Wood buildings - The Sustainability Management Wiki

Authors: Kai Uwe Harberts
Edited by: –
Last updated: May 16, 2026

Executive summary

Wood buildings can help organizations reduce the climate and resource footprint of construction projects by substituting emissions-intensive materials such as concrete and steel with renewable wood-based products. Because the buildings and construction sector accounts for a large share of global energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, material choices, design decisions, and procurement practices can materially influence an organization’s decarbonization pathway.

Modern wood construction relies on both solid timber and engineered wood products (for example, GLT, CLT, LVL, plywood, and OSB) that improve dimensional stability and structural performance and enable applications ranging from single-family homes to multi-story buildings and hybrids that combine wood with concrete or steel. Wood’s key performance tradeoffs include advantages in weight and prefabrication speed, potential fire resilience in large cross-sections due to charring behavior, and favorable thermal performance, alongside risks that require active management, especially moisture protection, connection detailing, acoustics, and long-term durability.

From an economic perspective, wood projects can face higher upfront material costs (particularly for some mass-timber systems), but faster on-site assembly, reduced labor hours, and shorter project timelines can offset part of that gap. Digital planning approaches such as building information modeling (BIM) and off-site prefabrication can improve coordination, reduce errors and waste, and support design-for-disassembly strategies that keep components in use longer.

Organizations can maximize sustainability benefits by aligning wood use with circular-economy practices and sustainable forest management. This includes specifying responsible sourcing, designing for reuse and recycling, and considering end-of-life pathways early in the project. Policy frameworks and building codes strongly influence feasibility (especially for taller buildings and fire safety), so organizations often need to engage early with regulators, insurers, designers, and suppliers to manage risk and capture the climate, cost, and resilience opportunities of wood construction.

1 Introduction

The increasing severity of the climate crisis is one of the greatest threats to humanity and planetary health. Global average temperatures have been rising for decades, and the increased frequency of extreme weather events, the continuing loss of biodiversity, and the damage to ecological systems are becoming more visible.¹^,²^,³ In this context, economic sectors with particularly high energy demands and intensive material use have become the focus of scientific and political debates. The construction sector is one of the most polluting industries worldwide, accounting for approximately 34 % of total global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and also 34 % of global energy demand.⁴ In addition, this sector accounts for a large share of the raw materials extracted worldwide, contributing to the overuse of natural resources and causing irreversible ecological damage.⁵^,⁶ Despite progress, the sector is not on track to meet its climate targets. Since 2015, CO2 emissions in the construction sector have increased by 5.4 %, which remains far from the required 28 % reduction by 2030 needed to meet the targets of the Paris Agreement.⁴

Concrete and steel, which are among the most widely used building materials in the world, account for a significant share of the emissions in the construction sector.⁴^,⁷^,⁸ Their energy-intensive production requires substantial amounts of fossil fuels, and the production of cement, which is a key component of concrete, is estimated to account for 6-7 % of total global emissions.⁹ This situation highlights the urgency of a fundamental transformation in the construction sector, and the search for alternative building materials that can reduce ecological burdens and enable the sustainable use of natural resources is becoming increasingly relevant. As a substitute for concrete and steel, wood is gaining importance in scientific discourse, and the structural and ecological properties of these building materials are being compared in numerous academic analyses.¹⁰^,¹¹^,¹² Wood is a renewable resource that absorbs carbon from the atmosphere during its natural growth, thereby potentially making a significant contribution to the reduction of emissions in the construction sector.⁷^,¹³

For many millennia, wood was one of the most essential building materials, however, during the Industrial Revolution, it was increasingly replaced by other materials due to a growing demand for more homogeneous materials and concerns about the flammability of wood.¹⁴^,¹⁵ In recent decades, wood has regained importance due to technological advancements and the rising demand for sustainable building materials. Improved prefabrication, optimized fire protection properties, and the new possibility of using wood in multi-story buildings in urban areas have led to the renewed attractiveness of using wood as a building material.¹⁶^,¹⁷^,¹⁸ Despite these advantageous properties, the use of wood in buildings continues to account for only a small market share in many countries,¹⁰^,¹⁹ leading to the following research question:

What does the current state of research reveal about the

role of wood buildings in the construction sector?

To address this research question, a narrative literature review (NR) was conducted. The thesis was written in the style of a wiki, following the guidelines of the Sustainability Management Wiki, an initiative of the Management Research Group at the University of Oldenburg (Germany). This initiative pursues the vision of providing a platform for anyone seeking structured information to enhance the ecological and social performance of organizations.²⁰ The aim of this article is to provide an interdisciplinary overview of wood as a building material, taking into account economic, ecological, social, and political perspectives. An interdisciplinary examination of the potentials and limitations of wood is particularly relevant, as its value is not determined solely by its technical properties.

Chapter 2 introduces the fundamental principles of wood and wood construction and outlines the historical development of wood utilization. The economic perspective is examined in Chapter 3, focusing on the market development of wood construction, price trends, and emerging technologies such as multi-story wood buildings. Additionally, The following Chapter 4 is dedicated to the ecological perspective, with particular emphasis on carbon storage in wood, the principles of the circular economy (CE), and sustainable forest management (SFM). This chapter concludes with an analysis of various life cycle assessments (LCAs), thereby illustrating the overall environmental impacts of wood construction. Chapter 5 examines the effects of using wood as a building material on social equity, regional value creation, human health, and social acceptance. The final perspective considered in this article is the political and legal perspective in Chapter 6. This chapter presents a selection of international and national initiatives and regulations that directly influence the wood construction market.

2 Description and history

To provide a more comprehensive understanding of wood as a building material, this chapter describes the structure of trees and the various tree species. The properties of trees arise from a complex interplay of evolutionary origins, growth processes, anatomical structure, and environmental influences. This interplay results in the versatility and variability of wood as a building material.²¹^,²² The subsequent section addresses the types of building materials that can be produced from the different wood species, their properties, and their respective applications. To conclude, this chapter provides an overview of the historical development of wood utilization.

2.1 Trees and wood species

Wood has been used as a construction material for thousands of years and continues to play a crucial role in the global building sector.²² Beyond its traditional social and economic importance, its environmental significance has become increasingly central in recent decades. As a renewable, natural, and potentially sustainable resource, wood is widely considered one of the most environmentally friendly building materials, particularly when sourced from sustainably managed forests.²¹

A clear distinction between the terms wood, timber, and lumber is essential to ensure conceptual clarity in the analysis of wood as a building material. Wood refers to the hard, fibrous material beneath the bark of trees, consisting mainly of cellulose and lignin, and has an inherently irregular structure. Timber is wood that has been processed and prepared for construction purposes, for example, into posts or beams.¹⁷^,²³ The expression lumber people commonly use in Canada and the USA and is often understood as a synonym for timber.²³ In this article, the term wood is primarily used because it allows consideration of not only the processed form of the material but also its natural state, thereby enabling reference to trees and forests. The use of this terminology also permits reference to building methods that utilize unprocessed wood, such as natural log houses, which would not be captured by the terms timber or lumber. Therefore, the use of wood enables a broader and interdisciplinary analysis, encompassing, for example, aspects of SFM (see Chapter 4.4) and the impact on regional value creation (see Chapter 5.1)

Figure 1: Tree cross-section (own illustration based on Ramage et al. (2017))²²

To understand the different properties of wood, it is essential to understand how a tree is structured. As shown in Figure 1, trees consist mainly of bark, cambium, phloem, sapwood, heartwood, and pith.²² Heartwood, composed of dead cells enriched with extractives, provides durability and unique coloration, whereas sapwood contains living cells that transport water and nutrients but has little natural resistance.²¹ The cambium is responsible for the growth of the tree in width by forming phloem on the outside and xylem on the inside of the trunk. Phloem is a tissue responsible for transporting nutrients, and xylem supplies the inside of the trunk with water.²² At the microscopic level, wood is primarily composed of cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, and extractives. Cellulose microfibrils provide tensile strength and form the structural framework of cell walls. Hemicellulose binds cellulose microfibrils, provides flexibility, and influences swelling and shrinkage, while lignin contributes to compressive strength and enhances moisture resistance. Extractives influence durability and color through protective effects against fungi and insects.²² From a structural engineering perspective, the variability in tree growth patterns and microstructure leads to variations in strength properties.²¹

Over time, trees have evolved independently multiple times, resulting in a remarkable diversity of forms and characteristics.²² Today, most trees belong to the angiosperms, a group of plants characterised by the formation of flowers and seeds surrounded by fruit. Nevertheless, most gymnosperms that produce exposed seeds, including commercially important species such as spruce, pine, and fir, also occur as trees. From an industrial perspective, wood from angiosperms, typically deciduous tree species such as oak, birch, beech, and ash, is classified as hardwood. In contrast, wood from gymnosperms is referred to as softwood.²⁴ It has been shown that this classification does not always correspond to the actual mechanical properties, as demonstrated by balsa wood, which is botanically a hardwood but softer than the average softwood.²²

Tree growth is driven by primary growth, which increases height, and secondary growth, which thickens the stem. The primary growth, which is driven at the tip of the shoot, causes the tree to grow upwards and is typical of all vascular plants. Unlike non-tree plants, trees also undergo secondary growth, causing the trunk to thicken.²⁵ Tree size and growth rates differ widely across species and environments. An example of a fast-growing tree is Trema micrantha, which is often used in reforestation projects and can reach a height of 20 m within seven years.²⁶ Additional species classified as fast-growing include Royal Empress, eucalyptus, willow, and poplar.²² Tree height is influenced by factors such as hydraulic restrictions and limited leaf expansion at the crown.²⁷ The tallest living trees, Sequoia sempervirens, can reach heights of over 100 m, while the tallest tree ever measured, Eucalyptus regnans, reached a height of 143 m. The average circumference growth of a tree is about 2.5 cm per year, with fast-growing species such as the giant sequoia, coastal redwood, Sitka spruce, and Douglas fir reaching 5–7.5 cm per year. Additionally, The growth rate of a tree does not necessarily correlate with wood quality, and defining the optimal growth rate for trees intended for construction remains challenging.²² For example, Sitka spruce, an imported conifer from the Pacific Northwest, is the primary species cultivated for construction in the UK. While it can reach 40-70 m in height in its natural environment, milder UK conditions accelerate growth but reduce wood density. Typical harvesting occurs after 35 to 45 years, with trees reaching 16 to 23 m in height and a trunk diameter of 25 to 40 cm. However, the structural properties of the wood could be improved if the trees had a longer growth period.²⁸

Wood, as a natural, non-homogeneous building material, exhibits significant variability in performance, which can be attributed to defects such as knot holes and grain deviations.²⁹ When a branch remains alive during trunk growth, the knot hole is firmly integrated into the wood.²² In contrast, dead branches create discontinuities, producing loose knot holes that may detach during processing. Distortions in grain patterns around knot holes cause stress concentrations and reduce structural strength.²¹ The influence of such irregularities is complex and depends on the size, distribution, and location of the knot holes in the trunk. During thermal modification and other processing methods, knot holes can detach more easily due to differential shrinkage between the knot tissue and the surrounding clear wood.³⁰

