Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering 2021/1/28 56 *Corresponding author: Diana.Bajare@rtu.lv Investigation of Social Opinion on Green Lifestyle and Eco- friendly Buildings. Decision Making Criteria Received 2020/12/07 Accepted after revision 2021/01/19 Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering Vol. 1 / No. 28 / 2021 pp. 56-71 DOI 10.5755/j01.sace.28.1.28092 Investigation of Social Opinion on Green Lifestyle and Eco-friendly Buildings. Decision Making Criteria JSACE 1/28 http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.sace.28.1.28092 Vladimirs Šatrevičs, Irina Voronova Riga Technical University, Kalnciema Street, Room 412, Riga, LV-1048 Diana Bajare* Institute of Materials and Structure, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Riga Technical University Introduction The present paper develops decision-making criteria through literature research to assess the social opinion on green life style and eco-friendly buildings. Validity of criteria was ensured among company executives and academic staff, based on elaborated criteria small pilot survey was performed and analysed. Current research focuses on the influence of demographic variables (e.g., age, gender) and individual subjective characteristic factors; external influencing factors (e.g., social norms, policies) are not used. According to the research results, our concept helps to outline the most crucial factors in industry regarding customer subjective requirements on eco-friendly building and innovative building materials. Nowadays companies need to meet customer requirements in order to adjust them in terms of eco-innovation approach and industry’s green ecosystem development and remove the gaps in value preposition. This paper helps to investigate respondents’ awareness, requirements, and willingness-to-pay for the eco-friendly houses. Keywords: sustainable development, eco-friendly-house, green life style awareness, eco-innovation, willingness to pay, eco-feedback Eco-friendly homes need to be integrated with energy economical technologies to avoid wasting resources and increase customers` comfort. Though the green-house technologies and assess- ment tools are utilized in the housing market, problems like cost, comfort and performance ex- pectation issues in client behaviours should be disclosed. The aim of the study is to identify factors that influence the decision to choose green lifestyle, new eco-building materials and discuss them in focus groups in order to develop a valid questionnaire. The main task of the study is to develop a valid questionnaire for opinion assessment. The present research develops a questionnaire survey, investigates the willingness-to-pay (WTP) and aware- ness factors that have the influence on Eco-friendly houses. Respondents’ priorities and aware- ness towards eco-friendly houses: like eco design, air ventilation, sound protection, illumination, and also the management of house performance are known, analysed and discussed. According to the respondents’ awareness and factor priorities, along with behaviour model the conceptual guidance for eco-friendly developers, designers, and engineers in developing Eco-house with best performance and price may well be elaborated. 57 Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering 2021/1/28 The full research design is explained on Fig.5, but shortly - we built a conceptual model (Fig. 2) for the questionnaire dimensions, then used Systematic Literature Review as main methodology to elaborate criteria for the survey and validated them in focus groups (during 2 weeks, interviews among company executives and academic staff were conducted). The authors chose triangulation to ensure the research validity and reliability (data validation through expert focus groups, expert interviews, and feedback from pilot groups). After obtaining the survey questions, we conducted a small pilot study among respondents to ensure that all questions are finally valid and to have preliminary results for the upcoming big scale survey which will be performed later. Our future research direction will be to identify correlations among factors. Recycling and energy efficiency are the most contemporary approahes important for the European Union green policy in order to enhance environmental sustainability (Hinchliffe and Akkerman 2017). In this context, engineering products with eco-efficiency, selection of environmental-friendly materials and technologies to meet requirements with a low environmental impact is extremely topical. So, there is an increased consideration of the design concept and material selection concurrently at the early stage of the product development (Shqipe Buzuku 2017). As a result, eco-design tools are necessary to minimize the environmental impact due to the product’s materials and related processes. But these tools need to satisfy customers and collaborate with the entrepreneurial ecosystem in order to create a circular economy. Geissdoerfer (Geissdoerfer et al. 2017) defined a circular economy as “a regenerative system in which resource input and waste, emission, and energy leakage are minimised by slowing, closing, and narrowing material and energy loops. This can be achieved through long-lasting design, mainte- nance, repair, reuse, remanufacturing, refurbishing, and recycling.” A circular economy is built upon industrial ecology, eco-efficiency, cradle-to-cradle manufacturing, as well as sustainable production and consumption (Kuo and Smith 2018). The provision of information about others’ energy consumption and one’s own performance, a process called eco-feedback, could thus improve household energy conser- vation (Kuo et al. 2018). The collaborative environment with clusters of industrial technologies, materials and engineering reveals up possibilities to upgrade the eco-house practices of companies towards an customized innovation strategy requiring understanding of market demand structure. Another objective of innovation strategies is to promote the increasing awareness of sustainable materials, using different activities like dissemination of results, virtual and physical user-experiences with models, prototypes and concepts (Cicconi 2020). Only several studies have been conducted to explore the relationship be- tween eco-house factors and energy consumption behaviour (Shen et al. 2020). However awareness and dissemination can raise residents’ sense of responsibility to increase en- ergy efficiency to some level, but such efforts seldom translate into changing the responsible energy consumption of a customers (Azar and Al Ansari 2017). Usually in situation when individuals realize environmental impact and receive information on how to improve one’s own eco-behaviour, their could change their behaviour (Asensio and Delmas 2015). For instance, a study conducted in Sweden showed that although households have awareness of the issue of energy conservation, they lack sufficient knowledge about how to reduce their energy consumption (Vassileva and Campillo 2014). Many research shows that lifestyle and perceived value of comfort define an individual’s participation in energy-saving programs and products (Thondhlana and Kua 2016). Overall eco-environmental be- haviour and attitude is positively related to willingness to buy energy-efficient products (Trotta 2018). In this paper, the research