with the
help of 3D printing, biolaboratories, and cell-free synthetic biology. Additionally, satellite technologies
and the digitalization of existing bioresources for further use and tracking can ensure clear monitoring
of bioresources [46]. However, it is important to note that the issue of highly qualified interdisciplinary
187
Viktoriia Vostriakova et al. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 178–194
specialists is the most crucial aspect to address. While there are many specialists with various profiles,
there is a shortage of individuals with a combination of knowledge from different areas. To address
this, it is necessary to prioritize interdisciplinarity in educational programs at the political level. These
programs should focus on bringing engineering biology into contact with other disciplines, such as
materials science, automation, chemistry, informatics, and engineering. Both chemistry and biology
can benefit from higher levels of digitization, and there should be a particular emphasis on fostering
synergy between engineering biology and environmental chemistry.
Questions related to the digitalization of the economy have emerged within the framework of the
fourth industrial revolution. This concept encompasses processes involving the implementation of
cybernetic systems, utilization of the Internet of Things (IoT) [47] and related services [48, 49], as well
as direct online communication between individuals and machines. The bioeconomy amalgamates two
pivotal forces of the modern industrial revolution: shifts in socio-economic structures, environmental
considerations, decarbonization, enhanced resource utilization efficiency, and a focus on decentralization,
particularly on small and medium-sized enterprises. Consequently, this shift necessitates greater
technological and innovative solutions, accompanied by a simultaneous escalation in automation and
digitization. Innovative bioeconomic transformation is underpinned by the increasing integration
of dynamic supply chains and the interplay between diverse industries and sectors. Given that the
bioeconomic transformation context encourages thinking in terms of an ecosystem, often encompassing
a multitude of business partners in the supply chain, the key prerequisite for its proper functioning
becomes transparency and comprehensive information provision within this ecosystem. These essential
ecosystem services can be facilitated through digital hubs.
Simultaneously, pioneering business concepts like the green economy, service economy, sharing
economy, and industrial symbiosis are emerging in the market. These innovative notions form the
foundation of both social and technological solutions for advancing a circular bioeconomy. The majority
of transformative efforts in this realm center around the utilization of specific IT tools, including
websites, applications, and consumer platforms.
In such a system, all stakeholders within the supply chain use certain IT tools that actively engage in
overseeing processes along the complete value chain.
After considering the active incorporation of digital tools into economic processes and conducting a
theoretical analysis of literature sources, we have identified specific domains where the integration of
information technologies will generate added value within the bioeconomy. These domains include
the inception of novel products, quality ecosystem services, the cultivation of untapped markets, the
reduction of emissions and climate impact, and the promotion of judicious resource consumption
and efficient utilization. In Figure 7, a conceptual representation elucidates the role of information
technologies in nurturing the growth of bioinnovative ecosystems. Information technology solutions
are categorized into four overarching groups, the implementation of which will play a pivotal role in
facilitating the transition towards an innovative bioeconomy:
1. Digital networks to connect supply chains between sectors, blockchain.
The establishment of digital networks, often referred to as hubs, has opened up new avenues to make
bioproducts accessible in emerging markets and industries. This is achieved through both vertical and
horizontal integration facilitated by these digital networks. In the realm of consumer markets, the
adoption of intelligent order fulfillment systems not only aligns with consumer needs but also expands
product options and enables recommendations for sustainable consumption. Furthermore, digital
networks enable the aggregation of products based on data-driven insights into the end-of-life cycle,
thus promoting recycling and reusability of components. The utilization of Smart Design technology
enhances this process. By incorporating digital tracking and process automation, resource utilization is
optimized, leading to improved product composition assessment, enhanced product quality, and more
effective waste sorting systems.
From a managerial and administrative perspective, digitalization offers real-time monitoring of
transformation and development processes tailored to the specific requirements of target groups.
188
Viktoriia Vostriakova et al. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 178–194
Figure 7: Conceptual model of the bioeconomic digital transformation based on sustainable development.
Information technologies enable operational control over processes such as lighting and water supply in
greenhouses. They also facilitate the automatic procurement of raw materials and associated supplies,
ensuring timely adjustments to production conditions. Smart Design technologies and digital tracking
systems for product components extend product lifecycles and facilitate reprocessing, allowing them to
serve as components in cascade production. Additionally, these technologies enhance the efficiency of
biomaterial processing.