2.2 Engineered wood products and areas of application

Wood products are increasingly recognised as a sustainable alternative to conventional, non-renewable building materials.¹⁶ Due to their high versatility, they can be employed in both structural elements and a range of building applications, including floors, roofs, facades, and claddings.³¹ Particular importance is attributed to engineered wood products (EWPs), which have gained significant relevance over the past decades. In North America, for example, they account for nearly 90 % of all framing structures in residential construction.¹⁸^,³² EWPs are produced by processing roundwood into smaller units, such as lumber, veneers, or strands, which are subsequently assembled into materials with defined mechanical properties through gluing or other bonding techniques.³³ These processes effectively reduce the typical natural defects of solid wood, such as knots, cracks, or splits.¹⁸ At the same time, they ensure uniform strength and greater homogeneity, resulting in improved dimensional stability and durability.²² This enables higher design loads to be managed and larger or taller buildings to be constructed.³⁴

Figure 2: The manufacturing process of engineered wood products (own illustration based on Ramage et al. (2017))²²

Figure 2 illustrates the manufacturing processes of EWPs and some products that can be manufactured using them. The different types of EWPs primarily differ in the preparation of the raw material. Lumber is sawn and serves as the basis for products such as glued laminated timber (GLT) or cross-laminated timber (CLT). Veneers are produced by rotary peeling and are commonly used in products such as laminated veneer lumber (LVL) and plywood. Strands consist of wood particles that are often unsuitable for sawing or veneer processes and are processed into, for example, Laminated Strand Lumber (LSL) or Oriented Strand Board (OSB).²²^,³³ In general, EWPs are bonded into panels or components using adhesives or mechanical connections, such as fibre felting. Additional materials can be added to the EWPs to improve specific product properties, as is done with wood plastic composites (WPC), where sawdust or wood shavings are mixed with recycled polyethylene or polypropylene³⁵ to achieve, for example, improved weather and fire resistance or reduced biological vulnerability.³⁶

A key challenge in EWP production lies in raw material loss during processing. The extent of this loss is closely related to particle size, with smaller particles enabling more efficient utilization of the raw material. Strand-based products, such as LSL and OSB, achieve material yields of approximately 69 % and 83 %, respectively. Veneer-based products, including LVL and plywood, show lower yields of around 52 %. Lumber-based products, such as GLT and CLT, exhibit the lowest conversion efficiencies, with average yields of 39 % and 37 %, respectively.³³ Despite these limitations, the ongoing development of EWPs has significantly expanded the use of wood in construction, enabling its application not only in single-family houses but also in multi-story buildings, schools, offices, and sports halls.³⁴

Lumber

One of the most widely used lumber products is GLT.³³ It is produced by gluing at least two wooden boards parallel to each other to form large structural beams (Figure 3), whose maximum size is restricted only by transport limitations.²² These beams provide strong and durable load-bearing elements while preserving the advantages of wood, such as its relatively low weight. The resulting material exhibits a higher strength-to-weight ratio than steel, making it particularly suitable for construction projects with large spans, such as bridges.³⁷ Beyond these applications, GLT is frequently employed as a construction material in residential buildings. Due to its aesthetic qualities and ease of shaping, GLT offers considerable architectural design possibilities for both interior and exterior use.²²^,³⁷

CLT has gained popularity in recent years as a highly promising construction material.³⁷^,³⁸ Like GLT, it is categorized as a lumber-based product within the broader group of EWPs.²²^,³⁹ In contrast to GLT, CLT is based on the orthogonal bonding of multiple layers of board, arranged in at least three layers.³⁷^,³⁹^,⁴⁰ Through the crosswise orientation of the grain direction at a 90° angle,³⁷^,⁴¹ a composite material is created that is comparable to mineral-based construction materials such as concrete in terms of strength and dimensional stability.⁴² The technology was first introduced in Central Europe in the 1990s³⁷ to efficiently utilize by-products of the sawmilling industry while simultaneously providing high-performance, large-format construction elements.⁴¹ The dimensions of CLT panels vary considerably, with lengths of up to 18 m, widths of up to 3 m, and thicknesses up to 50 cm being technically feasible⁴³^,⁴⁴ (Figure 4), but similar to GLT, transport and assembly are restricted by practical limitations.³⁷

The cross-lamination results in a range of technological advantages. Firstly, load-bearing capacity is ensured in two directions, allowing the use of CLT as a surface element for floors, walls, and roofs.¹⁸^,³⁹ In addition, swelling and shrinkage of the timber within the plane of the panel are largely eliminated, thereby achieving a high degree of dimensional stability. The industrial production of CLT has advanced significantly over the past two decades.⁴⁴ Hydraulic presses, modular production lines, and optimized connection techniques ensure consistent quality and high manufacturing capacities.³⁸ Research on fire and seismic resistance, as well as on durability, has further demonstrated that the technology can be reliably applied even under demanding conditions.¹²^,⁴²

CLT enables new opportunities in multi-story buildings, as it can replace conventional materials such as concrete and steel while allowing shorter construction periods due to its high degree of prefabrication and ease of on-site assembly.¹²^,⁴³^,⁴⁴ The introduction of CLT has led to adjustments in building regulations in several countries, facilitating its application in taller buildings (see Chapter 6.3).⁴⁵ By substituting steel and concrete, the use of CLT offers significant environmental benefits through the use of wood from sustainably managed forests (see Chapter 4.4).¹²^,³⁹^,⁴⁰ As a result, CLT is increasingly regarded as a key factor in establishing wood as a competitive building material in urban contexts.¹⁸^,³⁸^,⁴⁴

Veneers

Plywood and LVL represent two significant veneer-based products that illustrate the technological development and application potential of veneers in modern construction. Veneers can be manufactured by slicing, peeling, or sawing logs or processed flitches, with a maximum thickness of 6 mm.⁴⁶ Plywood (Figure 5) is primarily utilized in buildings as structural and reinforcing panels for walls, ceilings, and roofs, and is the most widely used veneer-based wood product worldwide,⁴⁶ providing both high structural resistance and efficient production and processing.⁴⁷ It is recognised as the earliest form of EWPs, with origins dating back around 4000 years, when thin wood sheets were joined at right angles and secured using wooden dowels. The advent of rotary veneer lathes in the 19th century, followed by the introduction of thermosetting adhesives in the 1960s, enabled the large-scale industrial production of structural plywood.⁴⁶ Today, plywood is predominantly produced from peeled veneers with alternating grain orientation.⁴⁸ In contrast, LVL, which has been mass-produced since the 1970s, was previously used in aircraft construction,⁴⁶ is manufactured from thin, typically 3 mm thick, rotary-peeled veneers that are bonded together with parallel grain orientation.²² This structure distributes natural wood defects across the cross-section, leading to greater homogeneity of material properties and generally allowing for higher design values than GLT. LVL is primarily used as a beam product in construction, particularly in the United States.³³ Both plywood and LVL highlight the versatility of veneers as a raw material, offering panel products for a wide range of applications and high-strength beam products with specifically adaptable mechanical properties.⁴⁶

Strands

Strand-based EWPs, such as OSB and LSL, were developed in the mid-20th century and provide an economical alternative to plywood and LVL by using strands from smaller-diameter round wood, which are more readily available and less expensive than the high-quality logs required for veneer production.⁴⁹^,⁵⁰ They are produced from wood strands, which are elongated particles typically measuring 15-300 mm in length, 5-25 mm in width, and 0.2-1 mm in thickness, obtained from processed round timber.³³ A disadvantage of strands, compared to veneers, is that they exhibit lower material homogeneity, weaker mechanical properties, and a higher tendency to swell, shrink, or warp under changes in moisture or temperature.⁵⁰^,⁵¹ LSL and OSB are primarily used in structural applications, with OSB commonly employed for wall, floor, and roof sheathing, and LSL mainly utilized as beams, headers, and other load-bearing components.³³^,⁴⁹ OSB is generally constructed with three layers, where the strands on the outer surfaces are primarily oriented along the length of the panel, while the middle-layer strands are placed perpendicular or in a mostly random arrangement to provide strength in multiple directions (Figure 6). In contrast, LSL is made entirely of strands aligned with the length of the element, producing a more homogeneous material with enhanced mechanical performance along its longitudinal axis.⁵¹ The production of these materials demonstrates efficient resource utilization, as lower-grade wood, sawmill by-products, and residues from other wood-processing industries can be incorporated, enhancing both sustainability and material efficiency in modern construction systems.⁴⁹

Wood-based composites

In addition to traditional wood products, wood-based composites represent a growing group of innovative materials that open up new applications by bonding wood with other building materials such as mineral- or polymer-based components. They complement the conventional EWPs by extending the range of materials beyond strand-, veneer-, and lumber-based products.⁵² The use of wood-based composites offers the advantage of combining the positive mechanical properties of mineral or polymer components with the ecological benefits of the renewable raw material wood.⁵³ The ecological advantages of wood-based composites are maximised when wood residues or by-products are used, as this enables waste valorisation and the substitution of virgin resources.⁵⁴^,⁵⁵ Wood bio-concretes (WBC), in which wood shavings are combined with cement and, where appropriate, additional cementitious materials such as fly ash or metakaolin, show potential to replace the conventional use of cement.⁵⁴^,⁵⁶ WBCs can achieve significant environmental benefits through the partial substitution of cement, particularly with regard to climate change mitigation.⁵⁶ Other wood-based composites, such as WPC, in which wood components are combined with polymers to create a composite material, further illustrate the diverse applications.³⁶ Compared to solid wood, WPCs can offer numerous improved material properties, such as better dimensional stability, higher resistance to biological decay, or enhanced load-bearing performance.⁵²

Categorization of different wood buildings

Wood buildings are difficult to define, as very few structures are entirely constructed from wood.³⁴ The versatility of wood allows for a wide range of applications, for example, for use as insulation in lightweight buildings or as load-bearing structural elements in multi-story buildings. In this context, four basic building systems can be distinguished, which can be used to categorize the variety of wood buildings: (1) Wood Frame Buildings, (2) Post-and-Beam Buildings, (3) Mass Timber Buildings, and (4) Hybrid Buildings.⁵⁷ Within these groups, various types of wood buildings can be categorized, including log houses, CLT houses, or houses with innovative wood-based composites. Table 2 provides an overview of four wood building systems, highlighting their respective applications, the wood products employed, and the specific characteristics of each system.

