Is the High Quality Baukultur a Monkey Wrench in the Global Climate Challenges?

[1] Díaz S., Settele J., Brondízio E. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES, 2019.Search in Google Scholar

[2] IPCC. Global Warming of 1.5 °C. Special Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2018.Search in Google Scholar

[3] World Meteorological Organization. Statement on the State of the Global Climate in 2018. Geneva: WMO, 2018.Search in Google Scholar

[4] Tong S., Ebi K. L. Preventing and mitigating health risks of climate change. Environmental Research 2019:174:9–13. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2019.04.01210.1016/j.envres.2019.04.01231022612Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[5] Seneviratne S. I., et al. The many possible climates from the Paris Agreement’s aim of 1.5 °C warming. Nature 2018:558:41–49. doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0181-410.1038/s41586-018-0181-429875489Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[6] UNFCC. Adoption of The Paris Agreement. UNFCCC, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

[7] UNFCCC. Paris Agreement. UNFCCC, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

[8] ECCP. Second ECCP Progress Report. Can we meet our Kyoto targets? ECCP, 2003.Search in Google Scholar

[9] A policy framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030. Brussels: European Commission, 2014.Search in Google Scholar

[10] Abergel T., Dean B., Dulac J. Global Status Report. Towards a zero-emission, efficient, and resilient buildings and construction sector. International Energy Agency, 2017.Search in Google Scholar

[11] Gouldson A., et al. Exploring the economic case for climate action in cities. Global Environmental Change 2015:35:93–105. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.00910.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.009Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[12] ICPP. Climate Change 2014 – IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.Search in Google Scholar

[13] Mi Z., et al. Cities: The core of climate change mitigation. Journal of Cleaner Production 2019:207:582–589. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.03410.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.034Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[14] Mata E., et al. Economic feasibility of building retrofitting mitigation potentials: Climate change uncertainties for Swedish cities. Applied Energy 2019:242:1022–1035. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.04210.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.042Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[15] Dent C. M., Bale C. S. E., Wadud Z., Voss H. Cities, energy and climate change mitigation: An introduction. Cities 2016:54:1–3. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2015.11.00910.1016/j.cities.2015.11.009Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[16] Gouldson A., et al. Cities and climate change mitigation: Economic opportunities and governance challenges in Asia. Cities 2016:54:11–19. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2015.10.01010.1016/j.cities.2015.10.010Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[17] Biseniece E., Freimanis R., Purvins R., Gravelsins A., Pumpurs A., Blumberga A. Study of Hygrothermal Processes in External Walls with Internal Insulation. Environmental and Climate Technologies 2018:22(1):22–41. doi:10.1515/rtuect-2018-000210.1515/rtuect-2018-0002Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[18] Albatayneh A., Alterman D., Page A., Moghtaderi B. The Significance of Building Design for the Climate. Environmental and Climate Technologies 2018:22(1):165–178. doi:10.2478/rtuect-2018-001110.2478/rtuect-2018-0011Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[19] Bajcinovci B., Jerliu F. Achieving Energy Efficiency in Accordance with Bioclimatic Architecture Principles. Environmental and Climate Technologies 2016:18(1):54–63. doi:10.1515/rtuect-2016-001310.1515/rtuect-2016-0013Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[20] Davos Declaration. Presented at the Conference of Ministers of Culture, Davos, Switzerland, 2018.Search in Google Scholar

[21] How to measure Baukultur – Save the Date! Presented at the International Conference on How to measure Baukultur, Geneva, Switzerland, 2019.Search in Google Scholar

[22] European Commission. The Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017.Search in Google Scholar

[23] European Commission. SET Plan delivering results: The Implementation Plans. Luxembourg: Publications of the European Union, 2018.Search in Google Scholar

[24] European Commission. Horizon 2020. Work Programme 2018–2020. European Commission, 2018.Search in Google Scholar

[25] Ishizaka A., Nemery P. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Methods and Software. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.10.1002/9781118644898Search in Google Scholar

[26] Malczewski J. Multicriteria Analysis. Comprehensive Geographic Information Systems. Elsevier, 2018:197–217.10.1016/B978-0-12-409548-9.09698-6Search in Google Scholar