2. Digital technologies in bioresource management, bioengineering data storage and protec-
tion, satellite technologies.
Digital technologies in the management of bioresources make it possible to provide bioeconomy
monitoring systems at the national, regional, and local levels by facilitating automated data flows. These
flows help assess trends and the developmental potential of various innovative production processes.
They can also be utilized to calculate reductions in 𝐶𝑂2 emissions. With the widespread adoption of
information technologies, the creation of databases and rapid data processing and transfer become
feasible, providing real-time information for effective management and production processes.
3. New digital biomaterials database platforms: advanced, just-in-time, decentralized produc-
tion.
The integration of digital exchange activities and biomaterials platforms facilitates the enhanced
accessibility of these resources for manufacturers, subsequently bolstering their utilization rates. The
implementation of product component tracking systems grants stakeholders the ability to access
intricate datasets (pertaining to aspects like purity and composition) concerning raw materials and
other components, thereby facilitating more effective management of product quality. Conversely, the
enhancement of production processes, brought about by the adoption of just-in-time supply systems
utilizing IoT or machine-to-machine (M2M) communication tools, results in the streamlining of supply
processes through navigation systems. Additionally, technologies like 3D printing are exerting a
189
Viktoriia Vostriakova et al. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 178–194
considerable influence on the advancement of decentralized manufacturing. For instance, the on-
demand printing of wood-plastic composites exemplifies this trend, potentially paving the way for the
establishment of compact, modular production facilities. These facilities could potentially employ small
intelligent manufacturing systems (SIIMS) to further optimize their operations.
4. Augmented reality as a tool for staff training and smart manufacturing.
The use of augmented reality technologies makes it possible to develop and employ innovative
methods in education [50], enabling virtual training for the operation of machinery and complex
technological equipment within a simulated production environment. Concurrently, the implementation
of smart manufacturing technologies facilitates the automated management of (bio)chemical and
biotechnological processes. This, in turn, facilitates communication between production enterprises
and the seamless transfer of data pertaining to the quality of final biomaterials throughout the value
chain.
The combination of digital and biological transformation has the potential to significantly alter the
design and management of production processes and their products. The 2018 Global Bioeconomy
Summit workshop in Berlin was titled “The Great Convergence: Digitalization, Biologization, and the
Future of Manufacturing”. This workshop explored how “bio-intellectual value addition” could serve
as a pivotal point or catalyst for bio-innovative shifts in the future of the bioeconomy. To foster an
innovative bioeconomy, it is crucial to establish bio-innovative ecosystems grounded in knowledge and
facilitate collaboration among diverse stakeholders. These ecosystems should serve as a starting point
for developing an innovative bioeconomy. Creating a working group of various stakeholders, including
academia, industry, and government, is essential in developing these bio-innovative ecosystems. By
involving both public and private actors, this working group can collaboratively advance the ideas of
an innovative bioeconomy, develop national action plans, and establish roadmaps for its progress
6. Conclusions
Over the last decade, Ukraine has experienced a decrease of over 4.6% in the share of industrial
production in its GDP. These significant structural changes can be attributed to a combination of
external and internal factors, including various economic and political processes. One crucial factor is
Russia’s annexation of industrial regions of Ukraine in 2014, which prompted the country to shift its
economic focus towards stimulating the agricultural sector. This shift was accompanied by the creation
of favorable conditions such as state subsidies and export promotion. However, the emphasis was not
placed on the development of high- and medium-high-tech industrial production, resulting in increased
foreign exchange earnings primarily through the export of raw materials rather than finished products.
During this period, Ukraine also enjoyed favorable conditions in foreign markets for exporting
agricultural raw materials. However, the state’s regulation of such exports in line with national
economic interests was deemed ineffective.
With the recent full-scale invasion of Russia on Ukrainian territory, the situation is expected to dete-
riorate significantly for the Ukrainian economy. This invasion will likely lead to the deindustrialization
of several industrial regions in Ukraine, which could have long-lasting effects spanning decades.
