Case Study of Standard Multi-Storey Residential Building Owners and Tenants’ Perception of Building Technical Conditions and Renovation Issues

Abstract

The majority of residents in Latvia live in standard multi-storey residential buildings, which were constructed between 1950 and 1992. At present, these buildings are obsolete; besides, in the course of construction process the durability and reliability levels were planned to be insufficient. In Riga, residents of standard multi-storey residential buildings do not support building renovation and are passive, despite the availability of the EU and government support as well as co-financing of building renovation projects.
The majority of the respondents assume that the apartment is the most significant asset of the family. Moreover, 34 % – 69 % of the participants have renovated their apartment and save resources within their apartment boundaries. Only some respondents evaluate the technical condition of communal property, but most respondents do not have information concerning resource supply and energy accounting as well as are not interested in resource saving possibilities within the building in general, and do not understand the importance of technical maintenance of the building.

Full text

Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management
ISSN: 2255-9671 (online)
November 2017, 5, 6–22
doi: 10.1515/bjreecm-2017-0002
http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/bjreecm
6
©2017 Laimdota Šnīdere, Ineta Geipele, Iveta Stāmure. This is an open
access article licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), in the manner agreed with
De Gruyter Open.
CASE STUDY OF STANDARD MULTI-STOREY
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING OWNERS AND TENANTS’
PERCEPTION OF BUILDING TECHNICAL CONDITIONS
AND RENOVATION ISSUES
Laimdota ŠNĪDERE1, Ineta GEIPELE2, Iveta STĀMURE3
1–3 Riga Technical University, Latvia
Corresponding author e-mail: laimdota.snidere@rtu.lv
Abstract. The majority of residents in Latvia live in standard multi-storey
residential buildings, which were constructed between 1950 and 1992. At
present, these buildings are obsolete; besides, in the course of construction
process the durability and reliability levels were planned to be insufficient. In
Riga, residents of standard multi-storey residential buildings do not support
building renovation and are passive, despite the availability of the EU and
government support as well as co-financing of building renovation projects.
The majority of the respondents assume that the apartment is the most significant
asset of the family. Moreover, 34 % – 69 % of the participants have renovated
their apartment and save resources within their apartment boundaries. Only some
respondents evaluate the technical condition of communal property, but most
respondents do not have information concerning resource supply and energy
accounting as well as are not interested in resource saving possibilities within
the building in general, and do not understand the importance of technical
maintenance of the building.
Keywords: Building renovation, standard multi-storey residential building.
INTRODUCTION
On the global scale, the construction industry undergoes profound structural
changes: a change in perception of construction industry, new and stricter
requirements for environmental protection taking into account energy efficiency,
increased attention to the cultural and historical heritage, as well as adaptation to
the needs of modern society (Stāmure, Kamola, & Geipele, 2015).
Before starting building renovation projects, much opposition is encountered in
the matter of restoration work; thus, it is necessary to investigate standard
residential building owners and tenants’ comprehension of the technical condition
of buildings and their understanding of the building renovation issues.
Within the framework of the project “Evaluation of the Socio-Economic Values
of Impact of Climate Changes and the Flexibility of Adaptation to Climate Changes
in Residential Quarters in Riga and Latvia” (“Sustainable Development of Multi-
Apartment Buildings in Riga Micro-Districts”), a survey was conducted with the
aim to explore the apartment owners and tenants’ understanding of their own

Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management
_________________________________________________________________________ 2017 / 5
7
residence – apartment buildings and architecture, technical equipment, engineering,
operations and maintenance, environmental and health issues.
Permanent residents of Riga aged 18 to 74 years were the target group of the
survey. Riga is the largest city in Latvia in terms of the number of inhabitants; there
are all current standard series of residential buildings.
The survey used quota sampling to determine the number of respondents in this
project. The standard group of buildings or a district was selected by random
stratified sampling principles – a random principle or a principle of equal
opportunities. The survey was based on 3,007 interviews.
To carry out the survey, questionnaires were prepared in the Latvian and
Russian languages. Interviews were conducted by highly qualified and specially
trained interviewers.
Face-to-face interviews were carried out at respondents’ residence using the
questionnaire in Latvian or Russian.
There is always some statistical error probability in any research. The
differences that belong to the statistical error range can be considered minor (Engel,
Jann, Lynn, Scherpenzeel & Sturgis, 2015). The maximum possible statistical error
of the results of 3,007 respondents in a larger sample is +/− 1.8 %, which
corresponds to the study.
The survey area is standard building districts of Riga, which, in accordance
with the zoning stipulated in the project, were divided into 10 areas corresponding
to the project specification.
1. QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION OF STANDARD MULTI-STOREY
RESIDENTIAL HOUSING AS A SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION
OBJECT IN LATVIA
Proper administration and management of a multi-storey residential building
ensure improvement of the technical condition of the building as well as develop
apartment owners and tenants’ understanding of the process of saving consumable
resources in order to save money and maintain the building in proper technical
condition.
The quality of the renovated building (replaced utilities, repaired roof,
replacement of windows and entrance doors, insulated walls, etc.) can be improved
through works in accordance with sustainable construction standards.
Issues of the nature and role of sustainable construction, which would in turn
affect future exploitation of buildings and structures, were examined by scientists
such as R. T. Abdulai, F. Obeng-Odoom, E. Ochieng, V. Maliene, H. H. Ali, S. F.
A. Nsairat, R. J. Cole, C. K. Chau, M. S. Tse, K. Y. Chung, G. K. C. Ding, I.
Geipele, S. Geipele, T. Tambovceva, C. J. Kibert, H. Lavasani, A. Werner, R.
Sarsby, T. Meggyes, J. M. Diaz-Sarachaga, D. Jato-Espino, B. Alsulami, D. Castro-
Fresno, etc. (Abdulai, Obeng-Odoom, Ochieng, and Maliene (2016), Ali and
Nsairat (2009), Cole (2005), Chau, Tse, and Chung (2010), Ding (2008),
Tambovceva, Geipele, and Geipele (2012), Kibert (2012), Lavasani and Werner
(2012), Sarsby and Meggyes (2009), Diaz-Sarachaga, Jato-Espino, Alsulami, and
Castro-Fresno, (2016)).

Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management
_________________________________________________________________________ 2017 / 5
8
The economic crisis, which most severely hit the economy of Latvia, forced the
real estate and construction sectors to purify themselves, improve and think of
survival and future development opportunities. Therefore, like elsewhere in Europe,
many concepts became topical in the construction sector of Latvia, such as
sustainable construction, low-energy consumption buildings or low-energy
building, green buildings or green construction, passive houses, lean construction
or ascetic, economic construction and others (Stāmure, Kamola, & Geipele, 2015).
It has been concluded that sustainability is based on the balance of
environmental, economic and social issues, thus ensuring balanced development.
Sustainable construction is a complex approach to construction projects at the
planning, design, construction, installation and maintenance stages, which aim at
reducing the negative impact on the environment and improving people’s well-
being. It is a way to live in an environmentally friendly manner, without sacrificing
modern comfort and traditional quality standards. Thus, creating a high-quality,
environmentally friendly and healthy living space promotes ecological, economic
and social sustainability in the future with resulting benefits to any country,
including the Latvian environment, society and economy.
The amount of resources in the world reached a critical limit, and it is expected
that by 2050 Earth’s resources will be depleted. The world population is also
increasing disproportionately, and this leads to an increase in the consumption of
resources. Many authors indicate a possible lack of resources and their inefficient
use in the construction and operation process of buildings, for example, H. H. Ali,
S. F. A. Nsairat, R. J. Cole, C. K. Chau, M. S. Tse, K. Y. Chung, G. K. C. Ding,
T. Tambovceva, I. Geipele, S. Geipele, etc. (Ali and Nsairat (2009), Cole (2005),
Chau, Tse, and Chung (2010), Ding (2008), Tambovceva, Geipele, and Geipele
(2012)).
Residents of apartment buildings (standard multi-storey buildings) are among
the largest resource consumers. These buildings were built in the last century. They
are both physically and morally obsolete, as well as look pathetic – they need major
repairs and renovation.
Thus, within the framework of the present research multi-storey residential
buildings will be considered.
Regulations No. 1620 “On the Building Classification” as of 22 December 2009
stipulate the classification of buildings by type of use, which ensures a uniform and
orderly inventory of structures in Latvia. At the beginning of 2016, in accordance
with the register of structures a total of 1,396,964 structures were registered, of
which 1,368,258 or 98 % were buildings, while 28,276 or 2 % were engineering
structures.
Analysing the classification of structures that comprises 22 structures by the
type of use, it has been found out that in Latvia the highest share belongs to other
previously unclassified buildings that account for 59.469 % of the total number of
the registered structures. They are followed by single-family houses (306,295 or
21.976 % of the total number of the registered structures) and non-residential farm
buildings (84,300 or 6.048 %). The share of the remaining buildings does not
exceed even 3 %. In the research, special attention is devoted to multi-storey

Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management
_________________________________________________________________________ 2017 / 5
9
residential buildings. Compared with the previous years, the total number of
residential buildings continues to grow in Latvia (see Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. Dynamics of changes in the number of residential buildings in Latvia
[2005–2016], (State Land Service, 2016).
Analysing the available information on the dynamics of the changes in the
number of residential buildings in the period from 2005 to 2016 (Fig. 1), it can be
concluded that the increase takes place relatively smoothly. Taking into account the
nature of time series, the time series of the changes in the number of residential
buildings is aligned by means of a linear function and, as a result, the following
equation is obtained:
y = 6.2423x + 98650, with R² = 0.9271 (1)
In conclusion, the number of residential buildings is steadily increasing as
demonstrated by the obtained R value.
Analysing the data on residential buildings in Latvia, it can be stated that the
main type of buildings is single-family houses amounting to 306,805 or 85.04 % of
the registered residential buildings. The next largest group is three- or more-family
houses – 39,517 or 10.95 %. In Latvia, two-family buildings are relatively less
common constituting 13,751 or 3.81 % of the total number of residential buildings,
while houses shared for living by various social groups account for only 663 or
0.18 %.
The present research is devoted to the study of three- or more-family residential
houses, since they can be classified as standard multi-storey apartment buildings.
In Latvia, there are 39,517 standard multi-storey apartment buildings constituting
10.96 % of the total housing stock. This type of buildings can be classified as
typical multi-family residential buildings.
Therefore, it is important to find out the opinions of tenants of this particular
type of residential buildings on the dwelling they live in, its technical condition,
renovation needs as well as clarify their understanding of energy efficiency.
y= 6.2423x+ 98650
R² = 0.9271
315000
320000
325000
330000
335000
340000
345000
350000
355000
360000
365000
370000

Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management
_________________________________________________________________________ 2017 / 5
10
2. ANALYTICAL ASSESSMENT OF RESPONDENTS OF TYPICAL
STANDARD MULTI-STOREY BUILDINGS
As already mentioned, before starting building restoration projects, much
opposition is encountered in the matter of restoration work because people do not
understand the significance of the restoration projects. In order to reveal the
individuals’ views on the technical condition of buildings and their understanding
of the building renovation issues, face-to-face interviews were carried out.
Within the research, it was planned to conduct 7,000 face-to-face interviews. In
total, 3,007 interviews were carried out, and 3,993 interviews remained unrealised.
Analysing the reasons for non-response, it should be pointed out that 1,315
respondents were not at home, 800 respondents did not want to answer
interviewer’s questions, 572 respondents did not have time or other reasons for
refusal were mentioned, while 1,306 respondents did not comply with the
requirements of the target group.
Within the framework of the research, apartment owners or tenants were
interviewed. 66 % of the respondents were owners and 32 % were tenants,
25 respondents did not want to indicate their status. Consequently, it can be
assumed that both groups of property users were represented by a fairly large range
of respondents.
Assuming that at the age of 18 people have the legal right to make decisions on
residential property and building, in which the residential property is located,
exactly this age was set as the minimum age of respondents. The largest group of
respondents (25 %) consisted of respondents in the age group of 35–44 years old,
22 % of respondents represented the age group of 25–34 years old, 19 % – a group
of 45–54 years old, and 15 % represented a group of 55–64 years old. People of
retirement age (65–74 years) represented 8 % of the group, while 18- to 24-year-
olds accounted for 3 % of the total number of respondents. 8 % of respondents did
not indicate their age.
Analysing the results of the study it can be concluded that all age groups have
been represented who have a legal right to make decisions on the improvement of
technical condition of the building in order to maintain the building in the proper
technical condition.
The authors of the research have recognised the respondents’ level of education
as an important characteristic of socio-demographic profile.
Note: n = 3007 Fig. 2. Respondents’ level of education.
primary
education
6%
secondary
specialised
education
38%
higher
50%
not indicate
6%

Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management
_________________________________________________________________________ 2017 / 5
11
Analysing the research results demonstated in Fig. 2, it can be concluded that
most respondents, or 50 % of the total number of respondents have higher
education. By contrast, 38 % of respondents have secondary or secondary
specialised (vocational) education. 8 % of respondents have primary education, and
6 % of respondents did not want to indicate their level of education.
Thus, it can be concluded that the study has covered respondents with all levels
of education. Main activity of the respondents is the next important characteristic
feature.
Note: n = 3007 Fig. 3. Respondents’ principal (main activity).
In terms of respondents’ main activity, it appears that 17 % of respondents are
white collar employees, 15 % – blue collar workers, 11 % – retired, 9 % of
respondents are entrepreneurs or self-employed persons, 2 % – students, 2 % are
unemployed and 4 % are housewifes (unemployed). 24 % of respondents did not
want to indicate their main type of acitivity.
Respondents’ socio-demographic profile is also characterised by household
income per family member. The respondents were also asked to indicate the level
of income per family member per month.
Note: n = 3007
Fig. 4. Household income per family member per month, EUR.
Entrepreneur,
self-employed
9% Senior manager
6%
White collar
27%
Blue collar
15%
Housewife (not
employed)
4%
Pensioner
11%
Student
2% Unemployed
2%
do not want to
answer
24%
4% 1% 1% 2% 4% 5% 9% 7%
17%
4%
49%
less
than 50
EUR
51 –
100
EUR
101–
150
EUR
151 –
200
EUR
201 –
250
EUR
251 –
300
EUR
351 –
400
EUR
451 –
500
EUR
501
EUR
and
more
do not
know do not
want to
answer

Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management
_________________________________________________________________________ 2017 / 5
12
Analysing the information provided in Fig. 4, it can be concluded that
respondents with different income levels participated in the survey. However, it
should be mentioned that a large number of respondents (i.e., 49 %) did not indicate
their income. It should be noted that 33 % of respondents have an income of
351 EUR or more per family member.
By analysing the information on the respondents’ age, income, social
conditions and other relevant assessment criteria, it can be concluded that the
respondents present a broad research area as respondents of different age groups,
gender, different income levels, etc., have been represented. Thus, a wide range of
respondents suggests that the research is not subjective.
3. ANALYTICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE ANSWERS OF
RESPONDENTS OF STANDARD HOUSING STOCK
In the sociological survey carried out in March 2016 within the framework of
the research, 72 questions were asked, of which more than a half of the questions
were related to the management of residential buildings, quality, market value of
housing units, technical condition of buildings, repair works carried out, energy
saving measures, understanding of energy efficiency improvement measures and
attitudes towards the renovation of buildings.
The first set of questions dealt with the issues that were topical for tenants of
multi-family residential buildings, i.e., residential building management and
satisfaction with the services provided.
The type of apartment ownership is closely related to the remaining residential
property of a particular building. In order to ensure the harmonious development of
residential property, the apartment owners, on the basis of the existing laws and
regulations, as well as mutual decisions, jointly agree on further maintenance,
development of the building, efficient use of resources and management.
Residential building management is not only the prevention of accidents or
collection of rent and utility payments, but also the process that requires good
knowledge and understanding of engineering, financial, psychological and legal
issues. In residential building management, it is important to balance the available
resources with today’s minimal needs, as well as save and accumulate funds for the
development of a residential building. (Geipele S., Geipele I., Slava, & Stamure,
2012).
A professional real estate manager is the right tool in the hands of the owners
of apartments to manage a residential building in a qualitative and responsible
manner.

Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management
_________________________________________________________________________ 2017 / 5
13
Note: n= 3007 Fig. 5. The manager of respondents’ dwellings.
Most respondents (79 %) live in the buildings, which are managed by the
municipal company “Rīgas namu pārvaldnieks”, 12 % of respondents mentioned
other management companies and only 4 % of respondents – a natural entity as a
house-manager. At the same time, 53 % of respondents are satisfied with the current
house-manager, 11 % of respondents expressed the desire to change the house-
manager, while 36 % did not answer.
The rights and obligations of a multi-family residential building manager are
determined in the residential building management contract signed by the
residential building owners and the manager. Apart from the rights and obligations
stipulated in the contract, they are also laid down in the Law on Administration of
Residential Houses and Civil Law. (Legislation of the Republic of Latvia, 2015).
The Law on Administration of Residential Houses has introduced laws and
regulations in a regulatory framework – “mandatory management functions to be
carried out”, which define the duties and responsibilities of apartment owners and
managers in terms of building management. These actions are binding for all
apartment owners and managers, if they are authorised on the basis of the
management contract.
Apart from maintenance of a residential building, a manager should mandatorily
carry out the management work planning, organisation and supervision, which
includes the preparation of a draft budget for the respective year and the
organisation of financial accounting. The procedure of keeping and updating of
residential building files is determined by the Regulations of the Cabinet of
Ministers No. 908 “Keeping and Updating of House Files” as of 28 September
2010.
The following management activities of a residential building should be carried
out in all cases:
− maintenance of a residential building – sanitary maintenance, heating, cold
water and sanitation, as well as municipal waste disposal, existing
equipment and engineering inspection, maintenance and current repair;
− management work planning, organisation and supervision;
− keeping files of a residential building;
the municipal
company
79%
Management
company
12%
private
individual
4%
Do not know or not the
answer - 5%

Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management
_________________________________________________________________________ 2017 / 5
14
− enforcement of the minimum requirements for a residential building as an
environmental object;
− enforcement of the minimum requirements for energy efficiency of a
residential building;
− entering into contract on the use of the settled land with land owners and
provision of information to state and local government institutions.
Maintenance of a residential building or natural conservation according to the
legal provisions includes sanitary maintenance of a building; household waste
collection; engineering inspection; technical state inspection; minimum energy
performance assurance and current repair operations; central heating, cold water,
sewage provision.
In practice, there are many different examples. Management work during the
winter can be mentioned as one of the examples, when the roofs of the buildings
require special attention. Over the past few years, snowy winters resulted in the
enormous thickness of snow cover on the roofs, which may pose threats to both
building constructive elements and life of passers-by. If in the management period
special attention is not devoted to proper maintenance of the roofs or there is a lack
of resources required for maintenance, the consequences can be fatal and result in
criminal liability.
Thus, the authors of the research have come to a conclusion that Article 6 of the
Law on Administration of Residential Houses acts as a contributory factor in the
management of residential buildings, since it stipulates the obligatory actions to be
included in the management of a building and responsibilities of every owner, co-
owner and manager of a residential building.
Part 3 of Article 6 of the Law on Administration of Residential Houses stipulates
that management activities comprise also other activities. Other management
activities are activities associated with the management of a residential building and
are carried out in compliance with the residential building owner’s will and ability
to pay. These include residential building improvement and development as well as
the activities necessary for the long-term plan preparation.
Other management activities include activities carried out only at the will of a
residential building owner but not for the reason that these activities have been
determined by law as mandatory obligations. These include residential building
improvement and development activities, such as replacement of any tools or
utilities with modern ones. Performing other management activities, the law obliges
the manager to plan, organise and monitor these activities.
The authors of the research consider that it creates confusion and problems in
practice, because it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between mandatory
activities and other activities.
Respondents (88 %) stated that the main function to be carried out by the
manager was cleaning and improvement of the communal area, which was followed
by territory improvement and cleaning (81 %) as well as keeping a building
engineering system in good working order (74 %).
The next set of questions concerned the issues related to technical maintenance
of respondents’ apartment and the entire residential building.

Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management
_________________________________________________________________________ 2017 / 5
15
The research results show that the majority of respondents’ apartments (82 %)
have district heating, and heat is mainly (81 %) supplied by JSC Rīgas Siltums. Hot
water supply is provided centrally in most apartments (81 %), only 15 % of
respondents heat water themselves; in most cases (82 %) electricity is used to heat
water, and gas appliances are used by 14 % of respondents. 67 % of respondents’
apartments have natural ventilation, 42 % of respondents, apart from natural
ventilation, have also exhaust fans in the kitchen, 14 % have the mechanical supply
and exhaust ventilation in the building, but 11 % – sanitary node exhaust fans. 67 %
of respondents confirmed that they had installed gas meters in their apartments.
Most respondents also indicated that they had installed electricity meters (85 %),
cold water meters with filters (64 %) and hot water meters with filters (56 %). In
most cases, an owner of cold and hot water meters is an owner of the apartment,
while that of electricity, gas and heat meters – the suppliers of respective services
(Latvenergo – 50 %, Latvijas Gāze – 46 %).
The research results show that only 13 % of respondents have installed
thermostats in their apartments, which allow regulating indoor air temperature. In a
similar survey, which was carried out in 2005, only 5 % of the respondents indicated
that they had thermostats in their apartments.
The research results confirm the need for raising owners’ awareness not only of
their personal property, but also of the entire communal property as a whole.
Analysing the research results on the technical condition of buildings and
specific proposals for further action, it should be noted that only 20 % of survey
participants believe that the technical condition of the building, in which they live,
is good; therefore, there is no need to change anything. The majority of survey
participants admit that the technical condition of the building should be improved,
and they identified the need for cosmetic repair of stairwells and facades (35 %).
In their turn, 24 % of respondents consider that the buildings should be renovated,
including insulation and window replacement, which require additional
investment.
According to respondents’ opinions, three most important elements
influencing the value of an apartment are heating and water supply system (63 %),
technical condition of windows (59 %); more than a half of the respondents also
mentioned the drainage system and the condition of entrance door of the building
(38 % and 58 %, respectively). The respondents also mentioned the storm water
system (39 %) and the existence of an elevator (36 %) as the components
determining the value of an apartment. It should be noted that17 % of respondents
did not answer the question.
The next set of questions was dedicated to improvements made in the owner’s
property – an apartment. The survey results show that some respondents made
cosmetic repairs (34 %), 21 % of them made it 2–5 years ago, while others changed
plumbing fixtures (59 %): faucets, sinks and sanitary system (water boxes).
The question then arises whether people are aware of the market value of their
apartment, as well as of the sources from which the information can be obtained.
More than a half (67 %) of the surveyed tenants of multi-family residential
buildings admitted that they do not follow the market value of the apartment, while
22 % of apartment dwellers take an interest in it. In terms of the source of

Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management
_________________________________________________________________________ 2017 / 5
16
information about the market value of the apartments, 96 % of apartment dwellers,
who monitor the market value of apartments, get information from press
advertisements; 40 % of respondents find the necessary information on the
specialised websites for housing market participants and brokers, and 12 % of the
residents call or meet with the competent representatives of the housing market.
Less than a half or 47 % of apartment dwellers do not want to pay higher monthly
payments during the period of five to fifteen years in order to invest in the technical
improvement of the building and increase the market value of the apartment, 28 %
of survey participants would be willing to settle such payments, and 25 % of
respondents replied with “difficult to say” answer option.
Out of those apartment owners who would agree to make additional payments
in order to increase the value of the apartment, 23 % would agree to pay up to 10
euro cents per square meter per month, 29 % would pay up to 20 euro cents per
square meter per month, and 20 % of owners would agree to pay more than 20 euro
cents per square meter per month. The main reason why people do not want to make
additional payments in order to increase the value of the apartment is that they
cannot afford it. This reason was mentioned by 43 % of respondents. 31 % of
respondents who do not want to make additional payments consider that all the costs
of building works carried out to improve the technical condition of the building
should be covered by the maintenance fee.
Analysing the respondents’ answers on energy consumption and its saving
possibilities, it is necessary to evaluate the total energy consumption in Latvia in
2015.
Total energy consumption includes the energy consumption for heat and
electricity production (conversion sector) and final consumption, which includes all
sectors of the economy as well as households. In Latvia, total energy consumption
was 188.7 petajoules (PJ) in 2015.
In Latvia, in 2015 the end-use of energy was 168.5 PJ, which was 1.2 % higher
than in 2014. Households and transport sector are the largest energy consumers,
which consume an average of 30 % of energy. It was observed that energy
consumption in households decreased from 63 PJ in 2005 to 50.5 PJ in 2015.
(Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, 2016)
The respondents’ answers to the question “Are you interested in total energy
consumption of the building and energy saving opportunities?” demonstrate that, in
general, about a half or 52 % of survey participants have recognised that they are
interested in energy consumption of the building, i.e., 21 % of respondents
demonstrate active interest and are trying to save, while 23 % monitor the situation
but do not do anything to save; 1/3 of the respondents have indicated that they do
not care about it, because it does not matter to them.
In turn, the answers to the question related to activities carried out by Riga
residents to save energy demonstrate that the majority of respondents turn the lights
off in rooms, which are not used (86 %), do not leave the water running if not
necessary (86 %) and do not leave the tap running in the apartment (72 %); slightly
more than a half of the respondents (56 %) try to make good use of household
electrical equipment, take a shower rather than a bath and seal windows in the

Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management
_________________________________________________________________________ 2017 / 5
17
apartment. In a similar survey carried out in 2005 the affirmative answers to this
question were given by 45 % of respondents.
More than a half of respondents (52 %) try to save energy resources and keep
track of the readings of consumption meters (electricity, hot and cold water), as well
as use the opportunity to lower the temperature in the room by means of thermostats
at a time when the room is not used.
Energy efficiency, by definition, means the efficient use of energy. To reduce
energy consumption of the building, it is necessary to understand what heat losses
should be compensated, why they occur and what energy efficiency measures
should be taken. Since each building is unique, the energy efficiency measures for
each building will differ.
According to the Law on the Energy Performance of Buildings, the building
energy efficiency is the relative amount of energy that characterises the energy
consumption required for heating, ventilation, cooling, lighting and hot water
supply of a particular building under building type-specific operating conditions.
Building energy efficiency is expressed in kilowatt-hours per square meter per year
(kWh/m2 per year).
Energy efficiency is the ratio of the resulting product or service and the energy
consumed. In turn, the improvement of energy efficiency means improved energy
efficiency as a result of technological, end-user or economic activities.
Renovation or capital repairs, implementing technical and operational
improvements of the building, is one of the most important measures in promoting
energy efficiency in buildings. (Seo, Tucker, Ambrose, Mitchell, & Wang, 2005).
The question then arises as to what people understand by the concept of
building energy efficiency. In a similar survey carried out in 2005, respondents had
the opportunity to freely (without response options offered) express their views on
the building energy efficiency. The answers provided by all respondents were
summarised and grouped into several groups. The obtained results demonstrated
that, in general, most respondents considered that energy efficiency was
economic/efficient use of resources (33 %), 8 % of respondents understood energy
efficiency as building insulation, 8 % – a good technical condition of the building
and its maintenance, 5 % – no or negligible loss of resources, 4 % – heating
system/its improvement, modernisation; other responses were given by 1 % of
respondents. It should be noted that 42 % of respondents did not provide specific
answers to this question.
In the survey carried out in 2016, the concept “building energy efficiency” is
understood by 50 % of respondents as “efficient heat utilisation”, 13 % of
respondents imply “saving of resources”, 12 % of respondents – “building
renovation, insulation”. During the period from 2005 to 2016, significant changes
have been observed in the citizens’ awareness of the concept of “building energy
efficiency”. In the survey carried out in 2016, only 64 respondents (0.2 %) answered
with “difficult to say, do not understand”.
In the survey carried out in 2005, the respondents were asked to choose from
the list of activities that, in their opinion, were related to energy efficiency raising
measures. The following measures were frequently mentioned: the insulation of end

Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management
_________________________________________________________________________ 2017 / 5
18
walls (61 %), replacement of windows (59 %), insulation of side walls (57 %),
replacement or modernisation of the building heating system (56 %).
In the survey carried out in 2016, the respondents were also asked to choose
from the list of activities that, in their opinion, were related to energy efficiency
raising measures. The following measures were mentioned: the insulation of end
walls (73 %), replacement of windows (71 %), insulation of side walls (66 %), the
adjustment of individual heating energy consumption and its consumption metering
in the apartment (61%), replacement or modernisation of the building heating
system (60 %).
In the survey carried out in 2016, only 40 % of respondents provided the
affirmative answer to the question whether they were aware of the results of energy
efficiency improvement measures, while 56 % of respondents provided the answer
“no” to the question whether they were interested in the results of renovated
building projects in Riga, 21 % of respondents approved their interest in the results
of these projects, while 21 % of respondents did not answer at all.
When asked whether major repairs or improvement works were carried out in
their residential buildings during the last 20 (10) years, 45 % of respondents
provided answer “no”, 29 % of respondents answered with “difficult to say” and
only 21 % of respondents answered affirmatively., The respondents mentioned the
following contributing factors that may make them engage in the renovation project
of their own building: lower apartment fee (48 %), reduced heating energy costs
(43 %), improvement of technical condition of the building (34 %) and
improvement of the visual appearance of the building (39 %).
In the survey, there was also a question about additional circumstances
promoting implementation of renovation and energy efficiency improvement
measures in a residential building; the most common answer to the question above
was “the visual appearance of a building is miserable” (67 %), which was followed
by the following answer – “renovation works professionally carried out will save
half of the heating energy consumption” (50 %).
When the respondents were asked to specify the reasons for not participating in
building renovation projects, the most common answer was “I cannot afford it
because payments will be higher after renovation” (42 %). When indicating the
reasons why no renovation projects were implemented in a particular building, the
most common answer was “owners of the apartments have not learned to be hosts
of their own building” (28 %), “lack of appropriate renovation offer for tenants of
the building” (24 %).
Analysing the answers to the question on the state and local government support
for the building renovation projects, it can be concluded that most respondents
(39 %) mentioned financial support amounting to at least 50 % and quality
assurance of construction works at the level of laws and regulations (34 %). 27 %
of respondents provided an affirmative answer to the question on the use of
professional energy services, if the energy service company guaranteed the monthly
payment that would be less than the former and guaranteed the quality of
construction works.

Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management
_________________________________________________________________________ 2017 / 5
19
CONCLUSION
In Latvia, the majority of residents live in three- or more-family standard
residential buildings, which were constructed between 1950 and 1992. These
buildings account for more than 10 % of housing stock. At present, these buildings
are obsolete; besides, in the course of construction process the durability and
reliability levels were planned to be insufficient. In Riga, where there are more than
6,000 standard multi-storey residential buildings, residents specifically do not
support building renovation and are passive, despite the availability of the EU and
government support as well as co-financing for building renovation projects. Under
Latvian climate conditions, a dwelling is one of the main basic necessities.
However, the prevailing view of the owners of apartments in the residential building
is that the state of the residential building is not their responsibility but rather the
responsibility of a third party. Although the privatisation of multi-apartment
buildings had been completed more than ten years ago, momentum thinking
remained from the time when the apartment and the building as a whole were not a
family property.
The apartment and co-ownership share of the multi-apartment building in most
cases is the largest property, greatest material resource of the families living there.
It would be understandable if the family budget resources were assigned to
conservation of the dwelling as resource and preservation of its use value. However,
the results of the survey carried out in 2016 show that this issue is not fully
understood, only some respondents “recognise” this concept and an even smaller
part of them are ready to invest in the preservation of the technical state of the
building, market, use value and elimination of depreciation defects.
3,007 respondents at the age of 18–74 years participated in the survey devoted
to the examination of standard multi-apartment buildings in ten different micro-
districts of Riga. 56 % of the respondents stated that they had been living in their
dwellings for more than 10–20 years. Besides, 32 % of respondents were children
at the age up to 16 years, while 50 % of respondents had higher education. It should
be mentioned that 42 % of respondents were white collar employees, entrepreneurs
or senior managers. More importantly, 33 % of respondents had a monthly income
of 351 EUR or more per family member.
The majority of respondents assume that the apartment is the most significant
asset of the family. Moreover, 34 %–69 % of respondents have renovated their
apartment and save resources (electrical energy, water and heating energy) within
their apartment boundaries. Only some respondents evaluate the technical condition
of communal property, but most respondents do not have information concerning
resource supply and energy accounting as well as are not interested in resource
saving possibilities within the building in general, and do not understand the
importance of technical maintenance of the building.
Additionally, 88 % of respondents consider that the central task of the building
management and maintenance is sanitary maintenance of communal facilities of the
building, rather than building development, such as refurbishment and renovation,
as well as elimination of depreciation, energy efficiency improvement measures.

Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management
_________________________________________________________________________ 2017 / 5
20
Only 25 % of respondents are ready to make savings for the renovation of
communal facilities and energy efficiency improvement of a building. On the other
hand, since 2005, when a similar research was conducted, the residents’ knowledge
concerning building energy efficiency has changed noticeably. In 2005, 85 % of
respondents did not answer the question about their understanding of the concept
of building energy efficiency. However, in 2016, 50 % of respondents considered
that the reduced consumption of building thermal energy was the most significant
aspect in the building energy efficiency improvement process.
Tenants of standard multi-storey residential buildings understand the need for
building renovation and energy efficiency improvement; however, there is an
obvious lack of knowledge concerning cooperation opportunities within the
community of owners of multi-storey residential building as well as organization
and management of building renovation projects. Thus, the cooperation between
the management company of standard residential buildings and residents is vital to
develop comprehensive understanding of building renovation and energy efficiency
issues in the community. Finally, the integration of building renovation projects in
the building maintenance and management programme is the key aspect.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The present research has been supported by the financial instrument of European Economic Area
within the project “Klimata ietekmes, pielāgošanos klimata pārmaiņām un pielāgošanās iespēju
sociāli ekonomisko vērtību novērtējums daudzdzīvokļu kvartālos Rīgā un Latvijā” (“Rīgas
daudzdzīvokļu namu mikrorajonu ilgtspējīga attīstība”). (“Evaluation of the Socio-Economic Values
of Impact of Climate Changes and the Flexibility of Adaptation to Climate Changes in Residential
Quarters in Riga and Latvia” (“Sustainable Development of Multi-Apartment Buildings in Riga
Micro-Districts”)).
REFERENCES
Abdulai, R. T., Obeng-Odoom, F., Ochieng, E., & Maliene, V. (Eds.). (2016). Real Estate,
Construction and Economic Development in Emerging Market Economies. Routledge Studies
in International Real Estate. New York, NY: Routledge, 404 p.
Ali, H. H. & Nsairat S. F. A. (2009). Developing a green building assessment tool for developing
countries – Case of Jordan. Building and Environment, 44(5), 1053–1064
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.07.015
Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia [Latvijas centrālās statistikas pārvaldes portāls]. (2016). Statistic
Database. [Palielinās atjaunīgo energoresursu īpatsvars pārveidošanas sektorā]. Retrieved
June 20, 2016, from http://www.csb.gov.lv/en/notikumi/transformation-sector-shows-
increase-share-renewables-44046.html.html [in Latvian]
Chau, C. K., Tse, M. S., & Chung, K. Y. (2010). A choice experiment to estimate the effect of green
experience on preferences and willingness-to-pay for green building attributes. Building and
Environment, 45(11), 2553–2561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.05.017
Cole, R. J. (2005). Building environmental assessment methods: redefining intentions and roles.
Building Research & Information, 35(5), 455–467.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210500219063

Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management
_________________________________________________________________________ 2017 / 5
21
Diaz-Sarachaga, J. M., Jato-Espino, D., Alsulami, B., & Castro-Fresno, D. (2016). Evaluation of
existing sustainable infrastructure rating systems for their application in developing countries.
Ecological Indicators, 71, 491–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.07.033
Ding, G. K. C. (2008). Sustainable construction – The role of environmental assessment tools.
Journal of Environmental Management, 86(3), 451–464.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.12.025
Engel, U., Jann, B., Lynn, P., Scherpenzeel, A., & Sturgis, P. (2014). Improving Survey Methods:
Lessons from Recent Research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Geipele, S., Geipele, I., Slava, D., & Stamure, I. (2012). Social, economic and legal problems of
housing management in Latvia. 7th International Scientific Conference Business and
Management. 2012. Selected Papers, (pp. 631–638). Lithuania, Vilnius, May 10–11, 2012.
https://doi.org/10.3846/bm.2012.082
Kibert, C. J. (2012). Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery. John Wiley
& Sons, 560 p.
Lavasani, H., & Werner, A. (2012). Practicality and Sustainability of Using HVFA for Concrete
Sidewalks. Construction Research Congress 2012, (pp. 1931–1940). West Lafayette, Indiana,
United States, May 21–23, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784412329.194
Legislation of the Republic of Latvia. (2015). Dzīvojamo māju pārvaldīšanas likums. [Law On
Administration of Residential Houses]. Retrieved February 2, 2016, from
http://likumi.lv/ta/id/193573-dzivojamo-maju-parvaldisanas-likums
Sarsby, R., & Meggyes, T. (Eds.). (2009). Construction for a Sustainable Environment. CRC Press,
538 p.
Seo, S., Tucker, S., Ambrose, M., Mitchell, P., & Wang, C. H. (2005). Technical Evaluation of
Environmental Assessment Rating Tools, Research and Development Corporation, Project No.
PN05.1019, from http://www.fwpa.com.au/images/marketaccess/PN05.1019.pdf.
State Land Service of the Republic of Latvia [Valsts Zemes dienests]. (2016). Latvijas Republikas
būvju pārskats 2015. [in Latvian]
Stāmure, I., Kamola, L., & Geipele, I. (2015). Practical Aspects of Sustainable Construction in
Latvia. In 5th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations
Management, (pp. 2041–2048). United Arab Emirates, Dubai, March 3–5, 2015. Dubai: IEOM
Society. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEOM.2015.7093926
Tambovceva, T., Geipele, I., & Geipele, S. (2012). Sustainable Building in Latvia: Development
and Future Challenges. In ISEE 2012 Conference – Ecological Economics and Rio+20:
Abstracts and Full Papers “Sustainable Building, Green Building, Green Building Assessment,
Sustainable Development”, Brasil, Rio de Janeiro, June 16–19, 2012. Rio de Janeiro:
International Society for Ecological Economics – ISEE.
AUTHORS’ SHORT BIOGRAPHIES
Laimdota Šnīdere is an Asistant Professor, Researcher at the Faculty of
Engineering Economics and Management, Institute of Civil Engineering and
Real Estate Economics at Riga Technical University (RTU), Latvia. She holds
the Doctoral Degree in Physics. She is the author and co-author of scientific
publications. Her current research interests are focused on sustainability
development problems of energy effiency, construction industry, including
land use management and institutional economics.

Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management
_________________________________________________________________________ 2017 / 5
22
Ineta Geipele is a Professor of the Faculty of Engineering Economics and
Management, Director of the Institute of Civil Engineering and Real Estate
Economics, the Head of the Department of the Civil Construction and Real
Estate Economics and Management at Riga Technical University, Latvia. She
improved her professional skills in Austria, Germany, Denmark and the UK.
Ineta Geipele is the author and co-author of more than 300 scientific
publications. Her current research areas are sustainability development
problems of real estate market, construction industry, land use management
and institutional economics. Professor Ineta Geipele is an expert of the Latvian
Academy of Sciences in Management and Economics Sciences at the Latvian Council of Science, a
board member of the FIABCI-Baltic Multinational Chapter and of the Cunfte of the Facility
Management of Latvian Housing, and a member of the Latvian Union of Civil Engineers.
ORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2963-087X
Iveta Stāmure is a Doctoral student, Researcher of the Faculty of Engineering
Economics and Management, Institute of Civil Engineering and Real Estate
Economics at Riga Technical University (RTU), Latvia. She has obtained the
Professional Master Degree in Civil Construction and Real Estate Management
and qualification of Real Estate Manager. She is a co-author of scientific
publications, two monographs “Models of Financing of Housing Fund
Renovation in Latvia” (2012), “Socio-Economic Aspects of the Interaction of
Urban and Regional Development” (2012). Her research areas are
sustainability development problems of real estate market, construction
industry, including land use management and institutional economics, etc. She
is a member of the Cunfte of the Facility Management of Latvian Housing and a member of Youth
Division of the Latvian Union of Civil Engineers. In 2013 – RTU Gold Fund graduate. In spring
2013 – FIABCI (International Real Estate Federation) grantee.
ORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2963-087X