write a phd proposal about the real estate developers and urban development
Engvdapi
EcoSocEnvEffectLithuanianCASE.pdf
Sustainability 2015, 7, 6497-6522; doi:10.3390/su7066497
sustainability ISSN 2071-1050
www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Article
Sustainability Aspects of Real Estate Development: Lithuanian Case Study of Sports and Entertainment Arenas
Rasa Apanavičienė 1, Ala Daugėlienė 1, Tautvydas Baltramonaitis 1 and Vida Maliene 2,3,*
1 Faculty of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Kaunas University of Technology, Studentų Str. 48,
LT-51367 Kaunas, Lithuania; E-Mails: [email protected] (R.A.); [email protected] (A.D.);
[email protected] (T.B.) 2 School of the Built Environment, Liverpool John Moores University, Byrom Street,
L3 3AF Liverpool, UK 3 Institute of Land Management and Geomatics, Faculty of Water and Land Management,
Aleksandras Stulginskis University, Universiteto 10, Akademija, Kaunas 53361, Lithuania
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: [email protected];
Tel.: +44-(0)-151-231-2854.
Academic Editor: Marc. A. Rosen
Received: 25 March 2015 / Accepted: 15 May 2015 / Published: 26 May 2015
Abstract: The principles of sustainability have become particularly important in the real
estate and construction sector over the past decade. Despite extended efforts to evaluate the
sustainability aspects of the real estate development, very few attempts have been exposed
in the scientific literature pursuing integrating the investors and real estate developers’
responsibility for the local community, regional economy and environmental problems
within their financial expectations. The paper presents methodology enabling evaluating the
balance of real estate development sustainability and financial viability issues during the
feasibility study process. The Model for Real Estate Investment Evaluation Based on
Sustainable Development Aspects proposed by the authors was applied to the case study of
Lithuanian sports and entertainment arenas. By using multi-criteria decision analysis
sustainability assessment of multi-functional arenas was carried out which disclosed that
positive sustainability effects lays down on the owner’s and operator’s monetary liabilities.
Keywords: sustainable development; real estate; model; sports arenas; multi-criteria
decision analysis
OPEN ACCESS
Sustainability 2015, 7 6498
1. Introduction
Sustainable properties are one of the key issues and challenges for today’s construction and real estate
(RE) industry over the world. Requirements for energy consumption and environmental protection,
contribution for regional economies and communities, and social responsibility force necessary changes
to be undertaken by real estate owners and developers. New strategic thinking, as well as advanced
approaches and practices need to be adopted by researches, planners, practitioners and professionals
within real estate society in order to create more value for the clients of today and future generations.
The Lithuanian real estate market was known as relatively small and very local a few years ago;
however, the situation has been changed recently. The Lithuanian economy is demonstrating fast
recovery from the crisis of the year 2009–2010. GDP increased by 2.9% in 2014 and 3.4% in 2013.
Analysts are predicting growth of 2.3%–2.7% in 2015 and 3.2%–3.5% growth in 2016. Average annual
rate of inflation dropped from 1.2% in 2013 to 0.2% in 2014. Consumer Price Index (CPI) growth of
0.5%–1.0% is expected in 2015 [1].
The improving economic situation has been reflected in the Lithuanian real estate market activity as
well as the construction industry. The total volume of investment through purchasing already developed
commercial property has been growing rapidly. After an investment breakthrough in 2013, 18 investment
transactions (modern office, retail and industrial property worth over 1.5 million EUR) were registered
in Lithuania, with a total value of 204 million EUR; 30% more than 2013. In total, 99,200 m2 of offices,
55,600 m2 of retail premises and 22,200 m2 of warehousing/industrial premises have been purchased in
2014 [2]. Lithuania adopted the euro as its national currency on 1 January 2015, becoming a member of
the euro zone and opening opportunities to new investors. In the beginning of 2015, the largest real estate
transaction in the Baltic States since the crisis was successfully closed. The total transaction value
amounted to 163 million EUR [3].
Real estate development, both in Lithuania and around the world, is facing the twenty-first century
urban challenges—responsible use of energy resources, sustainable urban development within existing
neighborhoods, comprehensive renovation and construction of new buildings, decreasing social
exclusion, public transport development, and reduction of pollution—all of which should be
implemented in the real estate development projects. These processes have impacts on the real estate
business, as sustainable urban development is the backbone of the economy and the future of the real
estate market. Thus, it is equally important to identify the trends and predict the directions of further real
estate development. Whilst sustainable development regulation for the EU Member States is increasingly
being driven by EU legislation, the methodologies for sustainable properties assessment have been
developed based on indicators and measures at the individual country level: certification system
developed by Austrian Society for Sustainable Real Estate in accordance with the German Sustainable
Building Council ÖGNI/DGNB (Österreichische Gesellschaft für Nachhaltige Immobilienwirtschaft
/Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen) in Austria, certification system for sustainable buildings
DGNB/BNB (Deutsche Gütesiegel Nachhaltiges Bauen/Bewertungssystem Nachhaltiges Bauen) in
Germany, Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) in United
Kingdom, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) in USA, sustainability rating system
Green Star in Australia, Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency
(CASBEE) in Japan, certification system for low energy consumption buildings MINERGIE ECO in
Sustainability 2015, 7 6499
Switzerland, High Quality Environmental standard (HQE) in France, Protocol ITACA (developed by
ITACA—the Italian Conference of Regions and Autonomous Provinces) in Italy, building performance
assessment system SBTool in Canada, etc. [4–9]. The above-mentioned national certification systems
are created to meet the legal regulations and requirements of the specific country, however few of these
tools—LEED introduced by US Green Building Council (USGBC, 2001) and BREEAM introduced by
the British Research Establishment Limited (BRE, 1998) have been proven by long-term worldwide
application practice. Despite that, in Lithuania there are no buildings certified according to BREEAM,
LEED, or any other sustainability certification system [10]. The problem for the future investors is to
find the properties in Lithuania that might be considered sustainable. In regard to the environmental
sustainability aspect, there are two obligatory issues in Lithuania. According to the Law on Environmental
Impact Assessment of the Proposed Economic Activity, the assessment on the environmental impact is
required only for projects for a certain type economic activities: “The object of environmental impact
assessment shall be the proposed economic activity which, by virtue of its nature, size or location, may
have a significant effect on the environment. This activity shall be included in: (1) the List of the
proposed economic activities subject to an environmental impact assessment (2) the List of the proposed
economic activities subject to screening for an environmental impact assessment” [11]. The Law on
Construction establishes all essential requirements for construction works that are being built,
reconstructed and repaired within the territory of the Republic of Lithuania, and the minimum
requirements for energy performance of buildings. Energy performance certificate has to be issued for
new buildings and existing buildings before real estate transaction [12].
In regard to the social and economic aspect, there is a requirement to assess the financial and
social-economic benefits of investment projects sponsored by public and EU funds, but there was no
legal enforcement to assess the different project development options until 2015. The new legislation
was issued by the Ministry of Finance of Republic of Lithuania on 31 December 2014, which is targeted
to justify the public money expenditure for new real estate development [13]. Additionally to this, the
quality assessment methodology for project optimal alternative selection for projects exceeding
investment value of 300,000 EUR was approved on 14 October 2014 [14]. The minimum required
options need to be assessed and compared from the financial and socio–economic perspective in case of
the new real estate development are the following:
(1) construction of new buildings;
(2) distance service for project target groups;
(3) reconstruction/conversion of the existing property;
(4) rent/ lease of property; and
(5) acquisition of a new property.
However, as can be seen from this list of minimum required options, there is no obligation to analyze
the various design, construction and operation alternatives in order to prove the new project’s
sustainability. Thus, there has been no methodology provided for the new real estate development
sustainability assessment by the authorities in Lithuania.