As a result, the level of technological and innovative products in the Ukrainian industry has signifi-
cantly decreased. This situation, combined with social and political instability and the strengthening of
globalization processes, poses potential risks to the country’s economic security. The fact that most of
the innovative products from domestic industrial production are not sold in the domestic market of
Ukraine indicates the presence of systemic problems related to several macroeconomic factors (primarily
the situation in specific markets) and a weak system of incentives and regulation for innovative activity,
as well as the protection of national economic interests. Consequently, this leads to an imbalance in
intersectoral relations within the economy.
The significant bioresource potential of Ukraine’s economy, without the support of an innovative
model of bioeconomic transformation, risks being reduced to a source of cheap raw materials without
190
Viktoriia Vostriakova et al. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 178–194
creating added value. Currently, the direction of green transformation is strategically important
for Ukraine and holds high potential for developing and implementing innovations. However, this
field’s production, operational, and economic processes require reorganization and modernization
using innovative approaches. The need for the development and implementation of innovations
for bioeconomic transformation is thus very high. The resolution of this issue should be based on
the development and implementation of scientifically grounded solutions, new biotechnologies, and
innovations.
This process should not occur in isolation but involve all stakeholders. The creation of innovative
bioeconomic ecosystems can serve as a platform for collaboration. National and international initiatives
aimed at creating innovative bioeconomic ecosystems will provide opportunities for job creation,
increased competitiveness of bioeconomic products, improved quality of ecosystem services, support
for consumer-oriented production, and the reduction of resource loss and negative impacts on the
climate.
In order to achieve the most effective results from the bioeconomic transformation of socio-economic
systems, policymakers and managers should consider combining traditional approaches to innovation
with experimental ones. This involves introducing and testing innovations in the real sector of the
economy. The realization of this conceptual vision is made possible by the modern capabilities of
information technologies. This article provides an overview of modern information technologies that
can be implemented in the process of innovative bioeconomic transformation.
The rationalization of production processes through automation, robotics, and the use of artificial
intelligence results in a significant decrease in employment in traditional industries. However, the bioe-
conomic transformation necessitates the development of new, highly specialized, and multi-disciplinary
personnel to support the emergence of new sectors in the knowledge-based bioeconomy. These sectors
involve utilizing new software in the digital economy, such as sharing economy platforms, blockchain,
and satellite technologies for bioengineering and deep bioprocessing.
Managing complex adaptive systems, including the bioeconomy, is challenging. This is primarily
because it requires coordination, extensive interaction within innovation networks, and constant
adaptation to uncertain, nonlinear, and complex conditions. However, the processes occurring in such
systems can lead to positive feedback effects, which form the basis for phase transitions and provide
new positive attributes to socioeconomic systems. Consequently, creating innovative bioeconomic
ecosystems aims to support the sustainable bioeconomic transformation of socio-economic systems.
Therefore, an important area for future research is the development of information systems for managing
the processes of bioeconomic transformation within innovative bioeconomic ecosystems.
References
[1] A. Pyka, Dedicated innovation systems to support the transformation towards sustainability:
creating income opportunities and employment in the knowledge-based digital bioeconomy,
Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 3 (2017) 27. doi:10.1186/
s40852-017-0079-7.
[2] J. Bell, L. Paula, T. Dodd, S. Németh, C. Nanou, V. Mega, P. Campos, EU ambition to build the
world’s leading bioeconomy—Uncertain times demand innovative and sustainable solutions, New
Biotechnology 40 (2018) 25–30. doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2017.06.010, bioeconomy.
[3] M. S. Andersen, L. D. Christensen, J. Donner-Amnell, P. O. Eikeland, B. Hedeler, R. Hildingsson,
B. Johansson, J. Khan, A. Kronsell, T. H. Inderberg, et al., To facilitate a fair bioeconomy transition,
stronger regional-level linkages are needed, Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 16 (2022)
929–941. doi:10.1002/bbb.2363.
[4] I. Hryhoruk, V. Yakubiv, Y. Sydoryk, Y. Maksymiv, N. Popadynets, Modelling of prognosis for
bioenergy production in Ukraine, International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy 11 (2021)
27–34. doi:10.32479/ijeep.11741.
