Article

Received 09.10.2025

Revised 03.03.2026

Accepted 31.03.2026

Published 13.04.2026

Retrieved from Vol. 30, No. 1, 2026

Pages 119 -132

Melnyk, L., Nikolenko, H., & Storozhuk, V. (2026). The strategy for enhancing the competitiveness of local communities in the Black Sea economic region based on innovation. Ukrainian Black Sea Region Agrarian Science, 30(1), 119-132. https://doi.org/10.56407/bs.agrarian/1.2026.119

The strategy for enhancing the competitiveness of local communities in the Black Sea economic region based on innovation

Lіudmyla Melnyk Hennadiy Nikolenko Vitalii Storozhuk

The current economic development, characterised by accelerated globalisation, digitalisation, and transformation of social relations, poses new challenges for local communities, while opening up opportunities for their innovative development, which makes it critically important to develop adapted strategies to increase competitiveness in the context of decentralisation reform and structural transformations in Ukraine. The purpose of the article was to develop an innovative strategy to enhance the competitiveness of territorial communities in the Black Sea economic region. The limitations of the traditional “triple helix” model (“university-governmentbusiness”) for the Ukrainian context were analysed, and the necessity of implementing the “quadruple helix” approach, which includes civil society as a key element, are substantiated. An integrated innovation model consisting of five core components – innovation strategy, innovation ecosystem, innovation infrastructure, innovation culture, and innovation management system – was proposed. A comprehensive algorithm for implementing the innovation strategy, covering twelve sequential stages from comprehensive diagnostics to the institutionalisation of innovation activities, was presented. Special attention has been given to the development of territorial competence centres, mechanisms of adaptive strategic planning, and inter-territorial innovation alliances based on public-private partnerships. Specific proposals for implementing the innovation strategy in the short term (1-2 years) and long term (5-10 years), taking into account the unique characteristics of the region’s local communities, are outlined. The research results confirmed that successful implementation requires systematic coordination among stakeholders, leadership from local self-government bodies, and flexible responses to changes in the external environment. The proposed approach is shown to provide comprehensive solutions to challenges in the field of innovation-driven development through the integration of strategic planning, institutional development, and the practical execution of implemented measures