[27] Wang J.-J., et al. Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2009:13(9):2263–2278. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2009.06.02110.1016/j.rser.2009.06.021Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[28] Tsoutsos T., et al. Sustainable energy planning by using multi-criteria analysis application in the island of Crete. Energy Policy 2009:37(5):1587–1600. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.12.01110.1016/j.enpol.2008.12.011Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[29] Campos-Guzmán V., et al. Life Cycle Analysis with Multi-Criteria Decision Making: A review of approaches for the sustainability evaluation of renewable energy technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2019:104:343–366. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.01.03110.1016/j.rser.2019.01.031Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[30] Baumann M., et al. A review of multi-criteria decision making approaches for evaluating energy storage systems for grid applications. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2019:107:516–534. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2019.02.01610.1016/j.rser.2019.02.016Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[31] Yang K., et al. Multi-criteria integrated evaluation of distributed energy system for community energy planning based on improved grey incidence approach: A case study in Tianjin. Applied Energy 2018:229:352–363. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.08.01610.1016/j.apenergy.2018.08.016Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[32] Murrant D., Radcliffe J. Assessing energy storage technology options using a multi-criteria decision analysis-based framework. Applied Energy 2018:231:788–802. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.09.17010.1016/j.apenergy.2018.09.170Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[33] Prodanuks T., Blumberga D. Methodology of municipal energy plans. Priorities for sustainability. Energy Procedia 2018:147:594–599. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2018.07.07610.1016/j.egypro.2018.07.076Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[34] Trotter P. A., Cooper N. J., Wilson P. A multi-criteria, long-term energy planning optimisation model with integrated on-grid and off-grid electrification – The case of Uganda. Applied Energy 2019:243:288–312. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.17810.1016/j.apenergy.2019.03.178Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[35] Centrālā statistikas pārvalde. Apdzīvoto mājokļu vidējais vecums Rīgā un Jūrmalā [Online]. [Accessed 2.05.2019]. Available: https://www.csb.gov.lv/lv/statistika/statistikas-temas/iedzivotaji/tautas-skaitisana/meklet-tema/143-apdzivoto-majoklu-videjais-vecums-riga-un (in Latvian)Search in Google Scholar

[36] Šaršūne I. S. Rīgas pilsētas pašvaldības Pilsētas attīstības departamenta Pilsētvides attīstības pārvaldes Vēsturiskā centra plānošanas nodaļa [Online]. [Accessed 2.05.2019]. Available: https://www.slideserve.com/jesse/r-gas-v-sturiskcentra-un-t-aizsardz-bas-zonas-teritorijas-pl-nojums (in Latvian)Search in Google Scholar

[37] Legal Acts of Republic of Latvia. Law on Preservation and Protection of the Historic Centre of Riga [Online]. [Accessed 4.02.2019]. Available: https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/76001-law-on-preservation-and-protection-of-the-historic-centre-of-rigaSearch in Google Scholar

[38] Rīgas domes Pilsētas attīstības departaments [Online]. [Accessed 4.02.2019]. Available: http://www.rdpad.lv/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/ENG_STRATEGIJA.pdf (in Latvian)Search in Google Scholar

[39] World Heritage Committee. Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Report. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Naples, 1997.Search in Google Scholar

[40] The International Council of Monuments and Sites. Advisory Body Evaluation (ICOMOS). UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 1996.Search in Google Scholar

[41] Bolstad P. GIS Fundamentals: A First Text on Geographic Information Systems. Acton: Eider Press, 2016.Search in Google Scholar

[42] DeMers M. N. Fundamentals of Geographic Information Systems. John Wiley & Sons, 2008.Search in Google Scholar

[43] Jacobs J. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1961.Search in Google Scholar

[44] Whyte W. H. City. Rediscovering the Center. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988.Search in Google Scholar

[45] Whyte W. H. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. New York: Project for Public Spaces Inc, 1980.Search in Google Scholar

[46] The IEU. The Global Liveability Index 2018. A free overview. The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2018.Search in Google Scholar

[47] Mercer. Mercer’s 21st annual Quality of Living survey. Mercer, 2019.Search in Google Scholar

[48] OECD. How’s Life? 2017. Measuring Wellbeing. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2017.Search in Google Scholar

[49] Marshall W. E. An evaluation of livability in creating transit-enriched communities for improved regional benefits. Research in Transportation Business & Management 2013:7:54–68. doi:10.1016/j.rtbm.2013.01.00210.1016/j.rtbm.2013.01.002Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[50] Ding X., et al. An inclusive model for assessing the sustainability of cities in developing countries Trinity of Cities’ Sustainability from Spatial, Logical and Time Dimensions (TCS-SLTD). Journal of Cleaner Production 2015:109:62–75. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.14010.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.140Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[51] Marsal-Llacuna L.-M., Colomer-Llinàs J., Meléndez-Frigola J. Lessons in urban monitoring taken from sustainable and livable cities to better address the Smart Cities initiative. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 2015:90(B):611–622. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2014.01.01210.1016/j.techfore.2014.01.012Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[52] Norouzian-Maleki S., Bell S., Hosseini S.-B., Faizi M. Developing and testing a framework for the assessment ofneighbourhood liveability in two contrasting countries: Iran and Estonia. Ecological Indicators 2015:48:263–271. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.07.03310.1016/j.ecolind.2014.07.033Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[53] Silva A. N. R., et al. A comparative evaluation of mobility conditions in selected cities of the five Brazilian regions. Transport Policy 2015:37:147–156. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.10.01710.1016/j.tranpol.2014.10.017Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[54] Zanella A., Camanho A. S., Dias T. G. The assessment of cities’ livability integrating human wellbeing and environmental impact. Annuals of Operations Research 2015:226(1):695–726. doi:10.1007/s10479-014-1666-710.1007/s10479-014-1666-7Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[55] Zhou J., Shen L., Song X., Zhang X. Selection and modeling sustainable urbanization indicators: A responsibility-based method. Ecological Indicators 2015:56:87–95. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.02410.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.024Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[56] Zhan D., et al. Assessment and determinants of satisfaction with urban livability in China. Cities 2018:79:92–101. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2018.02.02510.1016/j.cities.2018.02.025Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[57] Reis I. F. C., et al. An evaluation thermometer for assessing city sustainability and livability. Sustainable Cities and Society 2019:47:101449. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2019.10144910.1016/j.scs.2019.101449Search in Google Scholar