[5] I. Virgin, M. Fielding, M. F. Sundell, Benefits and challenges of a new knowledge-based bioeconomy,
191
Viktoriia Vostriakova et al. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 178–194
in: I. Virgin, E. J. Morris (Eds.), Creating Sustainable Bioeconomies: The bioscience revolution in
Europe and Africa, Routledge, London, 2016, pp. 31–45. URL: https://tinyurl.com/3n42hm3f.
[6] Ministerium für Ernährung, ländlichen Raum und Verbraucherschutz, Ministerium für Umwelt,
Klima, Energiewirtschaft, Landesstrategie Nachhaltige BioÖkonomie Baden-WÜrttemberg, 2019.
URL: https://um.baden-wuerttemberg.de/fileadmin/redaktion/m-um/intern/Dateien/Dokumente/
6_Wirtschaft/Biooekonomie/Landesstrategie-Nachhaltige-Biooekonomie-barrierefrei.pdf.
[7] J. Dupont-Inglis, A. Borg, Destination bioeconomy – the path towards a smarter, more sustainable
future, New Biotechnology 40 (2018) 140–143. doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2017.05.010, bioeconomy.
[8] C. Edquist, Systems of innovation perspectives and challenges, African Journal of Science,
Technology, Innovation and Development 2 (2010) 14–45. URL: https://journals.co.za/doi/abs/10.
10520/EJC10560.
[9] S. J. Herstad, T. Sandven, E. Solberg, Location, education and enterprise growth, Applied Economics
Letters 20 (2013) 1019–1022. doi:10.1080/13504851.2013.772287.
[10] A. Klitkou, J. Bozell, C. Panoutsou, M. Kuhndt, J. Kuusisaari, J. P. Beckmann, Bioeconomy and
digitalisation, Mistra Background paper, 2017. URL: https://nifu.brage.unit.no/nifu-xmlui/handle/
11250/2612970.
[11] V. Vostriakova, M. L. Swarupa, O. Rubanenko, S. L. Gundebommu, Blockchain and Climate Smart
Agriculture Technologies in Agri-Food Security System, in: A. Kumar, I. Fister Jr., P. K. Gupta,
J. Debayle, Z. J. Zhang, M. Usman (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence and Data Science, Springer Nature
Switzerland, Cham, 2022, pp. 490–504. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-21385-4_40.
[12] D. K. Karig, Cell-free synthetic biology for environmental sensing and remediation, Current
Opinion in Biotechnology 45 (2017) 69–75. doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2017.01.010.
[13] Digitalization in life sciences: Integrating the patient pathway into the technology ecosystem,
Technical Report 135128-G, KPMG International, 2018. URL: https://assets.kpmg.com/content/
dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2018/01/digitalization-in-life-sciences.pdf.
[14] A. Burgard, M. J. Burk, R. Osterhout, S. Van Dien, H. Yim, Development of a commercial scale
process for production of 1,4-butanediol from sugar, Current Opinion in Biotechnology 42 (2016)
118–125. doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2016.04.016.
[15] M. Baker, 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility, Nature 533 (2016) 452–454. doi:10.1038/
533452a.
[16] V. Gerbaud, M. Teles Dos Santos, N. Pandya, J. Aubry, Computer aided framework for designing bio-
based commodity molecules with enhanced properties, Chemical Engineering Science 159 (2017)
177–193. doi:10.1016/j.ces.2016.04.044, iCAMD – Integrating Computer-Aided Molecular
Design into Product and Process Design.
[17] D. Densmore, Bio-design automation: Nobody said it would be easy, 2012. doi:10.1021/
sb300062c.
[18] Robotic labs for high-speed genetic research are on the rise: The design of synthetic lifeforms
could become a new industry, 2018. URL: https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/
2018/03/01/robotic-labs-for-high-speed-genetic-research-are-on-the-rise.
[19] S. V. Murphy, A. Atala, 3d bioprinting of tissues and organs, Nature biotechnology 32 (2014)
773–785. doi:10.1038/nbt.2958.