Designation

Wood

application

Applied wood products

Special characteristics

Wood Frame Building

Walls, floors, roofs

OSB, plywood, solid wood, GLT

Lightweight, modular, fast

construction, suitable for

single-family houses

Post-and-Beam Building

Load-bearing posts and beams, infill walls

Solid wood, GLT, LVL

High flexibility in design, visible timber aesthetics, suitable for

single-family houses

Mass Timber Building

Walls, floors, roofs

CLT, GLT, LVL

Suitable for multi-story buildings, high load-bearing capacity, good thermal performance

Hybrid

Building

Walls, floors, roofs combined with concrete or steel

CLT, GLT, LVL, WBC

Suitable for multi-story buildings, combines advantages of wood with strength of concrete/steel,

reduced cement demand

Table 2: Categorization of different wood buildings (own illustration based on Cabral and Blanchet (2021))⁵⁷

2.3 Material properties of wood in comparison to other building materials

The material properties of wood are often compared with those of concrete and steel.⁷^,¹⁰^,¹² Concrete and steel are not only among the most widely used building materials but also among the most environmentally harmful.⁴^,⁷^,⁸ Wood is considered a possible substitute for these two materials, but it differs significantly in its material properties.¹⁰^,¹² Compared to other building materials, wood offers particular advantages in terms of construction time, weight, and transport. Due to its significantly lower weight compared to concrete or steel, wood can be transported and processed with considerably less energy and cost.⁵⁸ While concrete has a density of over 2,400 kg/m³ and steel has a density of over 7,000 kg/m³, the average density of wood is around 500 kg/m³.³⁴ This property of wood means that fewer trips are required to transport the material, therefore, fuel consumption is reduced, and transport emissions are significantly lower.⁵⁹ In addition, the low weight of wood allows the use of smaller machines and cranes, which in turn reduces energy consumption and costs.³⁴

Due to its low weight, large components can be prefabricated in the factory⁵⁸ and transported to the construction site by truck based on the just-in-time delivery principle, thereby reducing storage and waiting times on site.³⁴ These prefabricated elements can be assembled quickly on site with the aid of cranes.¹⁹^,⁵⁹ The traditional construction process is thus transformed into an assembly process, enabling wood projects to be completed up to 48 % faster than masonry constructions.³⁴^,⁵⁹ Another advantage is the flexibility of the material with regard to the extension of buildings. Additionally, Due to its low weight, existing structures can be more easily extended with additional floors without overloading the load-bearing capacity of the foundation structure.³⁴^,⁵⁸

The physical properties of wood, compared to other building materials, are determined not only by the material group but also by the specific product, the type of processing, and the conditions of application. While mineral and metallic materials generally exhibit more uniform and predictable behavior, the performance of wood is influenced by its organic origin, structure, and sensitivity to environmental influences.²⁹^,⁶⁰ Table 3 provides a comparative overview of general building physics properties of wood, concrete, and steel. It summarises the most relevant characteristics in terms of fire behavior, moisture behavior, acoustics, mechanical behavior, and durability.

Wood

Concrete

Steel

Fire

behavior

Combustible, protection through char layer

Non-combustible, risk of spalling

Non-combustible, loses strength under heat

Moisture

behavior

Hygroscopic, regulates indoor climate, vulnerable to moisture damage

Insensitive, no

buffering effect

Insensitive, no

buffering effect

Acoustics

Low sound insulation, good reflection

High sound insulation, weak reflection

High sound insulation due to mass

Mechanical

behavior

Anisotropic, dependent on moisture and grain direction

Isotropic, less

influenced by environmental conditions

Isotropic, high strength, strongly temperature

dependent

Durability

Vulnerable to fungi,

insects, and moisture without treatment

Generally durable, risk of carbonation and cracking

Durable, but prone to corrosion without

protective measures

Table 3: Building physics properties of wood in comparison to concrete and steel (own illustration based on Joung et al. (2024))⁶⁰

Fire behavior

One of the biggest criticisms of wood is its susceptibility to fire.³⁷^,⁶¹ The fire behavior of wood differs fundamentally from that of steel and concrete.³² Despite its combustibility, wood in large cross-sections forms a protective char layer in the event of fire, which slows down the penetration of heat and maintains the load-bearing capacity of the inner cross-section for a more extended period of time.²² This means that solid wood can, under certain circumstances, outperform materials such as steel, which loses strength and stiffness at high temperatures.³⁷^,⁶² Nevertheless, fire safety remains a critical issue in wood construction, particularly with regard to connections and smaller cross-sections, which require additional protection.²² Although concrete is considered non-combustible, it can spall severely under certain fire conditions.⁶⁰

Moisture behavior

Another key feature of wood is its hygroscopicity. This means that wood can either absorb moisture from the ambient air or release it back into the air, thereby actively contributing to the regulation of the indoor climate and humidity.⁴⁰^,⁶¹ This phenomenon is also known as the Moisture Buffer Effect, but it does carry certain risks. If the relative humidity remains high for a long period of time, condensation can form inside wooden elements, causing moisture damage such as mould growth or rot.¹⁷^,⁶³ Furthermore, this can lead to internal stresses in the wood, resulting in cracks or deformations.⁴⁰ Compared to mineral building materials, which remain largely unaffected by such fluctuations, wood therefore requires special planning measures and permanent protection during the construction phase and throughout its period of use.⁶⁰

Acoustics

In terms of acoustics, wood behaves differently from dense materials such as concrete or steel.⁶³ Due to its relatively low sound absorption capacity and mass, it has poorer sound insulation performance.¹⁰ While wood is good at reflecting sound and is therefore used to advantage in rooms such as auditoriums or concert halls, sufficient acoustic separation in residential or office buildings usually requires the combination of additional layers and structural measures.⁶³

Mechanical behavior

The mechanical behavior of wood is highly anisotropic, meaning that its strength and stiffness vary depending on the direction of the load. Strength and stiffness are significantly higher in the direction of the grain, while wood subjected to compressive load perpendicular to the grain shows significant deformation even under comparatively low loads.²⁹^,⁶⁴ Due to their relatively low mass and high flexibility, wood structures can offer advantageous earthquake-safety properties. Unlike solid, brittle materials like concrete or steel, wood elements are better able to absorb seismic forces and transfer them through controlled deformation, thereby increasing the overall stability of a building.⁶⁵ In addition, wood exhibits time-dependent effects such as creep under continuous load, which are intensified by fluctuations in humidity.²⁹ The mechanical behavior of concrete and steel, on the other hand, is more consistent than that of wood and varies less due to environmental influences.⁶⁰

Durability

Wood has variable durability, which depends heavily on the type of wood, how it is processed, the environmental conditions, and the protective measures applied. Without suitable measures, wood is particularly vulnerable to biological decomposition by fungi, mould, insects, and other organisms, especially under high humidity.⁶¹ The fibre saturation point, which is usually around 30 % for wood, represents a critical threshold above which decay is likely to occur. It refers to the moisture content of the wood at which the cell walls are completely saturated, while the cell cavities remain free of water.²⁹^,⁴⁷ In comparison, concrete and steel offer higher durability. Concrete is biologically resistant but can be affected by carbonation or freeze-thaw cycles, while steel can corrode if inadequately protected.⁶⁰^,⁶⁶

Modification

To enhance the material properties of wood, various modification methods based on chemical or thermal processes can be applied. These treatments aim to reduce the material’s natural susceptibility to moisture, biological degradation, fire, or UV radiation while improving its dimensional stability and mechanical properties.⁶⁷ Many modification processes aim to block or replace hydroxyl groups in wood, as these are responsible for the hydrophilic properties of wood and thus play a key role in the moisture absorption.²²

Thermal modifications change the chemical composition of the cell wall, in particular by breaking down hemicelluloses and reducing hydroxyl groups, which leads to lower hygroscopicity and higher dimensional stability and resistance to microorganisms.⁶⁷ Chemical modification, such as acetylation, replaces hydrophilic hydroxyl groups with hydrophobic acetyl groups, thereby permanently reducing moisture absorption and increasing resistance to fungi, insects, and fire.²²^,³² During impregnation, cell walls and lumens are filled with chemicals such as polymers, resins, or biocidal substances, which increase density, reduce water absorption, and, in some cases, also improve strength.⁶⁷ Surface coatings are another strategy that provides effective protection against moisture, biological pests, UV radiation, and fire through the application of protective layers.³²

2.4 Historical development of wood utilisation

Wood is one of the oldest building materials used by humankind and has served as a key building material for over 20,000 years.¹⁴^,⁶⁴ Due to the high availability of forest resources, wood was widely used in the earliest settlements around the world.⁵⁷ Remains of Mesolithic wooden huts have been found in Europe, for example, at Killerby Quarry in the United Kingdom. These early structures served not only protective and residential functions but were also closely linked to the process of sedentarisation and the beginnings of agricultural ways of life.⁶⁴ Its good mechanical properties, easy availability, and simple workability made wood an almost irreplaceable material for thousands of years.⁶⁵

Wood also played an essential role in construction in ancient times. In East Asia, monumental wooden structures were erected, such as the Sakyamuni Pagoda in Yingxian from the year 1056 or the palace complexes of the Forbidden City in Beijing, which were constructed in 1420 and have been partly preserved to the present day. These buildings demonstrate a high level of technical expertise in working with wood, for example, through the use of sophisticated techniques such as mortise and tenon joints.⁶⁸ Early wood buildings have also been preserved in Japan, including the Hōryū-ji Temple from the 7th century, which is considered the oldest surviving wood building in the world.³²

In addition, wood was of central importance in shipbuilding for many centuries.¹⁵ The first sailing ships were built in ancient Egypt as early as 3500 BC, and large wooden ships dominated world trade and the navy until the middle of the 19th century.⁶⁵ Until the 18th and early 19th centuries, wood was irreplaceable in almost all areas of life.¹⁵ It served not only as a building material but also as an energy source, a raw material for paper production, and the basis for numerous craft activities.¹⁵^,⁶⁹

In regions with intensive forest use, such as Central Europe, the high demand for wood led to the early implementation of regulations on forest management.⁶⁹ A well-known example is the work of Hans Carl von Carlowitz, who published the first comprehensive treatise on sustainable forestry in 1713.¹⁵ At the same time, major urban fires, such as the Great Fire of London in 1666, significantly raised awareness of the risks of wood use in densely populated urban areas.⁷⁰

With the beginning of industrialisation in the 19th century, the use of wood as a building material underwent a fundamental change.¹⁵ Whereas wood had previously been used almost universally, it was now increasingly replaced by new materials such as iron, steel, and later concrete.¹⁴^,¹⁵^,⁶⁹^,⁷⁰ This change was closely linked to the transition from the craft era to the industrial age, in which the requirements for homogeneity and standardization of building materials increased. As a naturally grown material, wood is inherently heterogeneous, making it less suitable for mass production than metals or concrete.¹⁵

Nevertheless, increasing industrialisation led to a growing wood demand for railway sleepers, for the expansion of telegraph and telephone poles, as well as for bridges and ship structures. The global railway network expanded from 40,000 km to 900,000 km between the years 1850 and 1900, which also resulted in the construction of numerous bridges, which in turn were also often made of wood.¹⁵ Despite this high demand, however, wood lost its importance as the preferred building material for industry and cities.⁶⁹ In shipbuilding, for example, wood was increasingly replaced by iron, and in mechanical engineering, only specialised components were still made of wood.⁶⁵

Figure 7: History of wood utilization – Three Phases Theory (own illustration based on Schulz (1993))¹⁵