focuses on current awareness of sustainable materials and eco-build- ing usability and maintenance. We also try to assess factors which customers find important when selecting appropriate building in order to provide guidance for eco-friendly house developers. The eco- friendly framework To provide a more precise understanding of the consumer behaviour towards eco-friendly prod- ucts and services, we provide a concept analysis. The eco-innovation approach has been empha- sized since the 1990s based on the concept presented by Claude Fussler and Peter James (Fussler 1996). These authors determined that eco-innovation is a ‘process of developing new products, Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering 2021/1/28 58 processes, and services, which generates value for the company and for the customer, along with a reduction in environmental impact’ (den Hond 1997). Bitencourt (2020) sees eco-innovation as ‘research and contribution for ecological economics’ (Bitencourt et al. 2020). They investigate the main drivers (capabilities and resources) and results (consumer value) of eco-innovation. Another significant factor of ecological awareness – acknowledge of environmental impact of on ecosystems (Carson 1962), is one of the aspects which affects consumers’ decision. We have a practical approach to consumer choices; consumer behavior research could be concentrated more on studying actual product decision rather than environmental attitudes (Rokka and Uusita- lo 2008). Move towards understanding ‘actual behaviours within their decision-making contexts’ (Lockrey et al. 2018). There are a plenty of strategies designed to implement sustainable development, such as the case of eco-efficiency ‘which establishes the relationship between economy and ecology’ (Vasquez et al. 2019) (Vasquez et al. 2019). In 1898, a theory of communication called the AIDA model (Attention, Interest, Desire, and Action) was developed based on a study of the life insurance industry that describes the cognitive phases experienced by an individual receiving a new idea or a new product (Michaelson and Stacks 2011). According to Heath and Feldwick (2008), the AIDA (Awareness, Inter- est, Desire, and Action) model contains ‘a four-step formula to get attention, attract interest, create desire, and then take action’ that is the purchase (Heath and Feldwick 2008). This model is very crucial in assessing the impact of advertising since it is helping to control every step of the psycho- logical transformation up to the purchase made by the individuals (Kojima et al. 2010). Although the model is very old and has a variety of modifications, the basic principle remains unchanged and is still useful nowadays, so we use it to explain a customer decision process. Another widely adopted socio-psychology theoretical model is the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen 1991). The TPB suggests that ‘an individual’s behaviour is entirely determined by in- tention and perceived behavioural control’, and the willing to buy is also defined by perceived be- havioural control, individual`s attitude and other subjective norms. Customers still need to receive awareness of a product, then show interest in the product according to the benefits of the product, and then show a desire to have these products since they satisfy they demand and decide to pur- chase (Michaelson and Stacks 2011). However, Echegaray and Hansstein (2017) argue ‘there might be a gap between an intention and behaviour since an intention to do something cannot always be translated directly into action’ (Echegaray and Hansstein 2017). It means that even if a customer is willing to pay (intention or desire), the action itself could require something more. There are also external factors important for society in eco-innovation, besides personal satisfaction. The Human Development Index (HDI) demonstrates that eco-innovation is promoted in countries with envi- ronmental problems (Sarasini 2009, Bitencourt et al. 2020). As methodological research Gimenez (2012) recommended to take into account eco-innovation and relationship with ‘eco-demands of all stakeholders’ (Gimenez et al. 2012). So, in these countries it is necessary to provide more advantag- es to raise awareness and it should be a significant part of the research. Based on the results of the 20 BM frameworks analysis, Biloslavo et.al (2018) proposed a new BM framework termed “Value Triangle” (VT).(Biloslavo et al. 2018). The VT (Value Triangle) de- fines ‘co-create value within a business ecosystem that includes society and natural environment’ (Stubbs and Cocklin 2008). More specifically, the Value Triangle is showing how company co-cre- ates and co-delivers value with its stakeholders and capture economic value from it (Fig. 1). The framework is developed by using Richardson (2008) three main components: value proposition, value co-creation and co-delivery system, and the value capture system (Richardson 2008). The val- ue proposition includes: Public value, Customer value, Partner value. Value created by a company is delivered to different stakeholders. In the Value Triangle value is received by customers, partners, sup- pliers, social actors and by the company itself (Biloslavo et al. 2018). From Biloslavo (2018) analysis is 59 Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering 2021/1/28 concluded that the knowledge relating to the sus- tainability and eco-values as such a collaboration, co-creation, are drivers to deliver a sustainability. We also believe the current study gives ba- sis for rethink and change the company’ be- haviour forward to the process of developing a eco-system according to the sustainability, but we wish to contribute more in this research in Customer Value proposition. The innovation is, of course, considered as organizational involv- ing the reorganization of structures, process- es, new approaches of management, organi- zational systems (Klewitz and Hansen 2014, de Oliveira Brasil et al. 2016). In order to build green value proposition for customers or so- ciety, designers and engineers should propose certain tools for eco-innovation. Fig. 1 The Value Triangle (VT) Source: (Biloslavo et al. 2018) According to scientists ‘eco-innovation has the capacity to attract green profitability by reducing the environmental impact and creating value for customers and reducing costs’ (Andersen 2008, Arundel and Kemp 2009). So, we expect to build a customer behaviour model which is strongly linked to the eco-innovation concept and creating value for customers while reducing costs by investigation of main drivers that affect customers decision. The customer behaviour model for eco- innovation products As one of crucial aspects, our model is consideration that environment-related behaviour could be culturally and regionally different (Gallego-Álvarez and Ortas 2017). Thus, variation in the level of individualism among countries could influence the eco-innovation results (Bitencourt et al. 2020). The difference between country awareness and individual responsibility is possible to overcome through dissemination of knowledge about awareness and eco-efficiency (Cucuzzellaa et al. 2020). Nonetheless, consumers tend to focus on egoistic product attributes (Schuitema and de Groot 2015). Willingness to pay (WTP) is usually seen as the Hicksian consumer surplus measure, and is often