[20] S. O. Ishchuk, L. Y. Sozanskyy, Comparative Statistical Assessment of Innovation Activity of the
Industrial Sector of the Economy of Ukraine (Regional Context), Statistics of Ukraine 96 (2022)
74–58. doi:10.31767/su.1(96)2022.01.05.
[21] M. Kuznetsova (Ed.), Scientific and Innovation Activity in Ukraine. 2020, State Statistics Service of
Ukraine, 2021. URL: https://ukrstat.gov.ua/druk/publicat/kat_u/2021/zb/10/zb_Nauka_2020.pdf.
[22] Yearbook of Industry 2020 – Poland, 2021, 2021. URL: https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/
roczniki-statystyczne/roczniki-statystyczne/rocznik-statystyczny-przemyslu-2020,5,14.html.
[23] N. Burennikova, V. Kavetskiy, O. Lesko, R. Akselrod, O. Adler, M. Gregus, Modeling of the
Investment Risks in Human Capital as the Factor of Enterprise Safety in the Context of the
Stakeholder Theory, in: S. W. Pickl, V. Lytvynenko, M. Zharikova, V. Sherstjuk (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 1st International Workshop on Computational & Information Technologies for Risk-Informed
192
Viktoriia Vostriakova et al. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 178–194
Systems (CITRisk 2020) co-located with XX International scientific and technical conference on
Information Technologies in Education and Management (ITEM 2020), Kherson, Ukraine, October
15-16, 2020, volume 2805 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org, 2020, pp. 213–221. URL:
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2805/short16.pdf.
[24] I. Nikitina (Ed.), Table Input-Output of Ukraine at Basic Prices. 2019, State Statistics Service of
Ukraine, 2019. URL: hhttp://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/druk/publicat/kat_u/2021/zb/05/zb_tvv_2019.pdf.
[25] Research and innovations, 2022, 2022. URL: https://ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/menu/menu_u/ni.htm.
[26] K. Kokkonen, V. Ojanen, From opportunities to action - an integrated model of small actors’
engagement in bioenergy business, Journal of Cleaner Production 182 (2018) 496–508. doi:10.
1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.013.
[27] C. A. de Assis, R. Gonzalez, S. Kelley, H. Jameel, T. Bilek, J. Daystar, R. Handfield, J. Golden,
J. Prestemon, D. Singh, Risk management consideration in the bioeconomy, Biofuels, Bioproducts
and Biorefining 11 (2017) 549–566. doi:10.1002/bbb.1765.
[28] D. Lazarevic, P. Kautto, R. Antikainen, Finland’s wood-frame multi-storey construction innova-
tion system: Analysing motors of creative destruction, Forest Policy and Economics 110 (2020)
101861. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2019.01.006, Forest-based circular bioeconomy: matching
sustainability challenges and new business opportunities.
[29] L. Scordato, A. Klitkou, V. E. Tartiu, L. Coenen, Policy mixes for the sustainability transition
of the pulp and paper industry in sweden, Journal of Cleaner Production 183 (2018) 1216–1227.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.212.
[30] D. Viaggi, Research and innovation in agriculture: beyond productivity?, Bio-based and Applied
Economics 4 (2015) 279–300. doi:10.13128/BAE-17555.
[31] S. Elbe, C. Long, The political economy of molecules: vital epistemics, desiring machines and
assemblage thinking, Review of International Political Economy 27 (2020) 125–145. doi:10.1080/
09692290.2019.1625560.
[32] A.-A. E. Pigford, G. M. Hickey, L. Klerkx, Beyond agricultural innovation systems? Exploring an
agricultural innovation ecosystems approach for niche design and development in sustainability
transitions, Agricultural Systems 164 (2018) 116–121. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2018.04.007.
[33] B. Salter, Y. Zhou, S. Datta, C. Salter, Bioinformatics and the Politics of Innovation in the Life
Sciences: Science and the State in the United Kingdom, China, and India, Science, Technology, &
Human Values 41 (2016) 793–826. doi:10.1177/0162243916631022.
[34] P. Huber, T. Hujala, M. Kurttila, B. Wolfslehner, H. Vacik, Application of multi criteria analysis
methods for a participatory assessment of non-wood forest products in two European case studies,
Forest Policy and Economics 103 (2019) 103–111. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2017.07.003.