Figure 7 illustrates the historical development of wood utilization, which can be divided into three phases. In the first period, wood was irreplaceable in almost all areas of life, whether as a building material, an energy source, or a basis for handicrafts.¹⁴^,⁶⁴ For thousands of years, wood was the dominant building material due to its easy availability, good mechanical properties, and ease of processing.⁶⁵ The beginning of the industrialisation in the 19th century marked the start of the second period, which was characterised by a significant decline in the importance of wood, as iron, steel, and later concrete were better suited to the requirements of emerging mass production and were also considered less flammable. This process led to wood being partially displaced from the construction industry.⁶⁹^,⁷⁰

Since the second half of the 20th century, wood has been experiencing a resurgence in popularity,¹⁴^,⁶⁵^,⁷⁰ resulting in the third period of wood utilization. Wood processing developed into industrial products such as paper, plywood, and OSB, overcoming the original limitations of wood in terms of its heterogeneity (see Chapter 2.2).¹⁵ By gluing veneer or wood particles together, it became possible to produce larger, standardized panels that were significantly more uniform in their mechanical properties and better suited to the requirements of industrial constructions.¹⁵^,²² The improved strength, innovative connection techniques, fire protection measures, and machine prefabrication enabled the return of wood to residential and urban buildings, as well as to the construction of multi-story buildings.¹⁴^,⁶⁵^,⁷⁰

Beyond technological advancements, ecological considerations have played a significant role in the renewed adoption of wood as a building material. With the scarcity of fossil resources and the growing awareness of climate change, wood has gained importance as a renewable material.¹⁴^,³² Political framework conditions and funding instruments have intensified this trend.⁷⁰ While scientific debates on wood construction have long focused on technical issues, the field of research has expanded significantly since the 21st century.⁷¹ Especially since the publication of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, which aimed to legally bind countries to reduce their GHG emissions, the number of scientific papers on the relationship between wood construction and climate protection has increased considerably.¹²^,⁷² Today, research covers not only technical and fire safety aspects but also topics such as sustainability, CE, and digitalisation through building information modeling (BIM).⁵^,¹⁴ The future use of wood is uncertain, but growing climate protection requirements and technical innovations could further promote its utilization.⁶⁹

3 Economic perspective

The economic perspective of wood buildings plays a significant role in evaluating their suitability as a construction alternative. Therefore, an understanding of market dynamics, price developments, and the cost efficiency of wood construction methods is crucial to assess their competitiveness compared to other building materials. This chapter provides an overview of the current market situation in the wood construction sector and examines the development of wood prices in recent years. It also analyses whether wood houses can be considered a cost-efficient solution compared to other construction methods. Finally, emerging innovations in the field of wood-based building solutions, such as the prefabrication of wood houses, BIM, and the construction of multi-story wood buildings, are considered key factors influencing the economic competitiveness of the sector.

3.1 Current market situation of the wood construction sector

The use of wood as a building material has experienced a significant renaissance internationally in recent decades.¹⁷^,⁷³ While wood was replaced by mineral building materials such as concrete and brick in many regions in the 20th century, the share of wood buildings has been rising steadily since the 1990s (see Chapter 2.4).¹⁴^,⁷⁰ Particularly in North America, Scandinavia, and Australia, wood buildings have long been widespread.¹⁴^,⁶⁰ In the United States, approximately 80 million single-family houses consist predominantly of timber frames,³¹ and around 90 % of all new buildings incorporate timber frames.³²^,⁵³ In other parts of the world, wood buildings also make up a considerable share of the single-family housing market, ranging from 45 to 70 % in certain European countries and 45 % in Japan.⁵⁷ Wood dominates residential construction in Canada, as well as in Scandinavian countries such as Sweden, Finland, and Norway, where it has traditionally been regarded as a standard building material due to the abundance of forests.¹⁴

In other parts of Europe, a more heterogeneous picture emerges. Countries such as Austria and Switzerland show a higher share of wood buildings, reaching 30 %, whereas in Germany, the proportion of new permitted residential wood buildings in 2023 was only 22 %.⁷⁴ Within Germany, there are also substantial regional differences. Southern federal states, such as Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg, record higher proportions of wood buildings, whereas wood construction is less widespread in northern and eastern regions. Several factors can explain this federal building regulations as well as to historical building traditions and industrial structures.⁸

Scandinavia is considered a pioneer in the establishment of wood in multi-story buildings.⁷⁵ In Sweden, the More Wood in Construction initiative in 2004 led to the share of multi-story wood buildings rising from 10 % in 2005 to over 14 % by 2009 (see Chapter 6.2).⁷⁶ From a global perspective, wood is gaining market share, particularly due to innovative technological developments.¹⁷ The introduction of CLT has enabled the construction of multi-story buildings and has contributed to increased demand in North America, Europe, Asia, and Oceania.³¹^,³²^,⁷⁷

The growing significance of wood in construction is supported by a variety of drivers. A key factor is the ecological advantage of the material, as wood has a significantly more favorable carbon footprint than concrete or steel, can continue to store carbon during its service life, and constitutes a renewable resource when sourced from sustainable forestry.¹¹^,³⁵^,⁷⁸ Wood offers good thermal insulation, low energy demand in the manufacturing process, and the possibility of quick construction, further enhancing its attractiveness.¹¹ Increasing environmental awareness and the demand for energy-efficient buildings, particularly in urban areas, reinforce this trend.¹⁷^,³⁴ Technological innovations such as high-performance EWPs, modular prefabrication, and digital planning tools also expand the applications of wood in multi-story buildings and large-scale projects.³⁵^,⁶²

However, barriers continue to exist. In many countries, traditional building methods and cultural preferences impede broader market acceptance.⁷⁹ The dominance of mineral-based building materials has developed historically and is reinforced by established industrial structures, existing supply chains, and influential industry associations.⁸ In addition, regulatory constraints, particularly regarding fire safety and tall buildings, limit the use of wood (see Chapter 6.3).²² In some countries, the wood construction industry is fragmented and, compared to well-organised steel and concrete industries, makes little collective effort to advocate for its interests, which further hinders its development.⁸⁰ Finally, the availability of wood also plays a role, as regional differences in forestry and the wood industry affect supply, prices, and the acceptance of the material.⁸ More than half of the world’s forests are located in five countries: Russia, Brazil, Canada, China, and the United States.⁸¹ The global wood trade, therefore, connects forest-rich regions with forest-poor regions. With a growing number of countries involved, trade has become more complex, and political influences have a direct impact on the global availability of wood and its price.⁸²

The economic development of the global forestry sector shows regional and product-related differences.⁸² Globally, the majority of value added comes from processing industries, including paper products, solid wood products, and furniture, while forestry and logging contribute less but still play a significant role.⁸³ Despite the increasing relevance of wood as a raw material,¹⁷^,⁷³ global revenue trends in recent years show different results.⁸⁴ After the record years 2021 and 2022, international trade in wood and paper products fell by 12 %, or 64 billion US dollars, to a total of 482 billion US dollars in 2023. This decline was seen in most key product categories, with global production of industrial roundwood and lumber falling by 4 % each and pulp and paper by 2 to 3 %. In 2023, only wood-based panels demonstrated a global growth of 1 %, primarily due to increased production in the Asia-Pacific region.⁸⁴ In Europe and North America, the market for lumber proved particularly weak in 2023 and early 2024, mainly due to high inflation rates and rising interest rates, which slowed down construction activity. The lumber production fell by 6.8 % in Europe and in North America by 2.7 %, while consumption reached its lowest level in five years as a result of high mortgage interest rates. Overall, these developments show how sensitive this sector is to macroeconomic influences such as interest rates and geopolitical events.⁸⁵

The future development of wood buildings is closely linked to global trends in urbanisation, sustainability, and climate adaptation.⁶⁵^,⁷⁵ In view of increasing demands for energy-efficient and climate-friendly constructions, the proportion of wood, particularly EWPs, used in single-family and multi-family houses as well as in non-residential buildings is expected to continue to rise.³⁵^,⁶⁸ In urban environments in particular, wood building methods offer the opportunity to create compact and resource-efficient constructions that also store carbon, thereby contributing to climate protection strategies.⁸⁶ However, adaptation to climate change requires the consideration of regional climatic conditions. These include heat protection, ensuring water resilience, and minimising weather damage to wood facades and other exposed components.⁶⁵ Innovative solutions, such as the use of prefabricated timber construction elements, high-performance structural timber, and digital planning tools, can help to make buildings more resilient to extreme weather events.³⁵^,⁴⁸

Despite the positive development potential, challenges remain. The introduction of new wood products is hampered by market uncertainty, low public awareness, and fragmented supply chains.⁸⁷^,³⁵^,⁵⁴ Research is required to better understand the material properties and future climate conditions, to optimize lifecycle costs, and to advance the development of innovative and sustainable construction methods.¹⁰ At the same time, public awareness must be raised, and education about the ecological advantages of wood, its structural properties, and its contribution to climate-friendly construction is needed.³⁵^,⁸⁷ Furthermore, the political framework and regulatory constraints must be revised to accommodate and support wood-based construction practices.⁶⁸^,⁷⁵^,⁸⁸ The combination of technological innovation and targeted information dissemination can increase the acceptance of wood buildings and pave the way for climate-resilient, sustainable construction.¹⁰^,⁵⁴

3.2 Development of wood prices

In recent years, the price development of wood as a building material has experienced significant fluctuations, particularly influenced by external shocks such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.⁸⁹ While wood prices remained largely stable and, in some cases, even declined in the years before 2020,⁹⁰ they began to exhibit unprecedented volatility at the beginning of the pandemic.⁹¹^,⁹² This development resulted from a combination of supply shortages and increased demand. On the supply side, pandemic-related production shutdowns in sawmills as well as supply chain disruptions, for instance in maritime transport, led to substantial constraints.⁹¹^,⁹² At the same time, government support programmes and shifts in consumption prompted many households to invest in residential improvements, particularly renovations and remodelling projects.⁹² Consequently, the demand for wood as a building material increased to an extent that the industry had not anticipated.⁹³

Figure 8: Development of the global lumber price per cubic meter (own illustration based on Macrotrends (2025))⁹⁴

Figure 8 illustrates the global development of lumber prices per cubic meter over recent years. Since 2019, lumber prices have been highly volatile, with an overall upward trend. Between the lowest price in April 2020 and the highest price in May 2021, prices increased nearly sevenfold, reaching approximately 707 US dollars per cubic meter, which can be attributed to the COVID-19 crisis that emerged at the end of 2019 and had significant economic effects by early 2020.⁸⁹^,⁹² This was followed by a substantial decline in lumber prices, with prices falling below 200 US dollars per cubic meter in August 2021.⁹¹ At the beginning of 2022, another increase to over 424 US dollars per cubic meter was recorded, closely associated with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which began on 24 February 2022.⁹⁵ Currently, lumber prices have stabilised and remain at a lower level, with a price of approximately 244 US dollars per cubic meter in January 2025.⁹⁴

The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the vulnerability of the wood market to crises. Even minor shifts in demand patterns or disruptions within the supply chain resulted in substantial price increases.⁹³ External events, such as natural disasters, have also been shown to trigger significant price fluctuations.⁹¹ These extreme variations demonstrate that the wood market is vulnerable to global and regional crises, given its reliance on limited production and transportation capacities.⁸⁹^,⁷⁹