defined as the actual price paid (Atinkut et al. 2020), so in some countries individual responsibility will prevail over egoistic decision (e.g. price). The studies we examined/overviewed have demonstrated that customers behaviours in energy and water consumption of eco-houses, their awareness, perceptions, according to environmen- tally friendly products are important (Scott and Vigar-Ellis 2014). Customers who respect envi- ronment are purchasing the eco-friendly products. Awareness of an individual in concerns about the environmental is one of the determinants for environmental friendly behaviours (Leszczyńska 2015). Koenig-Lewis et al. (2014) also supporting environmental friendly behaviour correlation with willing to buy purchase practice and it is affected by social concern, not only rational. (Koe- nig-Lewis et al. 2014). So, we put these factors as other non-price factors affecting a customer choice (Fig.2). Perceived benefits are an important factors of willingness to buy eco-friendly products (Kayaman and Arasli 2007, Kearney 2014). Packaging materials, manufacturing technology, and market ap- peal are necessary criteria (Nguyen et al. 2020) to be incorporated into the model. The studies exam- ined also showed that consumers are willing to buy an eco-friendly products as long as the quality is higher than usual products (D’Souza et al. 2007), so quality should be considered. Van Birgelen et al. concluded that ‘Consumers are willing to trade off almost all product attributes in favour of envi- ronmentally friendly packaging of beverages, except for taste and price.’ (van Birgelen et al. 2009). Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering 2021/1/28 60 Young (2008) showed customers of unbranded products are showing less than 10% environmental aspect interest (Young 2008), as a result design is one of the significant factors in the model. Individual values are also important in defining eco-friendly behaviours (Zhang et al. 2018). Indi- vidual subjective factors such as the degree of awareness, responsibility, environmental values, external factors have important role in affecting eco-friendly behaviours (Zhang et al. 2018). Fig. 2 The customer behaviour model. Choice is affected by cultural differences and individualism. Source: Developed by the authors based on classical models and the Value Triangle In order to build a final model of cus- tomer behaviour (Fig.2) we chose rationalisation - we decided to use the classical model with certain eco-benefits (customer values on the left) and perceived consumer costs (Scott and Vigar-Ellis 2014, Magnier and Crié 2015, Lindh, Olsson, et al. 2016) on Fig. 2. So, the main aspect in our model is price and non-price factors decision. In order to make model simple, we Non-Price factors Price factors Building Materials functions Manufacturing Technology Market appeal Eco-friendly effects (e.g. biodegradable, non-toxic) Source: Developed by the authors based on classical models and the Value Triangle grouped all factors into several dimensions: building materials functions (benefits), manufacturing technology benefits (green values), market appeal (design and quality), and factors with eco-friendly effects (e.g. biodegradable, non-toxic, energy saving, and other environmental values the could be important for customers). Literature Review methods on eco-friendly products and services In this paper we do not focus on factors influencing certain pro-environmental behaviour or price-based behaviour. There is a plenty of research that indicate limited value of sociodemo- graphic characteristics for defining environmentally friendly behaviours of customers (Stern et al. 1995). Other studies focus only demographics factors (McDonald and Dunbar 2012), these studies showed that the willingness to buy eco-friendly products is highly related to demographics. The results concluded that the age group and marital status have an great impact on willingness to buy eco-friendly products (Shahsavar et al. 2020). Non/demographic factors that influence eco-friendly behaviours, were grouped as ‘psychographics, knowledge, beliefs, and attitudinal variables’ (Laroche et al. 2002, Szerényi et al. 2011). Later, ‘perceived consumer effectiveness, en- vironmental knowledge, and environmental concern’ were also respected as important variables on eco-friendly behaviours, while environmental concern was the most respected (Do Paco and Raposo 2009, Meyer and Liebe 2010) followed by perceived consumer ef- fectiveness (Albayrak et al. 2011, Fisher et al. 2012). Some studies also showed that the education level and income level have a positive impact on the eco-friendly behaviour and eco-friendly willingness to buy as well as demographics (Chan 2001, Junae- di 2012, Tran 2014). So, we tried to go through phenomenological approach, and did not put any theoretical findings as hypothesis. But we payed attention to the educational level, age, and other factors as possible correlations. Fig. 3 Preliminary search results Source: developed by the authors using the VOSviewer 61 Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering 2021/1/28 Fig. 4 Preliminary clusters search results for buildings Source: developed by the authors using the VosViewer Table 1 Elaborated criteria based on the systematic literature review The literature research in order to re- veal theoretical findings for the ques- tionnaire was performed from the 1rst of June 2020 till the 20th of June 2020. The first stage of our literature analysis was using keywords in the Web of Science database: aware- ness, Sustainable development. We found 217 116 papers, which was a rather considerable amount. After adding a new keyword – “eco” we found 19 636. During the introduction phase with the most relevant papers, new keywords were found: Ecologi- cal awareness, eco-innovation, will- ingness to pay, and eco-feedback. After the preliminary search, we started to narrow the search and used the following search formula according to our research goals: ( eco-innovation ) OR ( eco-house OR eco-building ) AND ( ecological AND awareness ) with 674 papers. After using the content analysis platform, we found 6976 links and 6 clusters with 271 items (Fig. 3) in the VOSviewer software (Web of Science database). In order to build a framework, we chose most relevant links (Fig.4) in the VOSviewer results. As it could be seen, the most relevant clusters include several common links as keywords. After se- lecting most relevant papers based on results (40 papers in the Web of Science) we synthesised the following criteria and used dimensions (groups) created throughthe concept analysis (Fig.2) - Table 1 shows the elaborated criteria based on our literature review (for full list of factors see Appendix 1). Authors Dimensions/groups Price Building material functions/ functionality Manufacturing Technology Market appeal/design/ appearance Eco-friendly effects/ environmental impacts (Nguyen et al. 2020) yes Functionality New and advanced technology for production Visually attractive graphic design Biodegradable, Non-toxic, easily decomposed, Reusable Recyclable, Paper- based, Natural and organic sources of materials used in production, (Scott and Vigar-Ellis 2014) yes No data Eco-friendly manufacturing process. No data recyclability and reusability (Young 2010) yes No data No data No data Mostly recycling (Lindh, Williams, et al. 2016) yes No data No data design Reusable (Magnier and Crié 2015) yes Yes, enlargement No data Design, shape, size biodegradability, recy- clability and reusability. (Lewis and Stanley 2012) No data No data No data No data biodegradability, recy- clability and reusability. Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering 2021/1/28 62 Authors Dimensions/groups Price Building material functions/ functionality Manufacturing Technology Market appeal/design/ appearance Eco-friendly effects/ environmental impacts (Bertolini et al. 2016, Herbes et al. 2018) Life Cycle Assessment (Palombini et al. 2017, Boesen et al. 2019) Eco-friendly raw materials (Mueller et al. 2010, Reimann et al. 2010, Gwozdz et al. 2015, Tait et al. 2016, Wagner et al. 2019) Design Subfactors: S1 minimal/ minimalistic - reduced,timeless silhouettes S2 durable – robust, high-quality fabrics S3 multi- functional – functional (e.g., reversible) garment S4 dynamic – good fit/size (e.g., adjustable for mobility or growth) S5 unique – uncommon style S6 decorated - xcreative/ (Wagner et al. 2019) (Verghese and Lewis 2007) Functionality (Martinho et al. 2015) Mostly price Quality, functionality design sustainability (Chalal et al. 2020) energy consumption Heating system, energy ratings, energy usage in KWh Energy savings, ef- ficiency control e.g. through smartphone (Atinkut et al. 2020) Social responsibility of respondent (Cognitiveness): knowledge of eco-efficiency, perception and attitude of environment (positive/neutral), conscience (concerned, not concerned), eco-experience. WTP factors: gender, age, education, family size, source of income 63 Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering 2021/1/28 The Empirical research based on theoretical findings was performed from the 5th of July 2020 till the 20th of July 2020. Expert interviews and focus groups for data validation were conducted from the 5th of July 2020 till the 20th of July 2020. The authors’ scheme of research design could be seen on Fig. 5. Multiple techniques were used to improve the construct validity and reliability and improve scien- tist’ judgments and data truthfulness. In order to validate the survey instrument in the same type of atmosphere and execution in which it was designed to be used, a pilot test conducted on small respondent population was run. During 2 weeks, interviews among company executives and aca- demic staff were carried out. All respondents agreed to evaluate the survey questions. The analysis of the independent variables in the pilot test suggested that 7% of questions needed some further clarification (see Table 2). Prior to moving forward with the actual research, these questions were re-written and given during the interviews for cross-checking and clarity review. Prior to obtaining the final results, the authors used the modified questionnaire, for the survey ques- tions. The authors modified the original method with statistical evidence. Based on provided feed- back during the interviews, the authors stated that the pilot survey showed a deep consideration about the green-style. This situation was recognised by the authors as a sign of good awareness about the green-style. Authors Dimensions/groups Price Building material functions/ functionality Manufacturing Technology Market appeal/design/ appearance Eco-friendly effects/ environmental impacts (Gill et al. 2010, 2011, Ridley et al. 2013, Elsharkawy and Rutherford 2015, Pretlove and Kade 2016) Smart heat control (over- heating), water and energy use. PV avail- ability. The Passive House Planning Package (Maruejols et al. 2013) Green efficiency (Huebner et al. 2013, Jones et al. 2015) Thermal comfort (Zeng et al. 2018) yes Window blinds, retrofit fabrics, more efficient equipment, indoor air quality (venti- lation), smart temperature, acoustic, reliability (guarantees), use of land Visual, aesthetic, decoration Discussion and validation of the elaborated criteria: the Case of Latvia Source: developed by the authors Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering 2021/1/28 64 the expert survey and reference groups are the second most important research phase. With the help of the experts representing a building industry, the authors identified the significance coefficients of the factors influencing customers’ behaviour. The objective of the interviews was to explore the factor evaluation practices in the building indus- try in Latvia, so that this information could be used to develop a questionnaire for the quantitative study. On the basis of the information provided by the experts and recommendations regarding enterprises, a list of corrections was suggested. The expert reference group (5 experts) discus- sion allowed to improve validity of the research. During the interviews and expert focus groups, the authors repeated or clarified questions that may have been unclear to the respondents. The recording device was used during interviews, but the authors entered those interviews results manually as text conclusions into standard word processing documents. The purpose of the ques- tions was to determine experiences, perceptions, and the ideas of executives and non-executives about the process of selecting and assessing certain eco-house benefits. The authors chose tri- angulation to ensure validity and reliability of the research (data validation through expert focus groups, expert interviews, and feedback from pilot groups. Fig. 5 The scheme of the research design 5. Pilot survey (random respondents) 6. Survey revision through Interview (manufacturing branch, experts and academic stuff) Data validation 1. Categories and factors developed through literature review. 3. Categories obtained through academic Focus Group discussion (academics, discussion). 2. Categories developed through experts’ focus group (exploratory, industry experts). Source: developed by the authors Table 2 Questions needed to be modified based on the pilot survey Description of original questions 1H. Long life cycle and cost management (repair) (20% of misinterpretation) 1K. Passive house benefits. (40% of misinterpretation) 4E. Eco-efficient production processes and raw materials in connection with the use of natural resources (eco-efficiency) (15% of misinterpretation) 4F. Corporate social responsibility through participation in associations and government environmental programs (30% of misinterpretation) the authors developed evaluation based on interviews, with evaluation from five-point Likert scale (1 – not important, 5 – strong) Source: developed by the authors 65 Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering 2021/1/28 After the discussion with the experts, new questions were added: 2D. Total quality management production. Production certificates; 2E. Synchronization and continuity of the production process. Smart factory, robotization, high production quality and 4F. Corporate social responsibility through participation in associations and government programs that protect nature. Interpreting the pilot results After considering the survey results, the questionnaire was used in the ilot survey. The simple analysis for 15 respondents was presented, the elaboration of eco-innovation marketing strate- gies was based on the previously created model (Fig. 6 based on Fig. 5. Steps 1–5). As a result of implementing a new concept of eco-innovation value, now