[35] P. T. Roundy, M. Bradshaw, B. K. Brockman, The emergence of entrepreneurial ecosystems: A
complex adaptive systems approach, Journal of Business Research 86 (2018) 1–10. doi:10.1016/
j.jbusres.2018.01.032.
[36] A. Ylimartimo, Case study on bioeconomy campus, central Finland, Biofuels, Bioproducts and
Biorefining 12 (2018) 177–186. doi:10.1002/bbb.1739.
[37] M. Kircher, R. Breves, A. Taden, D. Herzberg, How to capture the bioeconomy’s industrial and
regional potential through professional cluster management, New Biotechnology 40 (2018) 119–128.
doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2017.05.007, bioeconomy.
[38] M. Pagliaro, Preparing for the future: Solar energy and bioeconomy in the United Arab Emirates,
Energy Science & Engineering 7 (2019) 1451–1457. doi:10.1002/ese3.440.
[39] S. S. Fong, Computational approaches to metabolic engineering utilizing systems biology and
synthetic biology, Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal 11 (2014) 28–34. doi:10.
1016/j.csbj.2014.08.005.
[40] B. L. Wang, A. Ghaderi, H. Zhou, J. Agresti, D. A. Weitz, G. R. Fink, G. Stephanopoulos, Microfluidic
high-throughput culturing of single cells for selection based on extracellular metabolite production
or consumption, Nature biotechnology 32 (2014) 473–478. doi:10.1038/nbt.2857.
[41] M. I. Sadowski, C. Grant, T. S. Fell, Harnessing QbD, programming languages, and automation
for reproducible biology, Trends in biotechnology 34 (2016) 214–227. doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.
193
Viktoriia Vostriakova et al. CEUR Workshop Proceedings 178–194
2015.11.006.
[42] B.-J. Harder, K. Bettenbrock, S. Klamt, Model-based metabolic engineering enables high yield
itaconic acid production by Escherichia coli, Metabolic Engineering 38 (2016) 29–37. doi:10.1016/
j.ymben.2016.05.008.
[43] T. Ogunnaike, Can DNA hard drives solve our looming data storage crisis, 2016. URL: https:
//singularityhub.com/2016/10/21/can-dna-hard-drives-solve-our-looming-data-storage-crisis.
[44] J. Contreras, A. Rai, A. Torrance, Intellectual property issues and synthetic biology standards, Nat
Biotechnol 33 (2015) 24–25. doi:10.1038/nbt.3107.
[45] C. J. Delebecque, J. Philp, Education and training for industrial biotechnology and engineering
biology, Engineering Biology 3 (2018) 6–11. doi:10.1049/enb.2018.0001.
[46] I. V. Kholoshyn, O. V. Bondarenko, O. V. Hanchuk, I. M. Varfolomyeyeva, Cloud technologies as a
tool of creating Earth Remote Sensing educational resources, CTE Workshop Proceedings 7 (2020)
474–486. doi:10.55056/cte.388.
[47] N. M. Lobanchykova, I. A. Pilkevych, O. Korchenko, Analysis and protection of IoT systems:
Edge computing and decentralized decision-making, Journal of Edge Computing 1 (2022) 55–67.
doi:10.55056/jec.573.
[48] Y. B. Shapovalov, Z. I. Bilyk, S. A. Usenko, V. B. Shapovalov, K. H. Postova, S. O. Zhadan, P. D.
Antonenko, Harnessing personal smart tools for enhanced STEM education: exploring IoT
integration, Educational Technology Quarterly 2023 (2023) 210–232. doi:10.55056/etq.604.
[49] O. V. Klochko, V. M. Fedorets, M. V. Mazur, Y. P. Liulko, An IoT system based on open APIs
and geolocation for human health data analysis, CTE Workshop Proceedings 10 (2023) 399–413.
doi:10.55056/cte.567.
[50] P. P. Nechypurenko, S. O. Semerikov, O. Y. Pokhliestova, An augmented reality-based virtual chem-
istry laboratory to support educational and research activities of 11th grade students, Educational
Dimension 8 (2023) 240–264. doi:10.31812/educdim.4446.
194