The Russian invasion of Ukraine had a considerable impact on the wood market, which was particularly evident in the European region.⁹⁵^,⁹⁶ Prior to the conflict, Russia and Ukraine accounted for a significant share of wood exports to Europe. With the imposition of European Union sanctions on Russia and the substantial restrictions on Ukraine’s exports, a significant portion of the former trade flows was disrupted.⁹⁶ This disruption led to rising prices and shortages of specific wood products in many European countries, particularly sawn timber and plywood. Although global lumber prices began to recover from pandemic-induced peak levels in 2022, they remained elevated due to geopolitical uncertainties and disrupted trade relations.⁹⁵ Energy prices, which rose as a result of the conflict, further exacerbated the situation, as production costs within the wood-processing industry increased, with a portion of these cost escalations being passed on to end consumers.⁹⁶

Compared with other building materials such as concrete and steel, wood exhibits a markedly higher sensitivity to short-term supply and demand shocks.⁹⁷ While prices for mineral-based building materials also increased during the same period, wood exhibited considerably greater volatility due to its lower supply elasticity.⁹² Although steel prices have risen sharply in recent years due to high energy prices, they have not reached the levels observed in wood prices. The temporarily very high wood prices led to increased demand for concrete, steel, and aluminium in the construction industry during this period. These developments demonstrate that demand for wood is influenced by the prices of substitutes, with even slight changes in substitute prices leading to significant shifts in wood prices.⁹¹^,⁹²

3.3 Are wood houses a cost-efficient solution?

The question of the cost-efficiency of wood as a building material is viewed differently in research.⁹⁸ Although wood houses are often considered advantageous from an ecological point of view, it is unclear whether they are economically competitive with conventional materials such as concrete or steel.¹⁷^,⁶⁹ Wood houses are typically associated with higher material costs.⁴³^,⁹⁸ This applies in particular to products such as CLT, which require up to 26 % higher initial investments, as their production has so far been less standardized and is often associated with higher procurement costs.⁹⁹ Also, for other wood products, the pure material expenditures are, on average, higher than those of comparable concrete or steel products.⁹⁸ This is attributed, among other factors, to limited production and supply structures.⁹⁸^,⁹⁹

On the other hand, advantages in terms of time and work organization in the construction process can partially offset these additional costs.³⁷^,⁴⁰^,¹⁰⁰ Prefabricated timber elements can be assembled more quickly and significantly reduce personnel costs and construction time on site.¹⁹^,¹⁰⁰ Shorter construction times not only reduce ongoing site costs but also have a positive effect on financing expenses.³⁷^,⁴⁰ In addition, wood is lighter than concrete or steel, which reduces transportation costs and facilitates handling on construction sites.¹⁹^,³⁷ On average, wood houses can be constructed more quickly than comparable concrete and steel buildings.³⁷^,¹⁰⁰

Long-term considerations, for example, in the context of life cycle cost analyses, reveal further differentiated aspects. Although wood houses entail higher maintenance and repair costs during their service life, they benefit from lower disposal costs at the end of their lifespan.¹⁹ In addition, wooden components can be reused or recycled, thereby reducing overall life cycle costs. Over an extended period, these benefits may result in the total costs of wood houses being comparable to, or even lower than, those of alternative construction methods.¹⁹^,⁹⁹

An additional crucial aspect in the assessment of wood as a building material is the consideration of external costs.⁶⁹ For instance, when the social costs of CO2 emissions or existing energy taxes are taken into account, the economic standing of wood houses improves significantly, as wood as a building material has a comparatively low environmental impact and offers good thermal insulation (see Chapter 4.3). Further cost advantages arise from carbon storage within the wood and the energetic use of residual materials.⁶⁹^,¹⁰¹

The cost-efficiency of wood is also highly dependent on regional conditions. In regions where wood is scarce and therefore expensive, concrete often remains the more economical choice. At the same time, innovative approaches, such as the development of composite materials from wood waste (see Chapter 2.2), demonstrate that cost-efficient and sustainable solutions are possible even in resource-constrained markets.¹⁰² In summary, while wood houses often require higher initial investments, these can be partially or even fully offset by savings in construction time, labor costs, disposal, ecological benefits, technological developments, and policy frameworks. Whether wood is a cost-efficient building material cannot be determined in general. The assessment must be carried out on a project-specific basis and varies according to the prevailing conditions.⁶⁹^,¹⁰³

3.4 Emerging innovations in wood-based building solutions

Recent innovations in the construction sector enhance the economic, ecological, and technical performance of wood buildings. Three approaches have received particular attention: Prefabrication, the use of digital planning tools such as BIM, and the expansion of wood construction to multi-story buildings, especially in urban areas. For companies, these developments offer opportunities to increase efficiency, reduce production costs, and unlock new market potential.¹⁰⁴^,¹⁰⁵ The following chapter examines these trends in more detail, focusing on their impacts on construction costs, planning processes, and the competitiveness of wood construction.

3.4.1 Prefabrication of wood houses

Prefabrication is considered a central element in the industrialisation of the construction sector and is gaining importance in the context of wood houses. Additionally, Prefabrication refers to the production of building components in a controlled environment off-site, which are subsequently transported to the construction site and assembled into a complete building.¹⁰⁴^,¹⁰⁶ Wood is particularly well-suited for prefabrication due to its light weight, workability, and dimensional strength.¹⁰⁴ The process encompasses various elements, ranging from partial prefabrication, such as panels and components, to fully volumetric modules.¹⁰⁷ In wood construction, prefabricated wall, floor, and roof elements are commonly used, which can also include windows or facade components.⁴⁰^,¹⁰⁷

Prefabrication offers several ecological and economic advantages.²²^,¹⁰⁴ Standardized production conditions in factories enable more efficient construction processes, reduce error rates, and improve the quality of building components.¹⁰⁷^,¹⁰⁸ Additionally, on-site assembly time is significantly shortened.⁴⁰^,¹⁰⁸ Another benefit is the reduction of material waste, as cutting and assembly take place under optimized conditions.²²^,¹⁰⁶ Prefabrication, therefore, contributes to resource conservation and the reduction of GHG emissions.²²

Furthermore, aspects of circularity are closely linked to prefabrication. Modular construction and connections that can later be disassembled without damage create the possibility of dismantling building components at the end of a building’s life cycle and reusing them.¹⁰⁵^,¹⁰⁶ This aligns with the Design for Disassembly principle, in which products are planned so that components can be removed later without damage.¹⁰⁹ As a result, the longevity of buildings is promoted, and their adaptability is increased.¹⁰⁵^,¹⁰⁶ Prefabrication also facilitates building extensions, allowing them to respond flexibly to changing usage requirements.¹⁰⁶

The increasing digitalisation has a significant impact on the development of prefabrication in wood buildings.¹¹⁰ Digital planning and manufacturing technologies, such as BIM, enable the production of highly precise and complex components, further supporting standardization, cost reduction, and quality improvement.¹⁰⁴^,¹¹⁰ As these technologies continue to advance, prefabrication is expected to become the standard in wooden construction, playing a pivotal role in the sustainable transformation of the construction sector.¹⁰⁴^,¹¹⁰

3.4.2 Building information modelling

In recent years, digitalisation has had a significant impact on the construction industry. BIM, a data-based concept that enables the holistic planning and execution of construction projects, plays a central role in this.¹⁰^,¹⁰⁴^,¹¹¹ BIM provides all project participants with a common information base, which improves the quality of planning and coordination.¹⁰⁴^,¹¹¹ In contrast to conventional two-dimensional planning methods, BIM allows the editing of a three-dimensional model that contains all relevant geometric, technical, and economic information.¹¹¹

The use of BIM has particular potential in the construction of wood buildings, as wood is a renewable building material that is increasingly becoming the focus of sustainable construction concepts. Additionally, The specific properties of wood, such as its modularity, low weight, and suitability for prefabrication, are advantageous for digital planning and production processes.¹⁰⁴ BIM can optimize the interface between design, planning, and production, particularly in the manufacture of components in CNC-controlled production environments, where machines produce components with precision and automation.¹¹¹^,¹¹² Direct data transfer from BIM models to machines further reduces sources of error and shortens production times.¹¹²

Despite these advantages, there are still considerable challenges in implementing BIM in wood buildings. Data transfer problems between different software solutions may occur, which reduces efficiency. Moreover, insufficient compatibility between BIM models and machine manufacturing systems often leads to data loss and additional work.¹⁰⁴ Furthermore, many common BIM programmes were historically designed for steel and concrete construction, which means that specific functions for timber construction are only available to a limited extent. The use of BIM in timber construction is also complicated by the fact that wood is a natural raw material, which is not standardized or homogeneous in its properties. Consequently, the respective modeling requires precise adjustments. Although there are software extensions, such as ArchiFrame and Agacad, for timber structures, their use requires a high level of expertise and extensive configuration effort.¹⁴ Another barrier is the lack of standardized object libraries and data sets for timber structures. This makes it challenging to model timber components and compromises the quality of the models.¹⁰⁴ The shortage of trained specialists is also a major barrier, as working with BIM requires both technical and procedural knowledge. Implementation, therefore, requires close cooperation among research institutions, software developers, and manufacturers.¹¹³

In the long term, however, the integration of BIM in the construction process of wood buildings offers many opportunities for more efficient and resource-saving construction methods.¹⁰⁴^,¹¹¹ By linking it with technologies such as Virtual Design and Construction, automated code checking, and robotics, the entire value chain can be digitally mapped and optimized. BIM is already being used successfully, particularly in countries with a strong wood construction culture, such as Finland and Canada.¹⁴ However, clear standards, training programmes, and the further development of timber-specific software solutions are required for widespread implementation in order to exploit the potential of this technology fully.¹⁰⁴

3.4.3 Multi-storey wood buildings

Multi-story wood buildings represent a category of high-rise constructions consisting of two or more storeys, whose structural load-bearing systems are primarily made of wood-based materials.¹¹⁴ In recent years, wood has established itself as a construction material in multi-story buildings.¹⁷ This development is the result of technological advances, changes in legal frameworks, and a growing societal awareness of sustainability.¹⁷^,¹¹⁴ While wood was previously used predominantly in single-family house construction, the increasing use of multi-story wood buildings can help to further establish the material in urban areas.¹¹⁴ This creates opportunities to implement sustainable and climate-friendly building methods in cities and to strengthen the use of wood for larger projects, resulting in more climate-positive urban landscapes based on CE principles and renewable materials.¹⁷

A key driver of this development is technological progress in timber processing, particularly the introduction of CLT (see Chapter 2.2). This industrially produced timber product is characterised by high dimensional stability, load-bearing capacity, and fire resistance, enabling building heights that were previously reserved for concrete and steel structures.⁴⁴ One example of this is the Ascent building in Milwaukee, USA, which is 25 storeys high and is currently the world’s tallest building constructed using CLT, thereby surpassing previous height limitations in wood construction.⁷⁷ Combined with modern prefabrication technologies, construction times can be significantly shortened, costs reduced, and sources of error on site minimised.¹⁰⁸ For example, in a nine-story timber high-rise building, the entire load-bearing structure was erected by only four workers within 27 days, using only a mobile crane and hand-held screwdrivers.³⁵ This trend is reinforced by digital planning tools such as BIM (see Chapter 3.4.2), which allow the entire lifecycle of a building from design and construction to its deconstruction to be coordinated more effectively and with improved resource efficiency.¹¹⁵