[58] Kashef M. Urban livability across disciplinary and professional boundaries. Frontiers of Architectural Research 2016:5(2):239–253. doi:10.1016/j.foar.2016.03.00310.1016/j.foar.2016.03.003Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[59] Okulicz-Kozaryn A. City life: Rankings (livability) versus perceptions (satisfaction). Social Indicators Research 2013:110(2):433–451. doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9939-x10.1007/s11205-011-9939-xOpen DOISearch in Google Scholar

[60] Faria P. A. M., et al. Combining cognitive mapping and MCDA for improving quality of life in urban areas. Cities 2018:78:116–127. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2018.02.00610.1016/j.cities.2018.02.006Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[61] PPS (Project for Public Spaces). How to Turn a Place Around. New York: Project for Public Spaces Inc, 2000.Search in Google Scholar

[62] Ghasemi K., Hamzenejad M., Meshkini A. The spatial analysis of the livability of 22 districts of Tehran Metropolis using multi-criteria decision making approaches. Sustainable Cities and Society 2018:38:382–404. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2018.01.01810.1016/j.scs.2018.01.018Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[63] Stanislav A., Chin J. T. Evaluating livability and perceived values of sustainable neighborhood design: New Urbanism and original urban suburbs. Sustainable Cities and Society 2019:47:101517. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2019.10151710.1016/j.scs.2019.101517Search in Google Scholar

[64] Yassin H. H. Livable city: An approach to pedestrianization through tactical urbanism. Alexandria Engineering Journal 2019:58(1):251–259. doi:10.1016/j.aej.2019.02.00510.1016/j.aej.2019.02.005Open DOISearch in Google Scholar

[65] Ghel J. Cities for People. Washington: Island Press, 2010.Search in Google Scholar

[66] Ghel J. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Washington:Island Press, 2011.Search in Google Scholar

[67] Riga Municipality City Development Department. Historic Centre of Riga urban planning documentation graphical annexes [Online]. [Accessed 4.02.2019]. Available: http://www.rdpad.lv/rtp/rvc/Search in Google Scholar

[68] Rīgas Jūgendstila centrs. Jūgendstila arhitektūras objekti Rīgā [Online]. [Accessed 8.03.2019]. Available: http://www.jugendstils.riga.lv/lat/JugendstilsRiga (in Latvian)Search in Google Scholar

[69] Latvijas Ģeotelpiskās informācijas aģentūra. Karšu Pārlūks [Online]. [Accessed 8.03.2019]. Available: https://kartes.lgia.gov.lv/karte/ (in Latvian)Search in Google Scholar

[70] Kultūrvēsturiskie ansambļi un kultūras pieminekļi RVC un tā aizsardzības zonā. Rīgas domes Pilsētas attīstības departaments [Online]. [Accessed 8.03.2019]. Available: http://www.rdpad.lv/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/11_Pieminekli_6000_konsolidets_042017.pdf (in Latvian)Search in Google Scholar

[71] Riga Municipality City Development Department GIS information.Search in Google Scholar

[72] The Information Centre of the Ministry of the Interior. Registered criminal offenses on a digital map (GIS) [Online]. [Accessed 25.04.2019]. Available: http://www.ic.iem.gov.lv/gis/index.phpSearch in Google Scholar

[73] State Land Service of the Republic of Latvia [Online]. [Accessed 2.05.2019]. Available: https://www.kadastrs.lv/#Search in Google Scholar

[74] Migilinskas D., Ustinovichius L. Normalisation in the selection of construction. Management and Decision Making 2007:8:297–313. doi:10.1504/IJMDM.2007.01342210.1504/IJMDM.2007.013422Search in Google Scholar