This research paper addresses this gap by presenting the Model for Real Estate Investment Evaluation
Based on Sustainable Development Aspects. The model is recommended to be used by private and public
investors for the evaluation of the future real estate development project sustainability. This approach
Sustainability 2015, 7 6500
will also enable to raise awareness amongst owners, occupants and investors to carry out the whole
life-cycle analysis of the project in order to justify the design, construction and operation solutions while
preparing the feasibility study of new real estate development.
2. Methodology for Real Estate Investment Evaluation Based on Sustainable
Development Aspects
“The results of the international and in particular the European standardization activities have led in
recent years to the development of a unified understanding of sustainability in construction” [15].
Significant contributions were provided by the ISO TC 59 SC 17 and CEN TC 350 projects [16,17].
Numerous reports were published by the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative
(UNEP FI), the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), SuPerBuildings and OPEN HOUSE
projects were developed under European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme, etc. Based on
the provided guidelines and methodologies for the sustainability assessment, the following sustainable
development priorities have to be incorporated into the assessment framework of real estate
development, namely: harmonized economy development of different industry branches and regions,
reduction of economic and social disparities between regions, environmental protection and efficient use
of natural resources; waste management; healthcare; increasing employment of population; decreasing
poverty, unemployment, social exclusion; etc. [17–23]. The above-mentioned aspects in real estate terms
are considered to decrease operating costs, use of land, natural resources and emissions; increase energy
efficiency, population healthcare and quality of life; as well as preservation of the cultural value of the
buildings and extension of the operation period. According to UN-supported Principles for Responsible
Investment (PRI) “responsible investment is an approach to investment that explicitly acknowledges the
relevance to the investor of environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors, and the long-term
health and stability of the market as a whole. It recognizes that the generation of long-term sustainable
returns is dependent on stable, well-functioning and well governed social, environmental and economic
systems” [24]. However, Zielenbach states that three levels of real estate development sustainability
measurement have to be taken into consideration when analyzing sustainability from point of view of
corporate responsibility [25]. The first level focuses on assessing internal issues—sustainable business
case benefits for the real estate developers. The second concentrates on determining direct benefits for
the clients of new real estate development. The third looks at how to measure a project’s broader effects
on the well-being of the community and neighborhoods, evaluating additional value for the city or region
built environment.
Different researchers analyzed the particular levels and aspects of real estate development
sustainability. A significant part of investigations is related with the sustainable urban development
within the cities and regions [26–28]. The majority of them are devoted to the assessment of
infrastructure projects sustainability [29–33]. The other significant part of the research analyzes
sustainable office buildings or residential housing projects, industrial construction, etc. [34–36].
Some authors focus only on a particular aspect of sustainable development, like environmental
assessment, projects impact on economic or social sustainability of the region, by identifying and
analyzing assessment indicators [37–42]. Those who are trying to combine all three issues, provide the
systematic approach or framework of sustainability indicators, which are recommended to be properly
Sustainability 2015, 7 6501
evaluated by project stakeholders and public decision makers [43–47]. Only a few authors have provided
integrated sustainability assessment models, enabling front-end building evaluation [48–51].
Despite extended efforts to evaluate the sustainability aspects, very few attempts have been exposed
in the scientific literature pursuing to integrate and balance the investors and real estate developers’
responsibility for the local community, regional economy and environmental problems with their
financial expectations.
Lützkendorf et al. identified three different approaches to property investment [52]:
• defensive property investment—investment practices that adhere to written law only, i.e.,
conventional mainstream property investment practice;
• responsible property investment—maximizing the positive effects and minimizing the negative
effects of property ownership, management and development on society and the natural
environment in a way that is consistent with investor goals and fiduciary responsibilities; and
• sustainable property investment—encompasses the goal of maximizing positive and minimizing
negative effects, but it goes one significant step further, since the investor lays down appropriate
conditions so that all his (or her) actions are aimed at being sustainable.
According to the author’s conclusions, sustainable property investment is the least practiced among
the three above-mentioned approaches. Thus, from the point of view of real estate developers and
investors, whilst being sustainable, real estate investments need to be financially viable.
Deng et al. analyzed the financial viability of investments in energy efficiency and examined this
issue from the Singaporean residential developer’s perspective. The research revealed, that developers
pay for almost all of the additional costs of energy efficiency during construction; however, they only
share part of the benefits associated with such green investments. The authors found no evidence that
the development of green housing can immediately and significantly improve corporate financial
performance [53].
Trowbridge et al. underlined the health impacts of transportation, community development, and other
construction projects, both positive and negative within the real estate industry. Communities efficiently
advocate for real estate investment that best promotes their health and well-being. However, market
incentives for innovation within the real estate industry make it more difficult for developers that
successfully target health behaviors and outcomes in their projects to differentiate themselves
competitively [54].
Rakshan et al. evaluated the sustainability aspect of improved building insulation by including the
embodied energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the full lifecycle of additional
insulation materials in the overall sustainability balance sheet of the development. This study showed
that, in the particular case of the residential built environment of Dubai and the prevailing local electric
power source generation mechanisms, the environmental sustainability cost of adding the insulation
levels required to significantly mitigate transmission losses is small in comparison to the operational
GHG emissions saved by their application [55].
Investigation about portfolio greenness and the financial performance of real estate investment trusts
(REITs) was published by Eichholtz et al. The investigation of 2000–2011 proved that “greenness of
REITs is positively related to three measures of operating performance—return on assets, return on
equity and the ratio of funds from operations to total revenue” [56]. However, authors documented, “that
Sustainability 2015, 7 6502
there is no significant relationship between the greenness of property portfolios and abnormal stock
returns, suggesting that stock prices already reflect the higher cash flows deriving from investments in
more efficient properties”.
The sustainable land use issue and need in transformation of the role of the State and of corporate
land owners role was reported in the study carried out by Knoeffell et al. The investigation was based
on large empirical research results on huge urban development projects governed by models of
public-private-partnerships. The article demonstrates lack of sustainability, which stem from corporate
private land owners' decisions on concrete land uses, which are primarily driven by rapid profit interests [57].
Technical, financial, private partner selection and all three sustainability aspects were incorporated in
the Model for effectiveness evaluation of public-private partnership (PPP) automobile road
infrastructure construction projects developed by Rudžianskaitė-Kvaraciejienė et al. [58]. This study
revealed that the effectiveness of PPP infrastructure projects from the private partner perspective
depends on technical, financial and private partner’s competence factors, and project sustainability
metrics as well. The same tendency was identified for the public partner or sustainability perspective.
The level of project sustainability is directly related not only to environmental, social and economic
criteria, but also depends on technical and financial characteristics of the project as well as on the
competence of the private partner, whose experience and risk management would guarantee the success
and sustainability of the project.
Methods based on a single criterion can hardly be used in solving the problems associated with the
complex environment of decision-making in selecting an appropriate option for investment. Therefore,
the value and the utility degree of different alternatives for investment might be determined by
implementation of Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) techniques.
There are numerous MCDM tools, which can be successfully applied for the decision-making within
various sustainability issues. An analysis of MCDM methods and the observed advantages and
disadvantages, as well as areas of application for each method was published by Velasquez and
Hester [59]. MCDM methods were ranked based on their applicability and usage in various domains by
Aruldoss et al [60]. Most widely applied methods in decision making problem were rated as follows:
Technique for the Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS)—30% of all contributions,
Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP)—20% of all contributions, Elimination et Choix Traduisant la
Realite (ELECTRE)—16.67% of all contributions, Fuzzy MCDM—16.66% of all contributions,
Multicriteria Optimization and Compromise Solution VIKOR (from Serbian: VIseKriterijumska
Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje 6.67% of all contributions and other methods have been applied
in 10% of all contributions.