In addition to ecological benefits, significant economic opportunities arise from the increased use of wood in multi-story buildings. Globally, the market for EWPs, particularly CLT, is among the fastest-growing segments of the construction industry.¹¹⁴ Industrial prefabrication allows for high-cost efficiency through reduced construction times and standardized production processes. At the same time, the regional availability of wood strengthens local value chains, creates jobs in forestry, manufacturing, and planning, and reduces dependence on global supply chains.¹⁰⁸^,¹¹⁴^,¹¹⁶ Furthermore, the use of wood improves the sustainability rating of buildings, facilitating access to green financing instruments. As sustainable properties are increasingly seen as stable and future-proof investments, wood construction also becomes more attractive to investors.¹⁰⁵

Legislation also functions as both a driver and a barrier for the use of wood in multi-story buildings. As a driver, it can encourage the shift towards sustainable construction through climate strategies, incentive programmes, and the recognition of wood as an equivalent construction material.¹¹⁶ As a barrier, insufficient political support, for example, at the municipal level, can impede the adoption of wood construction methods. Limited knowledge of modern wood technologies among decision-makers in administrations and building authorities further reinforces uncertainties and reluctance towards implementation.¹¹⁴^,¹¹⁶^,¹¹⁷

4 Ecological perspective

This chapter examines the ecological dimensions of using wood as a building material. The focus lies on analysing the environmental impacts throughout the entire life cycle of wood buildings, from raw material extraction to use, disposal, or recycling. Initially, the carbon storage and sequestration potential of wood are considered. Subsequently, circular material flows, cascading, and End-of-Life (EoL) strategies for wood products are analyzed to identify pathways towards a resource-efficient CE. Furthermore, the examination addresses the energy efficiency of wood buildings and subsequently considers the principles of SFM, which serve as a foundation for exploiting the ecological advantages of wood within the construction sector. Finally, the results of different LCAs are summarised, providing a comprehensive evaluation of the environmental impacts of wood buildings.

4.1 Carbon storage and sequestration potential of wood

Compared to other building materials, wood has remarkable potential for carbon storage, making it a central component of climate-friendly building practices.¹¹⁸^,¹¹⁹ A distinction must be made between the terms carbon storage and carbon sequestration. Carbon sequestration refers to the process by which CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere and converted into biogenic carbon.¹²⁰^,¹²¹ Carbon storage describes the long-term storage of carbon in a material or product.¹¹⁸

The sequestration potential of wood begins in the forest.¹¹⁹^,¹²⁰ During their growth, trees absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and convert it into biogenic carbon, which is stored in the wood tissue. Through this process, carbon dioxide is removed from the air and bound in the tree’s biomass.¹²⁰^,¹²² This ability makes forests some of the most effective carbon concentrators on Earth.²¹ On average, around half of a tree’s dry mass consists of carbon. Therefore, the amount of carbon stored within a tree can be estimated by multiplying its dry weight by 0.5.¹²⁰^,¹²³ The amount of CO2 stored in wood can be calculated by multiplying the weight of the carbon it contains by 3.67. This factor reflects the relationship between the molecular weight of CO2 and the atomic weight of carbon.¹⁰¹ The amount of carbon stored varies depending on the wood species and density. Hardwoods with densities between 650 and 900 kg/m³ store approximately 325 to 450 kg of carbon per cubic meter of wood, equivalent to 1.2 to 1.65 tonnes of CO.² Softwoods with a density of around 500 kg/m³ store about 250 kg of carbon per cubic meter, corresponding to 0.92 tonnes of CO.¹²⁴ Young forests, characterised by rapid growth, continually increase their stored carbon stock, whereas older forests tend to maintain a balanced carbon cycle, as photosynthesis and the decomposition of biomass approximately offset each other.²¹^,¹²⁰

When wood products are sourced from sustainably managed forests and used in long-lasting building components, the carbon remains bound for decades.²¹ In this case, there is no release of CO2, but rather a transfer of carbon from one storage system, the forest, to another, the building product. Durable building products, such as load-bearing elements, GLT, or furniture, ensure long-term CO2 storage.²¹^,⁶⁶ Through the continuous reforestation of harvested areas, the amount of carbon permanently stored in forests can be maintained over the long term, thereby making a lasting contribution to climate protection.²¹^,⁶⁶^,¹²⁵

The potential of wood as a sustainable building material is exemplified by a typical North American single-family house, whose wood structure stores around 9.3 tonnes of carbon, equivalent to approximately 34 tonnes of CO.¹²⁴ Using wood as a building material instead of energy-intensive materials such as concrete or steel also avoids fossil CO2 emissions.⁶⁶ While the production and transport of concrete and steel release significant quantities of GHGs, wood absorbs CO2 during its growth and stores this carbon in buildings for decades.²¹^,⁶⁶^,¹⁰¹ This combination of carbon storage and substitution effects results in a substantial reduction of climate-relevant emissions both in the short and long term.²¹^,⁶⁶ However, this effect is partially offset over time, as newly processed wood replaces previously used wood products. Additionally, The overall positive impact of wood on the climate remains significant due to its simultaneous capacity to store and sequester CO2 emissions.²¹

Overall, the combination of natural carbon sequestration in forests, long-term carbon storage in wood products, and the substitution of fossil-based building materials results in a significant climate mitigation potential.²¹ The carbon storage capacity of buildings depends mainly on the quantity and volume of wooden components in structural and non-structural parts, rather than on factors such as building type, wood species, or size. Consequently, policies promoting carbon-neutral construction should prioritise the use of wooden elements over broader or indirect indicators.¹⁰¹ The effectiveness of these measures, however, depends critically on SFM (see Chapter 4.4), the longevity of wood products, and the systematic integration of wood into the construction sector.²¹^,¹⁰¹

4.2 Circular material flows and End-of-Life strategies

The report Our Common Future by the World Commission on Environment and Development, also known as the Brundtland Report, was published in 1987 and is considered the basis for the modern understanding of sustainable development. In the report, sustainable development was defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, p.³⁴).¹²⁶ This principle provided the normative basis for later approaches aimed at decoupling economic growth from environmental impacts.¹²⁷ The CE is a concept frequently discussed in relation to this objective.¹²⁸ By promoting closed material loops, resource efficiency, and waste prevention, it turns the abstract goals of sustainable development into concrete economic and technological strategies.⁶

In contrast to the linear take-make-dispose model, the CE emphasises the closure of material loops and the enhancement of resource efficiency throughout the entire life cycle.⁶^,¹²⁹ It replaces the traditional EoL concept with a hierarchy that prioritises reduction, reuse, recycling, and recovery.⁶ In this way, CE serves as an instrument for implementing the objectives of sustainable development by aligning environmental, economic, and social dimensions.¹²⁸

The construction sector is one of the main contributors to environmental degradation and resource depletion on a global scale.⁵^,⁶ In the European Union, for example, the building sector accounts for approximately 42 % of yearly energy use, 35 % of annual GHG emissions, and about one third of all materials consumed each year.¹³⁰ The intensive use of materials and energy has traditionally been based on a linear economic model characterised by extraction, production, use, and disposal. Such a system results in the depletion of finite resources, the emission of GHGs, and the destruction of ecosystems.¹²⁹ The global economy is currently only around 7.2 % circular, which is why a fundamental transition to CE models is considered essential in order to achieve international climate targets.¹³¹

Purpose

CE Strategies

Application

Smarter

product use and

manufacture

Refuse and

rethink

Rethinking manufacturing processes and refusing

unnecessary building materials to reduce construction waste materials

Reduce

Using fewer raw materials and preparing materials as needed can lead to reducing waste. Additionally, Using offsite

(modular) construction can help to reduce wood waste

Wood

substitution

Wood is used as an alternative to more

resource-intensive or environmentally harmful

materials to reduce ecological impacts

Extend lifespan of products and their parts

Reuse

The use of a discarded product by a second or

subsequent consumer without the need for repair or

correction

Repair

Repairing and replacing failed parts to make a broken product functional again

Refurbish

The process of restoring and updating an old product

Remanufacture

Existing products are restored and modernised to

extend their usability and improve their condition

Repurpose

Products are adapted for new functions through

efficient disassembly and reassembly processes

Useful

application of materials

Recycle

Materials are processed and converted into new

substances or products

Recover

Wood waste is recovered from processes such as

recycling, reuse, or bioenergy production to maximise resource efficiency

Table 4: Circular economy strategies in the construction sector (own illustration based on Ghobadi and Sepasgozar (2023)⁵ & Morseletto 2020¹³²

Table 4 presents various CE strategies that can be applied in the construction sector. The strategies refuse and rethink, reduce, and wood substitution aim to enhance resource efficiency and promote more sustainable material choices. Reuse, repair, refurbish, and remanufacture extend the lifespan of products and building components. Recycling and recovery enable the reintegration and reuse of materials within the circular system.¹³² The implementation of a CE in the construction sector requires profound structural transformations at all levels. At the micro level, it concerns products, companies, and consumption behavior, while at the meso level, cities, regions, and industrial networks are involved. Additionally, At the macro level, national and international policy frameworks are of particular importance.¹²⁸ For instance, strategic initiatives such as the European Green Deal and the Renovation Wave position the construction sector at the core of the European sustainability agenda, aiming to advance resource efficiency, enhance durability, and foster CE flows.⁶

Wood occupies a key position in this transformation. Modern wood construction methods, such as CLT or GLT, combine high structural performance with ecological advantages.⁵ As a renewable and carbon-storing resource, wood can make a substantial contribution to reducing emissions and establishing circular material flows.¹²²^,¹³³ Through the planning of structures according to the principles of Design for Disassembly, wooden components can be efficiently deconstructed at the end of their service life and reintegrated into new building contexts.⁵ Although wood as a construction material offers significant potential for a CE, its practical implementation is still at an early stage. Wood waste is often still used for energy recovery or processed into lower-grade products.¹³³ To fully realise its potential, innovations in design, manufacturing, and material traceability are required. In addition, political and regulatory frameworks that specifically promote high-quality reuse and recycling processes are essential.⁵^,¹³⁴

Cascading

The cascading use of wood can be understood as a transitional strategy between linear and circular resource utilization.¹³⁴ It describes the sequential use of wood in various application stages before it is ultimately used for energy recovery or disposed of at the end of its life cycle.¹³⁵^,¹³⁶ While the CE aims at establishing a closed-loop system in which materials are retained within the economic cycle for as long as possible, cascading use represents a hierarchically structured and temporally limited sequence of resource utilization.¹³⁴^,¹³⁷ It therefore follows a linear structure with several intermediate stages, but contributes to the goals of the CE by extending the useful life of products and reducing waste.¹³⁴ Cascading use can thus be regarded as an instrument or sub-concept of the CE, particularly applied within the bio-based sector.¹³⁷^,¹³⁸