it is possible to assess the im- pact on different change elements. Fig. 6 (visualization) shows the most important factor contribution. Fig. 6 Most valued factors (5 – very important) in % of total respondents 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Lowest price with conventional non-toxic materials The average price of an eco-house with eco-friendly materials that also provide energy efficiency Very expensive smart eco-houses made from environmentally friendly materials, which also provide maximum energy efficiency and excellent design Ecohouse with raw materials not toxic to the environment(non-toxic) Eco-houses with raw materials that are environmentally efficient in terms of the use of environmental resources (eco-efficiency) Source: the pilot survey Table 3 Please prioritize answers from 1 to 5 Source: the pilot survey Priority Points Good price 1 22 Good design 2 21 Very high energy efficiency of materials, components and systems, which can significantly reduce costs 3 18 Eco raw materials 4 18 Smart home options that allow you to automatically remotely control the consumption of resources (heat, electricity, water, etc.) 5 15 Environmentally friendly manufacturing technology 6 11 Based on the new results, we could evaluate the priority of basic elements (Table 3) according to respondents’ subjective values. Lastly, the most valued elements (at least 50% of respondents) are represented in Table 4. Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering 2021/1/28 66 Conclusions The present paper has provided a detailed framework for prioritization of factors based on the literature research with an empirical example for the specific Latvian situation. First, the authors have observed the eco-friendly/green life style methodology and created the ques- tionnaire design (Fig. 2). Second, the important conclusion associated with the assessment of factors and corrections has been made, and a validated list of factors has been presented (Appendix 1). Third, a new assessment concept has been drawn/elaborated and a short analysis of possible strategies has been proposed, which is convenient for eco-innovation companies. In Latvia, eco-houses with environment friendly materials yet not expensive (Price over Design decision) are more popular than luxury and stylish ones with a high price. Fast response of strategies to rapidly changing market con- ditions becomes the most demanded topic for eco-house developers. Within the framework of the present research, an integrated framework has been proposed for the wood manufacturing company using the approach augmented with the presented methodology to obtain criteria weights and prior- itize alternative elements, which could be used even for eco-innovative companies. Finally, according to the empirical results, we interpreted results for a better understanding of the certain factor (value) effect on customer behaviour. The proposed approach shows correlation of the existing elements with awareness of pilot study respondents. Majority of the respondents consider green environment (80%). At the same time, they are not willing to pay premium for fully green houses, showing cost orientation. Customers expect “Very high energy efficiency of materials, components and systems, which can significantly reduce costs” which is the 3rd import- ant value. But still – design is very important for customers, especially concerning reliability and repair (75% and 70% accordingly). The limitations of the research can be discussed since Latvia has a specific geo-political and economic position (Global Innovation Index 44 out of 127 and, compared to other EU countries, Latvian R&D expenditure is greatly reduced – 0.4% of the GDP in 2016 (EU, 2018; WIPO, 2017). Future research in the Baltic States could concompany or reject this limitation for greater population. Latvia is a good case for analysis since it has open market with perfect logistic value chains and works as a bridge between Eastern and Western Europe. For this reason, the research results are crucial for wood manufacturing companies in small countries with the target of becoming both locally and internationally competitive in the European markets. As for practical implication of the research case, it allows eco-innovative companies to assess their stra- tegic posture with the presented method and follow the discussed strategic gaps both for the domestic and international markets. In the future research we will provide a mathematical model based on the fac- tor analysis using SPSS, which will be the example of using our tool for wood manufacturing companies. Question description % of respondents 1A. Raw materials and components provide good air circulation (ventilation), thus good air quality 60% 1G. High energy efficiency of materials, heating units and systems (for example, windows, heat resistance of walls, energy efficiency of the heating system) 80% 3B. Reliable, durable design, high-quality fabrics 75% 3D Dynamic design (easy to repair, complemented, suitable for various styles); good fit / size (e.g., adjustable for mobility or growth) 70% 3E. Unique, unusual - uncommon style 60% 4C. Raw materials not toxic to the environment 85% 4G. The use of natural raw materials in the product and production. 60% Source: the pilot survey Table 4 Result interpretation for transformational factors 67 Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering 2021/1/28 References Summarizing the results, it can be concluded that preliminary results show respondents’ practical- ity towards green life-style. “Eco building with raw materials that are friendly to the environment are more important” in comparison to “expensive smart eco-houses made from environmentally friendly materials, which also provide maximum energy efficiency and excellent design”. Good price (reasonable price) has also the highest priority over sophisticated functionality (smart home option). However, we should keep in mind that the current approach lacks broader population and an ex- ternal level, concerning entrepreneurial ecosystem values (social values as part of entrepreneurial ecosystem). The authors propose in the future to extend the current approach with the broader population in order to fill the validity gap associated with the behaviour assessment. Development of a better eco-innovation strategy fitness for Europe’s sustainable future is very im- portant for the current green approach in order to forecast the expected profit/performance. By us- ing this tool, international companies will fit their eco-innovation strategies according to the specific environmental feedback from these strategies in the respected countries (or will find themselves with disadvantage in using eco-innovation strategies). Nowadays in dynamic environment advan- tages in sustainability exists when company is developing a system of eco-values for both custom- ers and society through eco-innovation strategy. Acknowledgements This publication is created with support of European Regional Development Fund project “A new concept for low-energy eco-friendly house”, Grant Agreement No 1.1.1.1/19/A/017. Ajzen, I., 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Orgnizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro- cesses, 50, 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749- 5978(91)90020-T Albayrak, T., Caber, M., Moutinho, L., and Herstein, R., 2011. the Influence of Skepticism on Green Pur- chase Behavior. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2 (13), 189-197. Andersen, M., 2008. Eco-Innovation - Towards a Taxonomy and a Theory. 25th Celebration Confer- ence 2008 on Entrepreneurship and Innovation, (July 2002), 18. Arundel, A. and Kemp, R., 2009. Measuring eco-in- novation. Мaastricht, The Netherlands, No. 2009-017. Asensio, O.I. and Delmas, M.A., 2015. Nonprice in- centives and energy conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112 (6), E510-E515. https://doi. org/10.1073/pnas.1401880112 Atinkut, H.B., Yan, T., Arega, Y., and Raza, M.H., 2020. Farmers’ willingness-to-pay for eco-friendly agri- cultural waste management in Ethiopia: A contin- gent valuation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121211 Azar, E. and Al Ansari, H., 2017. Framework to inves- tigate energy conservation motivation and actions of building occupants: The case of a green campus in Abu Dhabi, UAE. Applied Energy, 190, 563-573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.12.128 Bertolini, M., Bottani, E., Vignali, G., and Volpi, A., 2016. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Pack- aging Systems for Extended Shelf Life Milk. Pack- aging Technology and Science, 29 (10), 525-546. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2235 Biloslavo, R., Bagnoli, C., and Edgar, D., 2018. An eco-critical perspective on business models: The val- ue triangle as an approach to closing the sustainabil- ity gap. Journal of Cleaner Production, 174, 746-762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.281 van Birgelen, M., Semeijn, J., and Keicher, M., 2009. Packaging and proenvironmental consumption Be- havior: Investigating purchase and disposal decisions for beverages. Environment and Behavior, 41 (1), 125- 146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916507311140 Bitencourt, C.C., de Oliveira Santini, F., Zanandrea, G., Froehlich, C., and Ladeira, W.J., 2020. Empirical gen- eralizations in eco-innovation: A meta-analytic ap- proach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 245. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118721 Boesen, S., Bey, N., and Niero, M., 2019. Environ- mental sustainability of liquid food packaging: Is there a gap between Danish consumers’ perception Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering 2021/1/28 68 and learnings from life cycle assessment? Journal of Cleaner Production, 210, 1193-1206. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.055 Carson, R., 1962. Silent Spring. Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Chalal, M.L., Medjdoub, B., Bull, R., Shrahily, R., Be- zai, N., and Cumberbatch, M., 2020. From discovering to delivering: A critical reflection on eco-feedback, application design, and participatory research in the United Kingdom. Energy Research and Social Sci- ence, 68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101535 Chan, R.Y.K., 2001. Determinants of Chinese con- sumers’ green purchase behavior. Psychology and Marketing, 18 (4), 389-413. https://doi.org/10.1002/ mar.1013 Cicconi, P., 2020. Eco-design and Eco-materials: An interactive and collaborative approach. Sustain- able Materials and Technologies, 23. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.susmat.2019.e00135 Cucuzzellaa, C., Chupinb, J.-P., and Hammond, C., 2020. Eco-didacticism in art and architecture: De- sign as means for raising awareness. Cities, 102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102728 D’Souza, C., Taghian, M., and Khosla, R., 2007. Ex- amination of environmental beliefs and its impact on the influence of price, quality and demographic char- acteristics with respect to green purchase intention. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 15 (2), 69-78. https://doi.org/10.1057/ palgrave.jt.5750039 Echegaray, F. and Hansstein, F.V., 2017. Assessing the intention-behavior gap in electronic waste recycling: the case of Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 180- 190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.064 Elsharkawy, H. and Rutherford, P., 2015. Retrofitting social housing in the UK: Home energy use and per- formance in a pre-Community Energy Saving Pro- gramme (CESP). Energy and Buildings, 88, 25-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.11.045 EU, 2018. Total intramural R&D expenditure (GERD) and R&D intensity - Latvia [online]. Available from: https://rio.jrc.ec.europa.eu/country-analysis/Lat- via/key-indicators/25574 [Accessed 6 Mar 2018]. Fisher, C., Bashyal, S., and Bachman, B., 2012. Demo- graphic impacts on environmentally friendly purchase behaviors. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 20 (3-4), 172-184. https://doi. org/10.1057/jt.2012.13 Fussler, C., 1996. Driving Eco-innovation: A Break- through Discipline for Innovation and Sustainability. Pitman Publishing. Pitman Publishing. Gallego-Álvarez, P.I. and Ortas, P.E., 2017. Corporate environmental sustainability reporting in the con- text of national cultures: A quantile regression ap- proach. International Business Review, 26 (2), 337- 353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2016.09.003 Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M.P., and Hultink, E.J., 2017. The Circular Economy e A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Pro- duction, 143 (0), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle- pro.2016.12.048 Gill, Z.M., Tierney, M.J., Pegg, I.M., and Allan, N., 2010. Low-energy dwellings: The contribution of be- haviours to actual performance. Building Research and Information, 38 (5), 491-508. https://doi.org/10 .1080/09613218.2010.505371 Gill, Z.M., Tierney, M.J., Pegg, I.M., and Allan, N., 2011. Measured energy and water performance of an aspiring low energy/carbon affordable housing site in the UK. Energy and Buildings, 43 (1), 117-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.08.025 Gimenez, C., Sierra, V., and Rodon, J., 2012. Sustain- able operations: Their impact on the triple bottom line. International Journal of Production Economics, 140 (1), 149-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.035 Gwozdz, W., Gupta, S., and Gentry, J., 2015. “Fashion Sustainability” Inverstigated. Marketing as Provision- ing Technology: Integrating Perspectives on Solu- tions for Sustainability, Prosperity, and Social Justice, 128-144 BT-Marketing as Provisioning Technology. Heath, R. and Feldwick, P., 2008. Fifty years using the wrong model of advertising. International Jour- nal of Market Research, 50 (1), 29-59. https://doi. org/10.1177/147078530805000105 Herbes, C., Beuthner, C., and Ramme, I., 2018. Con- sumer attitudes towards biobased packaging - A cross-cultural comparative study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 194, 203-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2018.05.106 Hinchliffe, D. and Akkerman, F., 2017. Assessing the review process of EU Ecodesign regulations. Jour- nal of Cleaner Production, 168, 1603-1613. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.091 den Hond, F., 1997. Book review: Driving eco-innova- tion; A BREAKTHROUGH DISCIPLINE FOR INNOVA- TION AND SUSTAINABILITY by Claude Fussler with Peter James, 1996. Pitman Publishing, xx + 364 pp, £45.00 (hbk), ISBN 0 273 62207 2. Business Strate- gy and the Environment, 6 (5), 297-297. https://doi. org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0836(199711)6:5<297::AID- BSE128>3.0.CO;2-R Huebner, G.M., Cooper, J., and Jones, K., 2013. Do- mestic energy consumption - What role do comfort, habit, and knowledge about the heating system play? Energy and Buildings, 66, 626-636. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.07.043 69 Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering 2021/1/28 Jones, R. V., Fuertes, A., Boomsma, C., and Pahl, S., 2015. Space heating preferences in UK social hous- ing: A socio-technical household survey combined with building audits. Energy and Buildings, 127, 382- 398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.06.006 Junaedi, S., 2012. The Role of Income Level in Green Consumer Behavior : Multigroup Structural Equation Model Analysis. The 2012 International Conference on Businesss and Management, (September), 372-382. Kayaman, R. and Arasli, H., 2007. Customer based brand equity: Evidence from the hotel industry. Managing Service Quality, 17 (1), 92-109. https:// doi.org/10.1108/09604520710720692 Kearney, M., 2014. The new rules of green market- ing: strategies, tools, and inspiration for sustainable branding. Journal of Marketing Management, 30 (13-14), 1520-1521. https://doi.org/10.1080/02672 57X.2014.946258 Klewitz, J. and Hansen, E.G., 2014. Sustainability-ori- ented innovation of SMEs: a systematic review. Clean Production, 65, 57-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcle- pro.2013.07.017 Koenig-Lewis, N., Palmer, A., Dermody, J., and Ur- bye, A., 2014. Consumers’ evaluations of ecological packaging - Rational and emotional approaches. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 37, 94-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.11.009 Kojima, T., Kimura, T., Yamaji, M., and Amasaka, K., 2010. Proposal And Development Of The Direct Mail Method PMCI-DM For Effectively Attracting Customers. International Journal of Management & Information Systems (IJMIS), 14 (5). https://doi. org/10.19030/ijmis.v14i5.9 Kuo, T.C. and Smith, S., 2018. A systematic review of technologies involving eco-innovation for enterpris- es moving towards sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 192, 207-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2018.04.212 Kuo, T.C., Tseng, M.L., Lin, C.H., Wang, R.W., and Lee, C.H., 2018. Identifying sustainable behavior of energy consumers as a driver of design solutions: The missing link in eco-design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 192, 486-495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.250 Laroche, M., Tomiuk, M.A., Bergeron, J., and Bar- baro-Forleo, G., 2002. Cultural differences in envi- ronmental knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours of Canadian consumers. Canadian Journal of Ad- ministrative Sciences, 19 (3), 267-282. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1936-4490.2002.tb00272.x Leszczyńska, A., 2015. Willingness to Pay for Green Products vs Ecological Value System. International Journal of Synergy and Research, 3, 67. https://doi. org/10.17951/ijsr.2014.3.0.67 Lewis, H. and Stanley, H., 2012. Marketing and commu- nicating sustainability. Packaging for Sustainability, 107- 153. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-988-8_3 Lindh, H., Olsson, A., and Williams, H., 2016. Con- sumer Perceptions of Food Packaging: Contributing to or Counteracting Environmentally Sustainable Development? Packaging Technology and Science, 29 (1), 3-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/pts.2184 Lindh, H., Williams, H., Olsson, A., and Wikström, F., 2016. Elucidating the Indirect Contributions of Pack- aging to Sustainable Development: A Terminology of Packaging Functions and Features. Packaging Technology and Science, 29 (4-5), 225-246. https:// doi.org/10.1002/pts.2197 Lockrey, S., Brennan, L., Verghese, K., Staples, W., and Binney, W., 2018. Enabling employees and break- ing down barriers: Behavioural infrastructure for pro-environmental behaviour. Research Handbook on Employee Pro-Environmental Behaviour, 313- 345. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786432834.00022 Magnier, L. and Crié, D., 2015. Communicating packaging eco-friendliness: An exploration of con- sumers’ perceptions of eco-designed packaging. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Man- agement, 43 (4-5), 350-366. https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJRDM-04-2014-0048 Martinho, G., Pires, A., Portela, G., and Fonseca, M., 2015. Factors affecting consumers’ choices concerning sustainable packaging during product purchase and recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 103, 58-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.07.012 Maruejols, L., Ryan, D.L., and Young, D., 2013. Eco-hous- es and the environment: A case study of occupant ex- periences in a cold climate. Energy and Buildings, 62, 368-380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.03.018 McDonald, M.H.B. and Dunbar, I., 2012. Market Seg- mentation: How to Do It, How to Profit from It. 4th Ed. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119207863 Meyer, R. and Liebe, U., 2010. Are the affluent pre- pared to pay for the planet? Explaining willingness to pay for public and quasi-private environmental goods in Switzerland. Population and Environment, 32 (1), 42-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-010-0116-y Michaelson, D. and Stacks, D.W., 2011. Standardiza- tion in Public Relations Measurement and Evalua- tion. Public Relations Journal, 5 (2), 1-22. Mueller, S., Lockshin, L., and Louviere, J.J., 2010. What you see may not be what you get: Asking consumers what matters may not reflect what they choose. Marketing Letters, 21 (4), 335-350. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11002-009-9098-x Nguyen, A.T., Parker, L., Brennan, L., and Lockrey, S., 2020. A consumer definition of eco-friendly pack- Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering 2021/1/28 70 aging. Journal of Cleaner Production, 252. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119792 de Oliveira Brasil, M.V., Sá de Abreu, M.C., da Silva Filho, J.C.L., and Leocádio, A.L., 2016. Relationship between eco-innovations and the impact on business perfor- mance: an empirical survey research on the Brazilian textile industry. Revista de Administração, 51 (3), 276- 287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rausp.2016.06.003 Do Paco, A. and Raposo, M., 2009. Green segmenta- tion: An application to the Portuguese consumer mar- ket. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 27 (3), 364- 379. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500910955245 Palombini, F.L., Cidade, M.K., and de Jacques, J.J., 2017. How sustainable is organic packaging? A de- sign method for recyclability assessment via a so- cial perspective: A case study of Porto Alegre city (Brazil). Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 2593- 2605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.016 Pretlove, S. and Kade, S., 2016. Post occupancy eval- uation of social housing designed and built to Code for Sustainable Homes levels 3, 4 and 5. Energy and Buildings, 110, 120-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. enbuild.2015.10.014 Reimann, M., Zaichkowsky, J., Neuhaus, C., Bender, T., and Weber, B., 2010. Aesthetic package design: A behavioral, neural, and psychological investigation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20 (4), 431-441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2010.06.009 Richardson, J., 2008. The business model: an inte- grative framework for strategy execution. Strategic Change, 17 (5-6), 133-144. https://doi.org/10.1002/ jsc.821 Ridley, I., Clarke, A., Bere, J., Altamirano, H., Lew- is, S., Durdev, M., and Farr, A., 2013. The monitored performance of the first new London dwelling cer- tified to the Passive House standard. Energy and Buildings, 63, 67-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.en- build.2013.03.052 Rokka, J. and Uusitalo, L., 2008. Preference for green packaging in consumer product choices - Do consumers care? International Journal of Consum- er Studies, 32 (5), 516-525. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1470-6431.2008.00710.x Sarasini, S., 2009. Constituting leadership via poli- cy: Sweden as a pioneer of climate change mitiga- tion. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 14 (7), 635-653. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11027-009-9188-3 Schuitema, G. and de Groot, J.I.M., 2015. Green consumerism: The influence of product attributes and values on purchasing intentions. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14 (1), 57-69. https://doi. org/10.1002/cb.1501 Scott, L. and Vigar-Ellis, D., 2014. Consumer under- standing, perceptions and behaviours with regard to environmentally friendly packaging in a developing nation. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38 (6), 642-649. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12136 Shahsavar, T., Kubeš, V., and Baran, D., 2020. Will- ingness to pay for eco-friendly furniture based on demographic factors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119466 Shen, M., Lu, Y., Kua, H.W., and Cui, Q., 2020. Eco-feedback delivering methods and psychological attributes shaping household energy consumption: Evidence from intervention program in Hangzhou, China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 265. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121755 Shqipe Buzuku, I.S., 2017. A systematic literature review of TRIZ used in Eco-Design. Journal of the European TRIZ Association - INNOVATOR 02-2017; ISSN 1866-4180, 02, 20-31. Stern, P., Dietz, T., and Guagnano, G., 1995. The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological con- text. Environment and Behavior, 27 (6), 723-743. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916595276001 Stubbs, W. and Cocklin, C., 2008. Conceptualiz- ing a ‘sustainability business model’. Organiza- tion and Environment, 21 (2), 103-127. https://doi. org/10.1177/1086026608318042 Szerényi, Z., Ágnes, Z., and Anna, S., 2011. Consum- er behaviour and lifestyle patterns of Hungarian students with regard to environmental awareness. Society and Economy, 33 (1), 89-109. https://doi. org/10.1556/SocEc.33.2011.1.8 Tait, P., Saunders, C., Guenther, M., Rutherford, P., and Miller, S., 2016. Exploring the impacts of food label format on consumer willingness to pay for environmental sustainability: A choice experiment approach in the United Kingdom and Japan. Inter- national Food Research Journal, 23 (4), 1787-1796. Thondhlana, G. and Kua, H.W., 2016. Promoting house- hold energy conservation in low-income households through tailored interventions in Grahamstown, South Africa. Journal of Cleaner Production, 131, 327-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.026 Tran, H.N., 2014. Understanding customer purchase intention toward green electronic products in Ho Chi Minh City. Economics, Law and Management, 18 (4), 55-63. Trotta, G., 2018. Factors affecting energy-saving behaviours and energy efficiency investments in British households. Energy Policy, 114, 529-539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.12.042 Vasquez, J., Aguirre, S., Fuquene-Retamoso, C.E., Bruno, G., Priarone, P.C., and Settineri, L., 2019. A 71 Journal of Sustainable Architecture and Civil Engineering 2021/1/28 About the Author This article is an Open Access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ). conceptual framework for the eco-efficiency as- sessment of smalland medium-sized enterprises. Cleaner Production, 237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2019.117660 Vassileva, I. and Campillo, J., 2014. Increasing ener- gy efficiency in low-income households through tar- geting awareness and behavioral change. Renew- able Energy, 67, 59-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. renene.2013.11.046 Verghese, K. and Lewis, H., 2007. Environmen- tal innovation in industrial packaging: A supply chain approach. International Journal of Produc- tion Research, 45 (18-19), 4381-4401. https://doi. org/10.1080/00207540701450211 Wagner, M., Curteza, A., Hong, Y., Chen, Y., Thom- assey, S., and Zeng, X., 2019. A design analysis for eco-fashion style using sensory evaluation tools: Consumer perceptions of product appearance. Jour- nal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51, 253-262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.06.005 WIPO, 2017. The Global Innovation Index 2017. 10th ed. Geneva, Switzerland: World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Young, S., 2008. Packaging and the Environment : the Shoppers ‘ Perspective. Brand Packaging, 12 (1), 24-30. Young, S., 2010. Packaging and the Environ- ment: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. Design Man- agement Review, 19 (4), 42-48. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1948-7169.2008.tb00140.x Zeng, C., Liu, S., Shukla, A., and Yang, B., 2018. Iden- tifying the occupant’s satisfaction and awareness for the performance of Eco houses in the United Kingdom. Journal of Building Engineering, 18, 281- 291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.03.023 Zhang, C.Y., Yu, B., Wang, J.W., and Wei, Y.M., 2018. Impact factors of household energy-saving behav- ior: An empirical study of Shandong Province in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 185, 285-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.303 VLADIMIRS ŠATREVIČS Position at the organization: Assist.prof, Dr.oec Riga Technical University, Faculty of Engineering Economics and Management, Faculty of Engineering Economics and Management, Riga, Latvia Main research area Strategic management, business process management, industrialization and digital transformation Address, 6 Kalnciema Street, Room 412, Riga, LV-1048` Tel. +371 26179472 E-mail: vladimirs.satrevics@rtu.lv IRINA VORONOVA Position at the organization: Prof., Dr.oec. Riga Technical University, Faculty of Engineering Economics and Management, Faculty of Engineering Economics and Management, Riga, Latvia Main research area Risk management, operations research, expert evaluations, statistics, factor analysis and correlations, insurance, financial management Address, 6 Kalnciema Street, Room 316, Riga, LV-1048` E-mail: irina.voronova@rtu.lv DIĀNA BAJARE Position at the organization: Prof., Dr.sc.ing. Institute of Materials and Structures, Department of Building Materials and Products, Riga, Latvia Main research area Recycling and energy efficiency, innovative building materials, eco-houses, eco-innovation Address, 6b Kipsalas Street, Riga, LV-1048, Latvia ` E-mail: diana.bajare@rtu.lv