As the main MCDM tools used for environmental applications, three main approaches were indicated:
Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT), Outranking approaches and Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP) [61]. At the same time, other MCDM tools are widely used for the ranking of various
management alternatives, such as TOPSIS, Simple Additive Weighting (SAW), Complex Proportional
Assessment (COPRAS) and ELECTRE [62]. In particular, TOPSIS or fuzzy TOPSIS (TOPSIS-F)
approaches have been successfully implemented for selecting resource-saving alternatives and ranking
of economic decisions. However, according to the evaluation of different MCDM methods, and
measuring objective congruence (incongruence) of the obtained results by these methods, priority to the
results of COPRAS and TOPSIS methods should be given while treating economic and managerial
Sustainability 2015, 7 6503
issues [62]. Accordingly, multiple criteria evaluation results applying COPRAS and TOPSIS methods
can be considered to be identical within the same probability.
By taking into consideration the priorities of future development perspectives broadly discussed in
the scientific literature mentioned above, the authors of the paper developed the model that is
recommended for real estate development sustainability assessment during the feasibility study process.
The aim of the new model is to reveal systematic components affecting the development of sustainable
built environment from real estate project idea formation to the end of the life cycle as well as to evaluate
the overall investment effectiveness of real estate development in light of sustainable development. The
model reflects the logic of real estate project development sequence (see Figure 1). Real estate
development project concept stage refers to market research, objectives and constraints of building/
group of buildings and the urban area to be developed and improved by building(s). Fulfillment of
technical and functional requirements and analysis of different architectural design options are
incorporated into the formation stage of real estate development alternatives. In the sustainability
assessment stage, real estate development alternatives are evaluated by using selected MCDM
techniques. Criteria representing aspects of sustainable development reflect responsible investment
principles and real estate development contribution to sustainable regional development. Depending on
the object of assessment, criteria might be combined out of several specific sub-criteria that suit the
project and regional characteristics. Life cycle cost analysis of the project is incorporated into financial
analysis stage, as it helps to validate the project sustainability at the business case level. From the
developer’s point of view, real estate development alternatives have to prove the financial viability
issues. If the sustainable real estate development alternative appears to be in line with the financial
criteria (NPV, IRR, B/C, Payback period), it is selected for implementation.
The developed Model for Real Estate Investment Evaluation Based on Sustainable Development
Aspects is presented in Figure 2. Practical employment of developed Model for Real Estate Investment
Evaluation is introduced by the case study of multi-functional sports and entertainment arena investment
assessment based on the aspects of sustainable development.
Figure 1. Stages of sustainable real estate project development.
Sustainability 2015, 7 6504
Figure 2. Model for real estate investment evaluation based on sustainable development aspects.
Sustainability 2015, 7 6505
3. Lithuanian Case Study of Sports and Entertainment Arenas
The investment of public money towards the building, renovating and maintaining of sports venues
has regularly occurred over the past six decades [63]. Whilst some sports and entertainment venues can
generate an operating profit, the economic returns from operation do not generally pay back the initial
investment [64]. However, municipal and community governments have been subsidizing the construction
of sports stadiums and arenas because they serve the public interest beyond purely financial goals, since
they contribute to improving the quality of life, provide a potential for reviving the economy of a region,
help to enhance their international reputation, and boost relevant industries and business sectors [65].
To identify the existing approach and practice in the assessment of multi-functional arena investment,
a review of prevailing research focus areas was conducted, such as subsidization, economic and social
impact of large-scale sports venues, and their sustainable facility management. The subsidization of
professional sports facilities has inspired deeply contentious debates, as the opinion on the construction
of new large-scale venues is one of the most controversial topics for observers of public policy. Existing
research [66–68] focuses on identifying factors that induce voters to support or oppose plans for public
funding of sports facilities, construction or renovation. Independent empirical analyses are often used to
reject assertions that sports stadiums can serve as economic catalysts [69–71]. The broad conclusion of
this literature is that stadiums and franchises are ineffective means for creating local economic
development, whether that is measured as income or employment growth. However, in combination with
consumer surpluses from venue attendance, subsidies may be efficient. Based on this information,
municipal investment into sports venues should not be strictly looked at as a vehicle to produce economic
returns, since sports facilities are, indeed, viable social anchors within communities and community
networks [63,72,73]. Furthermore, they are capable of creating a preferred image for both community
members and a fan nation.
Sustainable issues in multi-functional venues facility management are important since sports and
entertainment facilities consume more resources and energy than typical, negatively impact the
environment, and generate a large amount of waste. Therefore, the employment of sustainable facilities
management strategies by using innovative energy-efficient technologies is also essential while
evaluating various sports and entertainment venues [74–76].
3.1. General Information about Lithuanian Multi-Functional Sports and Entertainment Arenas
The case study investigates the selection of investment option within assessment of existing
Lithuanian multi-functional arenas that provide not only financial efficiency for developers, but also
comply with the major aspects of sustainable development—economic, environmental and social.
There are fourteen sports’ arenas located in different cities and regional centers in Lithuania, which
can be categorized as multi-functional sports and entertainment venues [77,78]. The establishment of
venues has a positive impact on local economic development and urban landscape [79].
The majority of Lithuanian arenas are designed as universal halls for various sporting competitions,
concerts, exhibitions, performances and other various cultural events and also serve as the home venue
for local basketball teams [80–85]. Multi-functional arenas of the biggest cities—Zalgiris Arena of
Kaunas city; Svyturys Arena of Klaipeda city; Cido Arena of Panevezys city; Arena of Alytus city;
Sustainability 2015, 7 6506
Arena of Siauliai city—were built within the period of 2007–2011 and hosted the European Basketball
championship in 2011 [86]. Two arenas are individualized for their special features, such as 250-meter
long Olympic cycling track in Cido arena [85] and the big skating rink in Vilnius Entertainment arena,
formerly known as Vilnius Ice Palace [87].
Nine sports and entertainment venues were suggested and implicated in the case study assessment. In
regards to seating capacity of multi-functional venues, the suggested arenas are presented in all major
options: two large arenas with seating capacity over 10,000 seats, four average size arenas with capacity
from 5000 to 10,000 seats and three small ones with capacity under 5000 seats. While the biggest cities
arenas serve the population organizing the major sports and entertainment events, three Lithuanian
multi-functional arenas (Alytus, Utena and Kedainiai arenas) are part of large sport complexes and host
various sport schools and sport clubs, promoting youth sport activities [86,88,89]. Local municipalities
hold the ownership rights for five multi-functional sports and entertainment venues: Zalgiris, Svyturys,
Cido, Siauliai and Alytus arenas. Two arenas—Siemens Arena in capital city Vilnius rated as the second
biggest arena in Lithuania built in 2002 and Vilnius Entertainment Arena built in 2004—are specified
as private-owned; and one arena (Kedainiai Arena) was established by a private developer in 2013 and
bestowed to the city of Kedainiai. Zalgiris arena is the most expensive arena, with a construction cost of
49 million EUR; then, Cido, Siauliai, Siemens, Svyturys, Alytus, Utena, Kedainiai and Vilnius
Entertainment Arena with construction costs of 31 million EUR, 22 million EUR, 21 million EUR,
19 million EUR, 10 million EUR, 10 million EUR and 3 million EUR, respectively [77–80]. The range
of general quantitative and comparative characteristics of sports and entertainment arenas incorporated
in the case study is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. General characteristics of case study arenas.