The principle of cascading use is based on the idea of initially employing wood in applications with high use for energy recovery, thereby maximising the material use of the resource.¹³⁵^,¹³⁸ Cascading use is particularly favoured for wood, as its potential for material reuse is limited by its physical and chemical properties. As a biological and biodegradable material, wood loses quality and stability with each application through processes such as gluing, coating, or ageing, which prevents it from being indefinitely circulated within the material cycle.¹³⁴^,¹³⁹

Figure 9: Cascading use of wood (own illustration based on Höglmeier et al. (2017)¹³⁶ & Sirkin and Houten (1994)¹³⁵)

The cascading use of wood, as illustrated in Figure 9, demonstrates the gradual utilization of the material across multiple life cycles, thereby extending its overall service life and optimising resource efficiency.¹³⁶ The Figure depicts a continuous decline in resource quality over time, beginning with high-quality solid wood, which is subsequently processed into veneer and EWPs in further utilization stages.¹³⁵^,¹³⁶ With increasing use and decreasing material quality, the wood is converted into fibrous materials and chemical raw substances. In the final stage of cascading use, the remaining wood residues are utilized for energy recovery.¹³⁶

The objective of cascading use is to extend the overall utilization period and carbon storage capacity of wood while increasing material efficiency.¹³⁶ By reintegrating wood residues and recycled materials into the production process, the demand for primary raw materials is reduced, and GHG emissions are mitigated. Through multi-stage cascading, net emissions can be significantly lowered and carbon storage prolonged, as the CO2 bound in wood remains sequestered across multiple product life cycles.¹³⁸^,¹⁴⁰

Despite these environmental advantages, the systematic implementation of cascading use remains at an early stage of development.¹³⁶^,¹⁴⁰ In practice, multiple utilization is often limited to simpler forms of recycling, such as the production of particleboard or fibreboard from waste wood. Technical, economic, and regulatory barriers hinder broader establishment.¹³⁶^,¹⁴⁰ Major challenges include contamination caused by coatings, adhesives, or wood preservatives, which complicate reuse, as well as the lack of standards and legal requirements for the classification and sorting of wood waste.¹³⁹ In addition, economic obstacles persist, as the processing and cleaning of waste wood are often more costly than the use of primary wood.¹⁴¹ In the long term, the cascading use of wood offers the potential to play a key role in the transition towards a climate-neutral and resource-efficient wood industry aligned with the objectives of the CE.¹³⁴

End-of-life strategies

The EoL phase is a critical stage in the life cycle of wood construction, as it significantly determines overall environmental performance and resource efficiency.¹²² Compared to conventional building materials such as steel or concrete, wood offers a variety of recovery options that can substantially influence the outcomes of LCAs.¹⁴² The EoL phase encompasses reuse, recycling, energy recovery, and landfill, each of which entails distinct environmental impacts, benefits, and technical challenges.¹²²

In contrast to mineral-based building materials, wood consists of biogenic carbon, which is absorbed during the tree’s growth phase through photosynthesis (see Chapter 4.1). At the end of its service life, this carbon is released back into the atmosphere, either through natural decomposition or combustion, thereby completing the biological carbon cycle.¹⁴² The manner in which this carbon is mainly returned depends on the chosen EoL strategy. Reuse and recycling extend the carbon storage period, whereas energy recovery and landfill disposal determine the rate and form of carbon release.¹²²

After the utilization life, wood can take various potential pathways. Reuse involves the direct continued use of components without significant processing, whereas recycling entails the material conversion into new products, such as particle boards, medium-density fibreboards, or OSB panels.¹⁴³ Larger building elements, such as beams or frames, can be reemployed in construction or prepared for secondary applications. Smaller or contaminated wood fractions are often used in lower-value applications or for energy recovery.¹⁴⁴ Energy recovery represents a central option at the end of wood’s life. When wood is combusted under controlled conditions, the released energy can substitute for fossil fuels, thereby significantly reducing GHG emissions.¹⁴² The environmental impact of this use, however, strongly depends on the technology employed, emission control, and any chemical treatments applied to the wood. Chemically treated or contaminated wood must be combusted under specific conditions, including flue gas cleaning and controlled ash disposal.¹⁴²^,¹⁴⁵

In the European Union, the landfilling of untreated wood has largely been replaced by recycling and energy recovery, as the disposal of wood in municipal landfills is often prohibited. Additionally, In North America, however, a significant portion of wood from demolition activities continues to be landfilled.¹⁴² When landfilled, wood decomposes under anaerobic conditions and releases landfill gas consisting of approximately 50 % methane, a greenhouse gas with a global warming potential about 28 to 36 times higher than that of CO2.¹²² This makes landfilling the least preferred disposal option for wood.¹²²^,¹⁴⁶ The recoverability and retrieval rate of wood strongly depend on the construction method, the joining techniques, and the presence of chemical additives. EWPs such as particle boards and fibreboards pose a particular challenge, as they contain synthetic adhesives that can release pollutants during combustion.¹⁴³ For this reason, the concept of Design for Disassembly is gaining importance, as dismantle-friendly constructions enable targeted separation and recovery of materials at the end of a building’s life.¹²²

The EoL phase of wood construction products plays a central role in the environmental performance of wood buildings. An efficient strategy for reuse, recycling, and material recovery can transform waste wood into a valuable secondary resource, thereby promoting both the expansion of renewable energy and material circulation.¹²²^,¹⁴⁴ Optimising the EoL phase is therefore an essential component of sustainable, low-carbon construction and a key factor in aligning with the CE within the built environment.¹²²

4.3 Energy efficiency

The world’s population continues to grow, leading to an increase in demand for living spaces. Additionally, growing comfort requirements and improved standards in terms of room temperature, lighting, and technical equipment are contributing to higher energy consumption.⁵⁷ Despite modest progress, the sector is not yet on track to achieve the goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, as advancements remain slow. Since 2015, the sector’s CO2 emissions have increased by five per cent, falling significantly short of the 28 % reduction required by 2030 to meet the targets of the Paris Agreement.⁴

The energy demand of a building originates from its operation and from the production of construction materials, which necessitates a holistic assessment of its overall energy performance. Additionally, The share of energy stored in materials is known as embodied energy and includes all energy required for the extraction, manufacturing, transportation, and assembly of construction materials.⁵⁷^,¹⁴⁷ In conventional buildings, about 85 % of total energy demand is associated with operational energy, meaning the energy required for heating, cooling, and daily use. Embodied energy accounts for the remaining 15 %.¹⁴⁸ Reducing embodied energy and increasing energy efficiency in the construction sector are crucial steps towards achieving global climate targets. Thereby, energy efficiency can be understood as the implementation of methods and technologies that minimise energy use while maintaining an equivalent level of output or service.⁵⁷

Compared with other construction materials such as concrete or steel, wood exhibits low thermal conductivity.⁵⁷^,¹⁴⁹^,¹⁵⁰ As a result, wooden structures provide excellent insulation properties, significantly reducing the energy demand for heating and cooling.⁵⁷ Load-bearing components such as exterior walls, roofs, and ceilings can be built in a space-saving and economical way that is highly thermally efficient.⁵⁸ In comparison with steel, wood conducts heat about 400 times less effectively and around ten times less effectively than concrete. This significantly improves the thermal insulation performance of wood buildings.⁸⁰

In addition to these physical advantages, wood is characterised by a considerably lower energy intensity during its production process. While the manufacturing of concrete and steel requires large amounts of fossil energy, the processing of wood demands substantially less energy and can largely be powered by renewable sources.⁸⁰ In terms of operating energy, wood houses also show favorable performance, with average values that are 12 % lower than those of concrete and 31 % lower than those of steel buildings.¹⁴⁸ Furthermore, the use of wood enhances resource efficiency, as it is a renewable raw material that can be reused multiple times through cascade utilization before being used for energy recovery at the end of its life cycle.¹⁵⁰ Thus, the use of wood contributes not only to reducing operational energy but also to lowering embodied emissions in the construction sector.¹⁴⁸

4.4 Sustainable forest management

SFM is of central importance to the construction industry, as the ecological benefits of wood, such as CO₂ storage and resource conservation, only originate if the wood comes from sustainably managed forests. Without SFM methods, wood loses most of its positive environmental contributions.⁴⁸^,¹⁵¹ It refers to a dynamic concept that aims to preserve and promote the economic, social, and ecological values of forests for future generations.¹⁵² SFM extends beyond traditional sustainable forestry by also encompassing biodiversity protection, the preservation of ecological functions such as carbon storage, water and soil conservation, and the enhancement of social and cultural services.¹⁵²^,¹⁵³

Forestry has historically played a key role in the origins of sustainability. In the 18th century, Carl von Carlowitz developed the principle of only harvesting as much wood as could be regrown through natural regeneration. This principle served as the basis for the modern understanding of sustainable resource use and significantly influenced the development of today’s sustainability discourse.¹⁵⁴ By combining environmental and resource protection with economic use and social participation, SFM is considered a dynamic management concept that has to adapt to changing ecological and social conditions to ensure the long-term stability and multifunctionality of forests.¹⁵²^,¹⁵³

Global forest situation and trends

The world’s forest area covers around four billion hectares, which is about 30 % of the global land area. Approximately 93 % of this area consists of natural forests, while around 7 % is classified as planted forests. The largest share of the world’s forests is located in the tropics (45 %), followed by boreal forests (27 %), temperate forests (16 %), and subtropical forests (11 %).¹⁵² Between 1990 and 2020, approximately 420 million hectares of forest were lost worldwide, corresponding to about 10 % of the global forest area and exceeding the total area of the European Union.¹⁵⁵ According to estimates by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, around ten million hectares of forest are lost each year, mainly due to deforestation for agricultural use, infrastructure, and raw material extraction. Tropical regions in South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia are particularly affected, while forest areas in Europe and North America are increasing slightly.⁸¹

Primary forests, understood as areas largely unaffected by human activity, are steadily declining and now cover only 1.11 billion hectares. More than half of these areas are located in Brazil, Canada, and Russia. At the same time, the proportion of forest areas with formal management plans, which regulate sustainable use and conservation measures, has increased in recent decades. While the majority of forests in Europe are managed under formal plans, less than a quarter of forest areas in Africa and South America are systematically managed. In addition to providing wood, forests make essential contributions to climate protection. They store approximately 662 gigatonnes of carbon worldwide in biomass, deadwood, and soils.⁸¹ Nevertheless, this storage capacity is threatened by deforestation, fires, and degradation.¹

Forest management approaches

Description

Management intensity

Unmanaged forest

reserve

Measures restricted to the provision of recreational opportunities and the protection against animal browsing

Close-to-nature

Interventions mimic natural dynamics through extended rotation periods and selective harvesting of individual trees or small groups

Combined objective

Minimal management to provide timber and ecosystem services with long rotation periods