competitiveness; innovation strategy; innovation ecosystem; “quadruple helix” model of innovative development; strategic planning
  1. Alhowaily, A. (2016). Berlin-Adlershof science and technology park and valley of technology. In Proceedings sustainable mega projects (chance-change-challenge) conference (pp. 3-5). Belfast: Queen’s University Belfast.
  2. Carayannis, E., & Evangelos, G. (2016). Quadruple innovation helix and smart specialization: Knowledge production and national competitiveness. Foresight and STI Governance, 10, 31-42. doi: 10.17323/1995459x.2016.1.31.42.
  3. Chornyi, R., Venger, V., Kushnirenko, O., & Chorna, N. (2025). Innovation and industrial development of Ukrainian regions: Prospects and limitations. Economy of Ukraine, 68(2), 3-27. doi: 10.15407/economyukr.2025.02.003.
  4. Constitution of Ukraine. (1996, June). Retrieved from http://zakon5.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/254%D0%BA/96-%D0%B2%D1%80.
  5. Cybulska, M., Mantey, D., & Dziemianowicz, W. (2024). The quadruple helix versus barriers to local development: The example of “dual municipalities”. Quaestiones Geographicae, 43(4), 169-178. doi: 10.14746/ quageo-2024-0035.
  6. Fidanoski, F., Simeonovski, K., Kaftandzieva, T., Ranga, M., Dana, L.-P., Davidovic, M., Ziolo, M., & Sergi, B.S. (2022). The triple helix in developed countries: When knowledge meets innovation? Heliyon, 8(8), article number e10168. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10168.
  7. Fritsch, M., & Wyrwich, M. (2021). Does successful innovation require large urban areas? Germany as a counterexample. Economic Geography, 97(3), 284-308. doi: 10.1080/00130095.2021.1920391.
  8. Garcia-Teran, J., & Skoglund, A. (2019). A processual approach for the quadruple helix model: The case of a regional project in Uppsala. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 10, 1272-1296. doi: 10.1007/s13132-018-0521-5.
  9. Gavkalova, N., Avedyan, L., Akimov, O., Akimova, L., & Belyavtseva, V. (2023). The effectiveness of the development of territories in the state regional system politicians. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice, 4(51), 333-344. doi: 10.55643/fcaptp.4.51.2023.4116.
  10. González-Martinez, P., García-Pérez-De-Lema, D., Castillo-Vergara, M., & Bent Hansen, P. (2023). Determinants and performance of the quadruple helix model and the mediating role of civil society. Technology in Society, 75, article number 102358. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102358
  11. Hasche, N., Höglund, L., & Linton, G. (2019). Quadruple helix as a network of relationships: Creating value within a Swedish regional innovation system. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 32(6), 523-544. doi: 10.1080/08276331.2019.1643134.
  12. Kravchenko, D., & Salun, M. (2025). Helix models as a methodological basis for organizational and economic support of innovative entrepreneurship. Economy and Society, 76, 1-4. doi: 10.32782/2524-0072/2025-76-48.
  13. Kushnerov, O., Pohasii, S., Melenti, Ye., Sevriukova, Ye., & Rykov, D. (2025). A multi-task neural network for simultaneous regression and classification of regional security and quality of life indices in Ukraine. Advanced Information Systems, 9(4), 89-99. doi: 10.20998/2522-9052.2025.4.12.
  14. Machado, H.P.V., Sartori, R., & Rosa, P.F.M. (2024). Beyond the triple helix model: Scientific production on the quadruple and quintuple helix. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 16, 5758-5791. doi: 10.1007/s13132-02402026-4.
  15. Marques, P., & Morgan, K. (2021). Innovation without regional development? The complex interplay of innovation, institutions, and development. Economic Geography, 97(5), 475-496. doi: 10.1080/00130095.2021.1972801.
  16. Miller, K., McAdam, R., Moffett, S., Alexander, A., & Puthusserry, P. (2016). Knowledge transfer in university quadruple helix ecosystems: An absorptive capacity perspective. R&D Management, 46(2), 383-399. doi: 10.1111/radm.12182.
  17. Morawska, J., Mrozowska, S., Młynkowiak-Stawarz, A., Beben, R., Kozłowski, A., & Carayannis, E. (2024). The missing helix thread in innovation ecosystems: A study of co-opetition, coevolution and cospecialization between university and civil society. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 14339-14349. doi: 10.1109/TEM.2024.3450516.
  18. Oleksiuk, H.V., Popadynets, N.M., & Samotii, N.S. (2021). Management of territorial communities based on territorial marketing: Theoretical and methodological aspects. Regional Economy, 3, 15-27.
  19. Presidential Decree of Ukraine No. 487/2021 “On the National Strategy for Promoting Civil Society Development in Ukraine for 2021-2026”. (2021, September). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/ show/487/2021#Text.
  20. Roman, M., & Fellnhofer, K. (2022). Facilitating the participation of civil society in regional planning: Implementing quadruple helix model in Finnish regions. Land Use Policy, 112, article number 105864. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105864.
  21. Samara, E., Kilintzis, P., Katsoras, E., Martnidis, G., & Kosti, P. (2024). A system dynamics approach for the development of a regional innovation system. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 13, article number 26. doi: 10.1186/s13731-024-00385-5.
  22. Stephens, R.J.S. (2025). Quadruple helix co-creation and cities: Behavioral and institutional changes in innovation capacities and cultures. Cities, 157, article number 105579. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2024.105579.
  23. Stiglitz, J.E., Lin, J.Y., & Monga, C. (2013). The rejuvenation of industrial policy. Washington: The World Bank.
  24. Taratori, R., Rodriguez-Fiscal, P., Pacho, M.A., Koutra, S., Pareja-Eastaway, M., & Thomas, D. (2021). Unveiling the evolution of innovation ecosystems: An analysis of triple, quadruple, and quintuple helix model innovation systems in European case studies. Sustainability, 13(4), article number 7582. doi: 10.3390/su13147582.
  25. Todeva, E., & Panayiotis, K. (2017). Regional entrepreneurship and innovation management: Actors, helices and consensus space. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 5(1), 57-76.
  26. Tomashuk, I., & Tomashuk, I. (2023). Strategic foundations of innovative development of territorial communities. Economy and Society, 57, 1-14. doi: 10.32782/2524-0072/2023-57-81
  27. Vasiuk, N., & Haievska, L. (2023). Mechanisms of the network of government, in the operations of public authorities: Essence of concepts. Public Administartion Aspects, 11(2), 17-23. doi: 10.15421/152314.
  28. Zarichniak, A., Tokareva, V., Poliova, N., Mykolaichuk, M., Grechanyk, B., & Podibka, V. (2025). Models of regions’ innovative development: International experience and prospects for Ukraine within the sustainability paradigm. Grassroots Journal of Natural Resources, 8(2), 591-613. doi: 10.33002/nr2581.6853.080228.