Criteria Min value Max value
Capacity for basketball, seats 2200 15,688 Capacity for concerts, seats 3000 22,000 Max number of visitors 3044 17,000 Number of service area residents 26,080 523,050 Number of annual events 18 200 Number of visitors per year 50,000 500,000 Construction costs, million EUR 2.89 48.95 State investments, million EUR 0 35.42 Investments of EU funds, million EUR 0 12.88 Private investment, million EUR 0 16.22 Annual municipality subsidies, million EUR 0 0.72 Cost per seat, EUR 1158 5532 Investment rate, EUR per resident 19 1109
Based on the theoretical assumptions and a study of existing practices, the set of indicators, with the
help of which the aspects of sustainability can be assessed, is suggested and implicated in the evaluation
of investment into sports and entertainment arenas. It is useful and preferable to keep separated social,
environmental and economic performance of buildings [17]; therefore, proposed multi-functional venues
are assessed with indicators comprising the three mentioned aspects of sustainability (see Table 2).
Sustainability 2015, 7 6507
Valuable information about indicators of sustainability and other parameters of suggested multi-functional
arenas was gathered through surveys of arenas managers and operators carried out in 2014 and also
obtained from publicly available information sources [77–89]. The set of selected sustainability
indicators is presented in Table 2.
3.2. Development of Criteria System for Multi-Functional Arenas Sustainability Assessment
3.2.1. Social Criteria for Multi-Functional Arenas Assessment
The major social aspects, which are essential for multi-functional arena evaluation, were defined by
the respondents of a survey conducted, and are integration into the urban spaces, accessibility, annual
number of events, visitors’ comfort conditions and implementation of innovative solutions for events
performance. The operators’ and managers’ attempts and efforts to improve the living environment in
the region and satisfy existing public demands were also taken into consideration. The suggested
indicators of arena’s social performance have been grouped and assigned to three sustainability criteria
“accessibility of arenas”, “number of visited events per resident” and “visitors’ comfort conditions”.
Accessibility of arena and visitors’ comfort conditions are aggregated criteria, which represent the
assessment by several social indicators taken into consideration. Accessibility of arenas stands for such
indicators as distance from the city center, accessibility of arena by public and private transport,
availability of additional transportation from event venue and duration of departure from arena. City
residents as well as city visitors prefer it to be located in the city center, where the majority of public
transport routes are available. Furthermore, parking should be located less than 25 m from the venue to
make it more convenient for arena visitors. Generally, most sports and entertainments events take place
late in the evening and are over when ordinary public transport has stopped running, therefore, the
availability of public night routes or additional transportation from venue to various city areas is also
essential. At the same time, the needs of visitors coming by private vehicles must also be met—there
have to be enough parking spaces available and the possibility to enter and depart from parking place
easily, thus avoiding additional air pollution in the city center due to traffic jams.
Another social criterion, “visitors’ comfort conditions”, reveals such performance indicators as
significance of number and diversity of leisure zones, adaptability of arenas to different types of events,
implemented innovative solutions for the events performance and types of chairs for spectators; it
describes the level of comfort and convenience and the state of wellbeing of the multi-functional arena
visitor. Most events take a long time and usually last several hours; therefore the feeling of physical
comfort while sitting and observing the event is very important. To provide the spectators with a
high-level event and its comfortable observation, exceptional acoustic technologies must be employed
and advanced sound equipment installed; the arena spaces must be transformable in accordance with
observation requirements for different events; and, finally, the chairs must be comfortable to prevent
fatigue during long events. Diversity and availability of leisure zones is also relevant to the subject.
Sustainability2015, 7 6508
Table 2. Multi-functional arenas’ performance indicators.
Indicators Arenas
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9
S o ci
a l
a sp
ec t
Distance from city center, km 2 4 2 2 1 2 2 0 5
Service area, km2 44 401 1229 52 42 81 110 157 401
Additional transportation
by public vehicle Yes No No No No No Yes/No Yes No
Number of available
parking places 155 400 130 690 100 800 1500 1000 1650
Duration of departure by
private transport, min 10–20 20–30 10–20 10–20 10–20 10–20 10–20 20–30 20–30
Annual number of events 60 18 200 70 40 60 75 90 100
Annual number of visitors 50,000 100,000 50,000 130,000 80,000 160,000 160,600 500,000 413,000
Number of annually
visited events per resident 1.91 0.19 1.18 1.33 1.40 1.19 1.00 1.63 0.79
Number of leisure zones 6 3 2 10 2 9 10 21 22
Diversity of leisure zones Café/restaurant
Smoking place
Café/restaurant
Smoking place
Café/restaurant
Smoking place
Café/restaurant
Smoking place
Café/restaurant
Smoking place
Café/restaurant
Smoking place
Café/restaurant
Smoking place
Café/restaurant
Smoking place
Café/restaurant
Smoking place
Adaptability to different events Space
transformation
Space
transformation
Acoustic
adjustment
Space
transformation
Space
transformation
Acoustic
adjustment
Sound equipment
Space
transformation
Space
transformation
Acoustic
adjustment
Space
transformation
Acoustic
adjustment
Space
transformation
Acoustic
adjustment
Sound
equipment
Space
transformation
Acoustic
adjustment
Sound
equipment
Type of chairs Plastic Soft Plastic Soft Soft Soft Soft Soft Soft
Innovative solutions for
performance of events Scoreboard
Multipurpose
flooring,
Ticketing
Entrance,
Scoreboard
Ticketing,
Entrance,
Scoreboard,
Information cube
Entrance,
Scoreboard
Multipurpose
flooring,
Entrance,
Scoreboard,
Information
cube
Multipurpose
flooring,
Ticketing,
Entrance,
Scoreboard,
Information
cube
Multipurpose
flooring,
Ticketing,
Scoreboard,
Information
cube
Multipurpose
flooring,
Ticketing,
Scoreboard,
Information
cube
Sustainability2015, 7 6509
Table 2. Cont.
Indicators Arenas
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9
E n
v ir
o n
m en
ta l
a sp
ec t
Building energy
efficiency rating, class C C C C B C C B B
Specialist for
environmental protection No No No No No No No No No
BREEAM/LEED
certification No No No No No No No
Under
evaluation of
BREEAM
In-Use
No
Non-renewable energy Combined heat
and power Electricity
Combined
heat and
power
Combined
heat and
power
Combined
heat and
power
Electricity Electricity Electricity Electricity
Renewable energy No No No No No No No No No
Energy-saving measures Water sources
Recuperators,
El. sensors,
Low-energy
bulbs, Water
resources
Recuperators,
Low-energy
bulbs, Water
sources
Recuperators,
Low-energy
bulbs, Water
sources
Recuperators,
Low-energy
bulbs, Water
sources
Recuperators,
Low-energy
bulbs, Water
sources
Recuperators,
El. sensors,
Low-energy
bulbs
Recuperators,
El. sensors,
Low-energy
bulbs, Water
resources,
Energy
management
Recuperators,
El. sensors,
Low-energy
bulbs, Water
resources
Waste tracking No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Recycling No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sustainability2015, 7 6510
Table 2. Cont.
Indicators Arenas
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9
E co
n o
m ic
a sp
ec t
Investment rate, EUR per resident 246 6 240 321 187 164 98 159 37
State investments, % of the total - - 100 35 49 35 37 72 17
EU funds, % of the total - - - 65 51 65 63 28 -
Private investment, % of the total 100 100 - - - - - - 83
Number of full-time employees 8 12 28 11 10 14 14 40 17
Number of part-time employees - - - 50 20 25 30 300 100
Income of non-core business, % >50 >50 0–10 0–10 0–10 >50 40–50 20–30 10–20
Impact on urban
development within the area
Landscape
development
Shopping
malls, sport
complexes
Environment/
infrastructure,
sport and
leisure park
Environment/
infrastructure,
natural park
Environment/
infrastructure,
sport
complex,
natural park,
restaurants
Environment/
infrastructure,
natural park
Environment/
infrastructure,
shopping mall
Environment/
infrastructure,
shopping
mall, natural
park
Leisure park:
Aqua park,
shopping
mall, natural
park
Sustainability2015, 7 6511
Employment of innovative technologies during the construction and operation periods is one of the
factors reflecting the level of comfort and convenience; thus, it is quite essential to be outlined as social
indicator. Modern entrance and ticketing systems provide easier and faster access to arenas for visitors;
this, along with information panels and even information cubes, are the best solutions for observation of
sports competitions. Multipurpose flooring system gives visitors the chance to observe a wide variety of
events (e.g., both on parquet and ice).
Annual number of events indicates the demand in arena regarding its capabilities and location. The
suggested arena alternatives are located in different cities; therefore the events and provided activities
differ, while there is different population and demand for such events. Big number of organized events
shows the capabilities of arena to meet the needs of citizens in leisure and entertainment activities. The
criteria “number of visited events per resident” is an attribute, expressed by the means of ratio of
performed events number and city’s population, which indicates the number of events per city’s resident.
3.2.2. Environmental Criteria for Multi-Functional Arenas Assessment
As essential environmental aspects for multi-functional arena evaluation, energy efficiency class of
facility, “in-house” expert for environmental protection, BREEAM or LEED certification, type of energy
used, and application of energy saving, waste-tracking, and recycling techniques were accentuated.
These environmental indicators have been assigned to three environmental criteria “building energy
efficiency”, “environmental impact of arena’s activities” and “employment of innovative technologies
during construction and operation”.
The first environmental criterion to be evaluated is the “building energy efficiency”. Multi-functional
arenas with the highest energy efficiency class get the best evaluation. “Impact on the environment”
(noise, air pollution, waste, etc.) is another important environmental criterion. Environmental impact of
arena’s activities aggregates the points in regard to such indicators as available specialist for
environmental protection, BREEAM/LEED certification and sources for energy used by arenas.
Multi-functional sports and entertainment arenas consume relatively large amounts of electricity, to be
supplied within employed equipment (lighting, sound equipment, etc.); also, facilities require intense
heating and ventilation processes. Therefore, for the environmental assessment of arenas activities, it is
essential to examine how the processes are carried out, whether buildings are equipped with recuperative
energy systems and how they are used. It is also necessary to assess whether the arena managers are
trying to reduce the negative environmental impact by using renewable energy sources.
The environmental criterion “employment of innovative technologies during construction and
operation” shows how the suggested arenas implement various energy-saving, water and waste
management measures. Due to high-energy consumption, arenas have correspondingly high direct and
indirect negative effects on the environment (air pollution). Consequently, it is important to know if
suggested arenas are subjected to any of energy-saving techniques, such as heat recuperators, electrical
sensors, informative badges, low-energy light bulbs and water resources. Many arena visitors leaves
behind significant amounts of waste, both direct (mostly food packaging) and indirect (e.g., cleaning
after the event). It is important to find out whether the arena managers are trying to apply any waste
tracking and reducing measures; and if not, whether the waste in arenas is sorted.
Sustainability2015, 7 6512
3.2.3. Economic Criteria for Multi-Functional Arenas Assessment
While assessing the suggested arenas alternatives according to the economic aspects of sustainability,
the greatest consideration should be made to the investment rates, impact on urban development as well
as boosting relevant industries and business sectors. Consequently, three economic criteria were
selected: “investment rate”, “impact on relevant business” and “impact on urban development”.
Investment rate shows the total amount of investment, including state, EU funds and private money,
per resident. Development of the large-scale venues involves intensive capital investment and long-term
operational expenses. It is a common practice in Lithuania that a multi-functional arena is built using
public money; for this reason, it is extremely important that the costs are as low as possible. Additionally,
municipal and community governments subsidize the construction of some multi-functional arenas
because they expect the evidence for positive welfare effects on the environment as well as social
benefits. Therefore, the best evaluation should be given to the arena, in which the public and private
investment is the lowest.
Arenas cannot only perform its direct function to city’s residents and visitors, e.g., to be the venue of
event, but also provide additional services, such as catering, health, business and relevant industries.
Arenas can be useful not only during concerts or other events; but can also generate additional income
from commercial activities, which is a positive indicator in determining the effective use of the building
itself. By improvement of the financial situation of city residents, the economic level of the city
increases, respectively. The criterion “impact on relevant business” features incomes from
non-core business and development of relevant business sectors and number of jobs created for both
core and non-core activities. At the same time, the establishment of such sport and entertainment
facilities has a positive impact on the urban development, while contributing to the improvement of
landscape and creating modern infrastructure. The criterion “impact on urban development within the
area” covers various aspects of landscape development, potential for the future urban structure
expansion, and improvement related to the establishment of suggested arenas.
3.3. Evaluation Criteria System for Investment into Multi-Functional Arenas
In regard to the experts’ opinion in the conducted survey, and according to the evaluation of suggested
multi-functional venues alternatives, the set of criteria combining social, environmental and economic
aspects was developed. The generated criteria system, together with alternative rates, is presented in
Table 3. All criteria are expressed either by the ratio or by points in accordance with established point
system. The major part of criteria is aggregated attributes, combining few different performance
indicators, reflecting appropriate aspect of sustainable development.
The scoring of such aggregated criteria was defined as the summarized performance of particular set
of suggested performance indicators combined into general criteria. Consequently, the highest ranking
(9–10 points) scores were assigned to the aggregated criteria of suggested alternatives, which
demonstrated integrated value higher than 2/3 of the best performance value within the set of
incorporated initial criteria; the middle ranking (7–8 points) scores were assigned to the alternatives
attributing the range between the 2/3 and 1/3 of the best available performance value within the particular
set of incorporated criteria; and the lowest ranking (5–6 points) scores were assigned to the criteria of
Sustainability2015, 7 6513
alternatives demonstrated lower values than 1/3 of the best performance value within the particular set
of combining criteria. A score of 5 points stands for minimal acceptable assessment value in accordance
to the compulsory requirements of technical and legal regulations.
Table 3. Criteria system for evaluation of investment into multi-functional arenas.
Evaluation criteria Arenas
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9
Accessibility of arenas,
points [5,10] 9 6 7 8 7 8 9 10 10
Number of visited
events per resident 1.91 0.19 1.18 1.33 1.40 1.19 1.00 1.63 0.79
Visitors’ comfort
conditions, points [5,10] 7 8 6 8 7 8 8 10 10
Building energy performance,
points [5,10] 8 8 8 8 9 8 8 9 9
Environmental impact of
arena’s activities, points [5,10] 6 7 6 8 7 8 8 10 8
Innovative technologies
employed, points [5,10] 6 7 7 8 7 8 8 10 9
Investment rate,
EUR per resident 246 6 240 321 187 164 98 159 37
Impact on relevant
business, points [5,10] 7 6 6 7 7 7 8 9 8
Impact on urban
development, points [5,10] 7 6 7 7 8 8 8 10 9
Once the set of evaluation criteria is established Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis can be applied to
examine the problem of evaluating a discrete set of alternatives for investment into multi-functional arenas.
4. Results and Discussion
Most of the MCDM methods need the criteria weights, which can be determined by pairwise
comparison method Analytic Hierarchy Process or ranking expertise method. Therefore, the weights of
the criteria are calculated according to the judgments of experts.
4.1. Weights of Developed Evaluation Criteria
In order to establish the proper set of variables needed for investment assessment, the criteria and
their corresponding relative levels of importance have to be evaluated. Such subjective weighting of
established criteria was determined by using AHP as a subjective approach. AHP is one of the most
widely used methods in various fields of research that provides means to optimize decision-making from
a quantitative analysis and minimize impacts related to the use of purely qualitative methods [50].
Information about subjective weighting of developed criteria was gathered through pairwise
comparisons questionnaire carried out in 2014. The questionnaire was issued to 28 experts; the major
groups of respondents were managers and operators of multi-functional arenas (38%), environmental
Sustainability2015, 7 6514
consultants (21%), researchers and academics, real estate and civil engineering professionals (21%) and
community representatives (20%).
Table 4 shows the weighting assigned to the proposed investment evaluation criteria obtained from
the pairwise evaluation. As can be seen from the weighting assignment results, the economic aspect,
representing over 42% of the total, is considered more important than the environmental aspect,
representing over 36%, and the social aspect, representing over 21%.
Table 4. Weights of evaluation criteria.
Criteria Subjective weight, % Weighting by sustainability aspects Accessibility of arenas 5.44
Social aspect—21.41% Number of visited events per resident 7.06 Visitors’ comfort conditions 8.91 Building energy performance 9.61
Environmental aspect—36.34% Environmental impact of arena’s activities 11.34 Innovative technologies employed 15.39
Investment rate 14.35 Economic aspect—42.25% Impact on relevant businesses 13.54
Impact on urban development 14.36
In the context of real estate investment sustainability evaluation, several criteria of multi-functional
arenas are of particular importance; these include employment of innovative technologies during
construction and operation, investment rate, impact on relevant business and impact on urban
development. In relation to the economic aspects the criteria “impact on urban development” and
“investment rate” were ranked almost at the same importance within subjective weight of 14.36% and
14.35%, and more important than the criterion “impact on relevant business”, with significance of
13.54%. Employment of innovative technologies during construction and operation, which is
represented by 15.39%, in relation to the environmental aspects, holds priority over other criteria.
Visitors’ comfort conditions, represented by 8.91%, were considered the most important criterion in
relation to the social aspects.
After the weights of the criteria were calculated, the concordance of expert judgments was verified.
It showed the sufficient coherence of the invited experts’ preferences and adequate use of their
extensive knowledge.
4.2. Evaluation of Investments into Multi-Functional Arenas Based on Sustainability Aspects
Multi-criteria analysis of selected multi-functional sports and entertainment arenas investment
alternatives was performed applying TOPSIS. The basic concept of TOPSIS is that the selected
alternative should have the shortest distance from the ideal solution and the longest distance from the
negative-ideal solution; and the benefits are that the only required judgments are weights of evaluation
criteria, while relative distances depend on the weights and on the range of alternatives themselves [61].
According to the calculated separation measures from negative ideal and positive ideal solutions, the
rate of the relative closeness to the ideal solution was established. Almost all suggested criteria,
representing social, environmental and economic aspects, are expected to reach their maximum values,
Sustainability2015, 7 6515
while only criterion “Investment rate” is targeted to the minimum. The relative closeness of the
investment alternatives to the ideal solution is given in Table 5.
Table 5. Relative closeness and rank of investment alternatives.
Ranking Arenas
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9
Relative closeness 0.32 0.43 0.23 0.30 0.42 0.49 0.59 0.81 0.75 Rank 7 5 9 8 6 4 3 1 2
The established rates of the relative closeness to the ideal solution provide the basis for the
sustainability categorization, assigned to one set out in LEED, BREEAM and SBTool [45].
Multi-functional arenas’ sustainability categories are presented in Table 6.
Arenas as public buildings, serving community interests, are not considered as the real estate
development objects of high financial profitability. However, taking into consideration the limited
financial resources of the municipalities, which are the owners of the majority of arenas, the
social-economic benefit/cost ratio plays an important role for the integrated performance assessment.
Furthermore, the municipal subsidies granted to the multi-functional arenas are the money of the same
taxpayers’, who’s recreational needs sports and entertainment venues are dedicated to meet. Annual
financial subsidy rates per resident are presented in Table 7.
Table 6. Sustainability categorization for multi-functional arenas.
Categories of sustainability Investment alternative Rate
Towards sustainability (0%–49%)
X3 23% X4 30% X1 32% X5 42% X2 43% X6 49%
Sustainable (50%–79%) X7 59% X9 75%
In search of new paradigms (80%–100%) X8 81%
Table 7. Annual subsidies for multi-functional arenas.
Financial criteria Arenas
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9
Annual amount of subsidies per resident, EUR
3 - 2 6 5 2 - 2 -
Consequently, the aggregated score for various investment alternatives can be established considering
both sustainability and financial issues (see Table 8). The developers are encouraged to employ the
overall ranking approach, while evaluating possible investment into public property options of new real
estate development.
Sustainability2015, 7 6516
Table 8. Overall evaluation of investment into multi-functional arenas.
Ranking Arenas
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9
Ranking based on sustainability aspects
7 5 9 8 6 4 3 1 2
Ranking based on financial performance
5 1 4 7 6 2 1 3 1
Aggregated rank 12 6 13 15 12 6 4 4 3
Overall ranking 4 3 5 6 4 3 2 2 1
5. Conclusions
The review of scientific literature revealed that, despite extended efforts to evaluate the sustainability
aspects of the real estate development, very few attempts have been presented that pursue integrating
and balancing the investors and real estate developers’ responsibility for the local community, regional
economy, and environmental problems with their financial expectations.
The Model for Real Estate Investment Evaluation Based on Sustainable Development Aspects
developed by the authors incorporates the systematic components affecting the development of
sustainable built environment from real estate project idea formation to the end of the life cycle as well
as enables evaluating the overall investment effectiveness of real estate development in light of sustainable
development. This approach raises awareness amongst owners, occupants, and investors to justify the
design, construction and operation solutions, while preparing the feasibility study of new real estate
development.
The model was verified by applying it to the case study of Lithuanian sports and entertainment arenas.
Priority ranking results of nine multi-functional arenas’ sustainability performance approved the
proposed approach of real estate investment evaluation based on sustainable development aspects.
Assessment of Lithuanian sports and entertainment arenas by the Model for Real Estate Investment
Evaluation Based on Sustainable Development Aspects revealed the sustainability advantages of three
Lithuanian arenas, whilst the analysis of the financial performance disclosed that positive sustainability
effects the owner’s and operator’s monetary liabilities.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the respondents who participated in the survey.
Author Contributions
All authors contributed equally to this work. Tautvydas Baltramonaitis developed the model and
conducted the expert interviews as well as initial quantitative and qualitative data collection.
Rasa Apanavičienė led the development of the methodology for this research. Ala Daugėlienė revised
and expanded the initial data and performed multi-criteria analysis. Rasa Apanavičienė and
Ala Daugėlienė wrote the initial draft of this paper. Vida Maliene was responsible for the final paper
revision and improvement. All authors discussed the results and implications, and commented on the
manuscript at all stages.
Sustainability2015, 7 6517
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References and Notes
1. Ober-Haus Real Estate Advisors. Available online: http://www.ober-haus.lt (accessed on 1 February 2015).
2. Real estate market report 2015. Available online: http://www.ober-haus.lt/wp-content/ uploads/2015/03/Ober-Haus-Market-Report-Baltic-States-2015.pdf (accessed on 1 March 2015).
3. Sorainen. Available online: http://www.sorainen.com (accessed on 1 March 2015). 4. BREEAM New Construction. Technical Manual SD5073, 2011. Available online:
http://www.breeam.org/breeamGeneralPrint/breeam_non_dom_manual_3_0.pdf (accessed on 22
November 2014).
5. LEED v4 BD+C: New Construction, 2013. Available online: http://www.usgbc.org/credits/ newconstruction/v4 (accessed on 22 November 2014).
6. DGNB System fürGebäude, 2014. Available online: http://www.dgnb-system.de/de/system/ kriterien (accessed on 15 May 2014).
7. CASBEE for Building (New Construction). Available online: http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/ english/download.htm (accessed on 15 May 2014).
8. HQE. Assessment Scheme for the Environmental Performance of Buildings—“Non-residential buildings”—Version 7 June 2012. Available online: http://www.certivea.fr/home (accessed on 15
May 2014).
9. SBTool 2012. Available online: http://www.iisbe.org/sbtool-2012 (accessed on 15 May 2014). 10. Vesta Consulting. Available online: http://www.vestaconsulting.lt/en.html (accessed on 15
December 2014).
11. Republic of Lithuania Law on Environmental Impact Assessment of the Proposed Economic Activity. No I-1495, 15 August 1996. (As last amended on 30 June 2008—No X-1654) Vilnius.
12. The Lithuanian Law on Construction. Available online: http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/ dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=454053 (accessed on 15 May 2014).
13. Methodology for investment projects seeking for financial assistance under European Structural Funds and/or State Budget; amended on 31 December 2014 No 2014/8-337 by Central Project
Management Agency. Available online: http://www.esinvesticijos.lt/lt/dokumentai/ investiciju-
projektu-kuriems-siekiama-gauti-finansavima-is-europos-sajungos-strukturines-paramos-ir-ar-
valstybes-biudzeto-lesu-rengimo-metodika (accessed on 10 January 2015).
14. Methodology for the quality review of optimal alternative selection for project implementation; amended on 13 October 2014 No 13 by Managing Authority of EU Structural Funds in 2014–2020.
Available online: http://www.esinvesticijos.lt/lt/dokumentai/optimalios-projekto-igyvendinimo-
alternatyvos-pasirinkimo-kokybes-vertinimo-metodika (accessed on 17 November 2014).
15. ISO TC59 SC 17 Sustainability in buildings and civil engineering works. Available online: http://www.iso.org/iso/standards_development/technical_committees/other_bodies/iso_technical_
committee.htm?commid=322621 (accessed on 20 April 2015).
Sustainability2015, 7 6518
16. CEN Technical Committee 350 Sustainability of Construction Works. Available online: http://www.cen.eu/cen/Sectors/Sectors/Construction/SustainableConstruction/Pages/CEN_TC350.
aspx (accessed on 20 April 2015).
17. SuPerBuilding. Sustainability and performance assessment and benchmarking of building. Available online: http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/technology/2012/T72.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2015).
18. OPEN HOUSE. Benchmarking and mainstreaming building sustainability in the UE based on transparency and openness from model to implementation. Available online: http://www.openhouse-
fp7.eu/assets/files/D1.5_Baseline_model_and_assessment_methodology.pdf (accessed on 20
April 2015).
19. Lowe, C.; Ponce, A. UNEP-FI /SBCI’S financial & sustainability metrics report. An international review of sustainable building performance indicators & benchmarks. Available online:
http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/metrics_report_01.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2014).
20. Sustainable Construction: Realising the Opportunities for Built Environment Professionals. Available online: http://www.rics.org/Global/Europe%20publications/Sustainable%20Construction_
Realising%20the%20Opportunities%20(Oct%202013).pdf (accessed on 20 March 2014).
21. Sustainability Metrics. Translation and Impact on Property Investment and Management. A report by the Property Working Group of the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative.
Available online: http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/UNEPFI_SustainabilityMetrics_
Web.pdf (accessed on 15 December 2014).
22. Principles Responsible Investment for Building responsible property portfolios. A review of current practice by UNEP FI and PRI signatories. UNIEP, 2008. Available online: http://www.unepfi.org/
fileadmin/documents/building_responsible_property_portfolios.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2014).
23. Sustainable Property Investment & Management Key Issues & Major Challenges. Available online: http://www.joinricsineurope.eu/uploads/files/Sustainable%20Property%20Investment%20and%20
management%20RICS%20sept%2008.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2014).
24. Principles of responsible investing. Available online: http://www.unpri.org (accessed on 20 April 2015). 25. Zielenbach, S. Measuring the impact of community development. Available online:
http://www.bostonfed.org/commdev/c&b/2004/fall/measuring.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2015).
26. Castellani, V.; Sala, S. Sustainability Indicators Integrating Consumption Patterns in Strategic Environmental Assessment for Urban Planning. Sustainability 2013, 5, 3426–3446.
27. Zhang, X.; Wu, Y.; Skitmore, M.; Jiang, S. Sustainable infrastructure projects in balancing urban–rural development: Towards the goal of efficiency and equity. J. Cleaner Prod. 2014,
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.09.068
28. McDonald, S.; Malys, N.; Maliene, V. Urban regeneration for sustainable communities: A case study. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2009, 15, 49–59.
29. Boz, M.; El-adaway, I. Creating a Holistic Systems Framework for Sustainability Assessment of Civil Infrastructure Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2014, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-
7862.0000911.
30. Shen, L.; Wu, Y.; Zhang, X. Key Assessment Indicators for the Sustainability of Infrastructure Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2011, 137, 441–451.
Sustainability2015, 7 6519
31. Adetola, A.; Goulding, J.; Liyange, C. Collaborative engagement approaches for delivering sustainable infrastructure projects in the AEC sector: A Review. Int. J. Constr. Supply Chain
Manag. 2011, 1, 1–24.
32. Jakimavičius, M.; Burinskienė, M. Multiple criteria assessment of a new tram line development scenario in Vilnius City public transport system. Transport 2013, 28, 431–437
33. Griškevičiūtė-Gečienė, A.; Burinskienė, M. Towards creating the assessment methodology for urban road transport development projects. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2012, 18, 651–671.
34. Shari, Z.; Soebarto, V. Investigating sustainable practices in the Malaysian office building developments. Constr. Innov. 2014, 14, 17–37.
35. Prochorskaite, A.; Maliene, V. Health, well-being and sustainable housing. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 2013, 17, 44–57.
36. Yates, J. Design and Construction for Sustainable Industrial Construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2014, 140, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000673
37. Xia, B.; Skitmore, M.; Wu, P.; Chen, Q. How Public Owners Communicate the Sustainability Requirements of Green Design-Build Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2014, 140, doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000879.
38. Vatalis, K.I.; Manoliadis, O.; Charalampides, G.; Platias, S.; Savvidis, S. Sustainability Components Affecting Decisions for Green Building Projects. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2013, 5,
747–756.
39. Vaiškūnaitė, R.; Mieriauskas, P.; Špakauskas, V. Biodiversity impacts assessment in road development in Lithuania. Transport 2012, 27, 187–195.
40. Valdes-Vasquez, R.; Klotz, L. Social Sustainability Considerations during Planning and Design: Framework of Processes for Construction Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 80–89.
41. Mostafa, M.; El-Gohary, N. Stakeholder-Sensitive Social Welfare–Oriented Benefit Analysis for Sustainable Infrastructure Project Development. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2014, 140, doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000788
42. Snieška, V.; Šimkūnaitė, I. Socio-Economic Impact of Infrastructure Investments. Eng. Econ. (Inzinerine Ekonomika) 2009, 3, 16–25.
43. Wang, N.; Wei, K.; Sun, H. Whole Life Project Management Approach to Sustainability. J. Manag. Eng. 2014, 30, 246–255.
44. Swarup, L.; Korkmaz, S.; Riley, D. Project Delivery Metrics for Sustainable, High-Performance Buildings. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2011, 137, 1043–1051.
45. Bragança, L.; Mateus, R.; Koukkari, H. Building Sustainability Assessment. Sustainability 2010, 2, 2010–2023.
46. Markelj, J.; KitekKuzman, M.; Grošelj, P.; Zbašnik-Senegačnik, M. A Simplified Method for Evaluating Building Sustainability in the Early Design Phase for Architects. Sustainability 2014, 6,
8775–8795.
47. Waas, T.; Hugé, J.; Block, T.; Wright, T.; Benitez-Capistros, F.; Verbruggen, A. Sustainability Assessment and Indicators: Tools in a Decision-Making Strategy for Sustainable Development.
Sustainability 2014, 6, 5512–5534.
48. Bragança, L.; Vieira, S.M.; Andrade, J.B. Early Stage Design Decisions: The Way to Achieve Sustainable Buildings at Lower Costs. Sci. World J. 2014, doi:10.1155/2014/365364.
Sustainability2015, 7 6520
49. Wong, J.K.-W.; Kuan, K.-L. Implementing ‘BEAM Plus’ for BIM-based sustainability analysis. Autom. Constr. 2014, 44, 163–175.
50. VillarinhoRosa, L.; Haddad, A.N. Building Sustainability Assessment throughout Multicriteria Decision Making. J. Constr. Eng. 2013, 2013, Article 578671.
51. Azhar, S.; Carlton, W.A.; Olsen, D.; Ahmad, I. Building information modelling for sustainable design and LEED rating analysis. Autom. Constr. 2011, 20, 217–224.
52. Luetzkendorf, T.; Fan, W.; Lorenz, D. Engaging financial stakeholders: Opportunities for a sustainable built environment. Build. Res. Inf. 2011, 39, 483–503.
53. Deng, Y.; Wu, J. Economic returns to residential green building investment: The developers’ perspective. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2014, 47, 35–44.
54. Trowbridge, M.J.; Pickell, S.G.; Pyke, C.R.; Jutte, D.P. Building Healthy Communities: Establishing Health and Wellness Metrics for Use within the Real Estate Industry. Health Affairs
2014, 33, 1923–1929.
55. Rakhshan, K.; Friess, W.A.; Tajerzadeh, S. Evaluating the sustainability impact of improved building insulation: A case study in the Dubai residential built environment. Build. Environ. 2013,
67, 105–110.
56. Eichholtz, P.; Kok, N.; Yonder, E. Portfolio greenness and the financial performance of REITs. J. Int. Money Finance 2012, 31, 1911–1929.
57. Knoepfel, P.; Csikos, P.; Gerber, J.D. Transformation of the Role of the State and of Corporate Land Owners in Urban Development Processes in Light of Sustainable Development. Politische
Vierteljahresschrift 2012, 53, 414–443.
58. Rudžianskaitė–Kvaraciejienė, R.; Apanavičienė, R.; Gelžinis, A. Modelling the effectiveness of PPP road infrastructure projects by applying random forests. J. Civil Eng. Manag. 2015, 21,
290–299.
59. Velasquez, M.; Hester, P.T. An Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods. Int. J. Oper. Res. 2013, 10, 56−66.
60. Aruldoss, M.; Lakshmi, T.M.; Venkatesan, V.P. A Survey on Multi Criteria Decision Making Methods and Its Applications. Am. J. Inf. Syst. 2013, 1, 31–43.
61. Huang, I.; Keisler, J.; Linkov, I. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Environmental Science: Ten Years of Applications and Trends. Sci. Total Environ. 2011, 409, 3578–3594.
62. Antucheviciene, J.; Zakarevicius, A.; Zavadskas, E.K. Measuring congruence of ranking results applying particular MCDM methods. Informatica 2011, 22, 319–338.
63. Seifried, C.; Clopton, A.W. An alternative view of public subsidy and sport facilities through social anchor theory. City Culture Soc. 2013, 4, 49–55.
64. Liu, Y.; Zhao, G.; Wang, S. Case Study VI—The National Stadium BOT Project for Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. In Public—Private Partnership in Infrastructure Development: Case Studies from
Asia and Europe; Bauhaus-Universität Weimar: Weimar, Germany, 2009; pp. 130–152.
65. Liu, T.; Wilkinson, S. Large-scale public venue development and the application of Public—Private Partnerships (PPPs). Int. J. Project Manag. 2013, 32, 88–100.
66. Kellison, T.B.; Mondello, M.J. Organisational perception management in sport: The use of corporate pro-environmental behaviour for desired facility referenda outcomes. Sport Manag. Rev.
2012, 15, 500–512.
Sustainability2015, 7 6521
67. Lasley, S.; Turner, J. Home run or strikeout: The dynamics of public opinion on new sports facilities. Soc. Sci. J. 2010, 47, 853–864.
68. Coates, D.; Humphreys, B.R. Proximity benefits and voting on stadium and arena subsidies. J. Urban Econ. 2006, 59, 285–299.
69. Grieve, J.; Sherry, E. Community benefits of major sport facilities: The Darebin International Sports Centre. Sport Manag. Rev. 2012, 15, 218–229.
70. Propheter, G. Are basketball arenas catalysts of economic development? J. Urban Affairs 2012, 34, 441–459.
71. Jones, C.; Munday, M.; Roche, N. Can regional sports stadia ever be economically significant? Reg. Sci. Policy Pract. 2010, 2, 63–78.
72. Ahlfeldt, G.; Maennig, W. Stadium Architecture and Urban Development from the Perspective of Urban Economics. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2010, 34, 629–646.
73. Barghchi, M.; Omar, D.B.; Aman, S.M. Sports Facilities Development and Urban Generation. J. Soc. Sci. 2009, 5, 460–465.
74. Mallen, C.; Chard, C. “What could be” in Canadian sport facility environmental sustainability. Sport Manag. Rev. 2012, 15, 230–243.
75. Mallen, C.; Adams, L.; Stevens, J.; Thompson, L. Environmental sustainability in sport facility management: A Delphi study. Eur. Sport Manag. Q. 2010, 10, 367–389.
76. Koukiasa, M. Sustainable Facilities Management within Event Venues. Worldw. Hosp. Tour. Themes 2011, 3, 217–228.
77. Biggest Lithuanian arenas. Available online: http://www.topten.lt/didziausios-lietuvos-arenos/ (accessed on 15 September 2014).
78. Nine basketball arenas were built in Lithuania within the last five years for 400 million LTL. Available online: http://www.15min.lt/sportas/naujiena/krepsinis/lietuvos-krepsinio-arenos-23-
420053 (accesses on 15 September 2014).
79. What makes the arenas, established for basketball championship. Available online: http://www.lrt.lt/naujienos/kalba_vilnius/32/78505/kuo_gyvena_krepsinio_cempionatui_gausiai_s
tatytos_arenos_ (accessed on 15 December 2014).
80. Official website of Alytus Arena. Available online: http://www.asrc.lt/ (accessed on 15 September 2014).
81. Official website of Zalgiris Arena. Available online: http://zalgirioarena.lt/ (accessed on 15 September 2014).
82. Official website of Siemens Arena. Available online: http://www.siemens-arena.com/ (accessed on 15 September 2014).
83. Official website of Svyturys Arena. Available online: http://svyturioarena.lt/ (accessed on 15 September 2014).
84. Official website of Siauliai Arena. Available online: http://www.siauliuarena.lt/ (accessed on 15 September 2014).
85. Official website of Cido Arena. Available online: http://www.cidoarena.lt/ (accessed on 15 September 2014).
Sustainability2015, 7 6522
86. Arenas of EuroBasket 2011: Pride of Lithuania. Available online: http://www.basketzone.lt/ naujienos/8672-eurobasket-2011-arenos-lietuvos-pasididiavimas-foto.html (accessed on 15
September 2014).
87. Official website of Vilnius Entertainment Arena. Available online: http://www.pramoguarena.lt/ (accessed on 15 September 2014).
88. Official website of Utena Arena. Available online: http://www.sportas.utena.lm.lt/ (accessed on 15 September 2014).
89. Official website of Kedainiai Arena. Available online: http://kedainiu-arena.lt/ (accessed on 15 September 2014).
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