Intensive even-aged

Management focuses on production, using mostly even-aged

monocultures with occasional mixed species, harvested mainly by clear-cutting, and with relatively short rotation periods

Short rotation forestry

Intensive management aims to maximise biomass by cultivating even-age monocultures on short, approximately 20-year rotations, with complete tree harvesting to optimize volume

Table 5: Forest management approaches (own illustration based on Sing et al. (2018))¹⁵⁶

Table 5 provides an overview of various forest management strategies, ranging from minimal intervention to intensively managed systems. Each strategy is characterised by its management objectives, harvesting methods, and rotation periods, and demonstrates different approaches to balancing ecological conservation and biomass production.¹⁵⁶ Wood harvesting represents the first stage of wood processing and plays a central role within SFM.²² Through photosynthesis, atmospheric carbon is stored in the biomass of trees and in the soil, making forests crucial for carbon sequestration (see Chapter 4.1).¹²⁰^,¹²² Sustainable wood harvesting ensures that carbon sequestration is maximised, as older, unmanaged forests store less carbon over time.¹⁵⁷ Depending on site conditions, harvesting is carried out through clear-cutting, natural regeneration, or selective logging.²² Planted and semi-natural forests, established through targeted planting or seeding, are becoming increasingly important, as they help meet rising wood demand and reduce pressure on natural forests.¹⁵⁸ When responsibly planned and managed, these forests can fulfil ecological and social functions in addition to economic ones, including soil and water protection, biodiversity conservation, and the empowerment of local communities.¹⁵⁵

Impacts of unsustainable wood use

Unsustainable wood use has significant ecological and social consequences. Deforestation and forest degradation lead to habitat loss, accelerating the decline in biodiversity.¹⁵⁹ Monocultural plantations increase susceptibility to pests such as bark beetles and reduce ecological resilience.²² In addition, intensive forestry contributes to soil degradation, nutrient loss, and changes in the local water balance.¹⁶⁰ In particular, the large-scale cultivation of coniferous species such as spruce has shown that these forests are increasingly weakened by rising temperatures and intensifying drought and are consequently more susceptible to pests and fungal diseases.¹⁵⁵ The resulting degradation reduces the productivity of forests and weakens their function as carbon sinks.¹⁵²

Despite formal protection measures, numerous tropical forests continue to be illegally logged.²² Weak law enforcement, corruption, and inadequate forestry laws exacerbate this problem. In many countries, management tasks have been transferred to private actors, which often means that ecological and social concerns are subordinated to economic interests.¹⁶¹ Unsustainable wood use, particularly through illegal logging and the conversion of natural forests into agricultural land, results in significant habitat loss and a drastic decline in biodiversity. This threatens species-rich tropical and boreal forests worldwide, which are of central importance for the global climate and the preservation of ecological balances.¹⁵⁹^,¹⁶¹ The loss of these habitats destabilises ecological processes, impairs water and nutrient cycles, and increases the risk of further environmental changes such as soil erosion and desertification. Consequently, unsustainable wood use contributes significantly to the exacerbation of the climate crisis, the reduction of ecological resilience, and the long-term weakening of the global environment and livelihoods.¹⁶¹

Risks arising from increasing global wood demand

The global demand for wood and wood products is rising steadily due to growing populations, economic development, and the trend towards bio-based materials.¹⁵³ This development prompts critical consideration of whether SFM can adequately meet long-term demand. Expanding the use of wood requires either an increase in cultivation areas or an intensification of production, both of which approaches are associated with ecological risks.¹⁶²^,¹⁶³ Forecasts indicate a significant increase in demand over the coming decades, particularly for construction wood. This trend is expected to result in higher prices, increased competition between sectors of use, and greater pressure on forest resources.⁴⁸

Although wood is a renewable raw material, its production requires a considerable amount of land and time. The complete replacement of mineral building materials, such as concrete or steel, with wood seems hardly realistic, given current forest resources.¹⁵¹^,¹⁶³^,¹⁶⁴ In addition, increased harvest yields in the short term could lead to a decline in carbon storage. Inadequately regulated expansion of forestry carries the risk of land use conflicts, habitat loss, and biodiversity decline.¹⁶⁵ The long-term scalability of wood use in construction, therefore, depends crucially on the consistent implementation of sustainable management strategies that include reforestation, forest restoration, and the protection of ecologically sensitive areas. In addition, robust certification systems and legal frameworks are needed to prevent illegal logging and ensure the long-term regenerative capacity of forests.¹⁵⁹ Only if increasing harvest volumes are offset by natural growth and by complementary material strategies, such as the use of alternative plant fibres like bamboo, can the sustainable expansion of wood use in construction be considered climate-effective and resource-efficient. Under these conditions, scaled wood construction can significantly contribute to the decarbonisation of the construction industry without exceeding ecological limits.⁶⁶

Certification systems and international initiatives

To promote SFM, certification systems such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) have been established worldwide. These systems are designed to ensure that wood products come from responsible sources.²² Corruption, a lack of control, and illegal structures undermine the effectiveness of existing standards, leading to biodiversity loss and unfair competition.¹⁶¹ Despite international initiatives such as the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), which aims to reduce emissions from deforestation, and the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT), an EU action plan promoting legal timber trade, illegal logging remains high, accounting for up to 40 % of global roundwood production. Recent advancements in remote monitoring and traceability have enhanced control, but voluntary certification alone is inadequate.²² An effective solution, therefore, requires consistent legal enforcement, international cooperation, and economic incentives for SFM.¹⁶⁶^,¹⁶⁷ Chapter 6.1.2 provides a more detailed discussion of the various international forest governance frameworks and timber trade regulations.

Current approaches

SFM can only be achieved if ecological limits, economic interests, and social needs are given equal consideration. Key approaches include promoting mixed stands, more extended rotation periods, strengthening local participation rights, and improving governance structures and transparency.¹⁶⁸ Research and education must become more interdisciplinary to better link ecological, economic, and social dynamics.¹³ In addition, reforestation and afforestation of damaged areas, climate-adapted management practices, the protection and restoration of ecosystems with high carbon content, and the promotion of sustainable wood use, for example, through timber construction initiatives and cascade use, are of significant importance.¹⁶⁹ Another effective approach is the concept of community forestry. In community forestry, local communities are actively involved in decision-making processes and the management of forest resources, thereby strengthening environmental responsibility, social justice, and economic stability at the local level.¹⁷⁰

Policy frameworks, certification systems such as FSC and PEFC, and participatory decision-making processes with local communities and indigenous peoples are crucial to preventing illegal wood use and ensuring long-term carbon storage.¹^,¹⁵² The increasing demands on ecological, economic, and social aspects may lead to regionally varying conflicts of objectives in the future. It is therefore imperative to establish global frameworks that accommodate growing wood demand without compromising the sustainability of the resource.¹⁶⁵

4.5 Life cycle assessments of wood buildings

LCA represents a scientific method for evaluating the environmental impacts of products, services, or buildings throughout their entire life cycle.¹¹^,²³ Its objectives are to systematically record and assess all ecological burdens arising from raw material extraction, production, use, and maintenance through to disposal or recycling.¹⁴⁹ The fundamental concept of LCA is based on relating all relevant input and output flows of a product, including energy and material flows, to their respective environmental impacts.²³ In the construction sector, particularly in the assessment of wood buildings, LCA provides a comprehensive basis for evaluating the environmental performance of different construction methods.¹¹

The methodological principles of LCAs are defined in the international standards ISO 14040 and ISO 14044, which provide a framework for conducting LCAs. Additionally, The standardized approach enables a transparent and comparable evaluation of environmental impacts.³⁹^,¹⁴³^,¹⁴⁹ In addition to these international standards, further standards have been developed at the European level. Key reference documents in this context include EN 15643 (Framework for the assessment of the sustainability of construction works), EN 15804 (Core rules for environmental product declaration), and EN 15978 (Assessment of the environmental performance of buildings).²³^,³⁹

Figure 10: Life cycle stages of buildings according to EN 15978 (own illustration based on Andersen et al. (2021)¹⁷¹ & Lin et al. (2025)¹²²)

According to EN 15978, the life cycle of a building is divided into four main phases, as illustrated in Figure 10. These main phases are represented by categories A to D.¹²²^,¹⁷¹ The product stage (A1-A3) includes raw material extraction, transportation, and the manufacturing of construction products.²³ In wood buildings, SFM plays a central role (see Chapter 4.4), as carbon is sequestered during tree growth, thereby creating a temporary carbon storage (see Chapter 4.1).¹¹⁸^,¹¹⁹ At the same time, emissions arise from forestry operations, energy use, and transportation.¹⁶⁵ The construction stage (A4-A5) accounts for transportation to the construction site and the construction process itself.²³ Due to the low weight of wood and the high degree of prefabrication, construction times can be shortened, and waste can be minimised, which has a positive effect on the environmental performance (see Chapter 2.3).³⁴^,⁵⁹

The use stage (B1-B7) includes maintenance, repair, replacement of building components, as well as operational energy and water consumption.²³ During this phase, wood buildings benefit from favorable thermal properties and a balanced indoor climate, which can lead to a reduction in energy demand (see Chapter 4.3).⁵⁷^,¹⁴⁹ The stages B6 (operational energy) and B7 (operational water) are often presented separately from categories B1-B5, as they do not directly relate to the everyday use of the building itself but represent additional environmental impacts that are considered in parallel.²³^,¹²² The EoL stage (C1-C4) comprises deconstruction, transport, waste processing, and disposal.²³ In this phase, wood can be recycled, reused, or utilized for energy recovery, allowing the stored carbon to remain in the cycle for a more extended period, thus substituting fossil energy sources (see Chapter 4.2).¹²² Finally, module D accounts for potential benefits and loads beyond the system boundaries, for example, through reuse or energy recovery.²³ Overall, this modular structure enables a transparent and comparable assessment of the environmental impacts of wood buildings throughout their entire life cycle.¹¹

The results of LCAs in wood construction are influenced by various methodological, ecological, and technical factors. Additionally, The definition of system boundaries is particularly important, as it determines which processes are included in the analysis.²³ A cradle-to-gate assessment considers the phases from raw material extraction to the point at which the product leaves the manufacturing facility, and thus concludes with the completion of the construction product. A cradle-to-grave assessment, by contrast, also includes the use and EoL phases.¹⁷¹ The cradle-to-cradle approach is currently gaining increasing significance, as it goes beyond disposal and aims at a closed-loop economy in which materials are reused or recycled in order to minimise waste and emissions.²³

Another essential factor is the temporal dimension. Both the lifespan of buildings and the rotation cycles of forest stands extend over several decades, resulting in uncertainties regarding the allocation of emissions and storage effects.²³^,¹⁷² Future technological developments or changes in the energy mix may further alter the outcomes.¹⁴⁶ EoL scenarios also strongly influence LCA results. Whether wood is recycled, reused, used for energy recovery, or landfilled has a decisive influence on the overall climate balance. While reuse enables long-term carbon storage, energy recovery leads to the immediate release of the stored CO2 back into the atmosphere.¹⁷³ Additional uncertainties arise from limited data availability, particularly regarding land-use changes, biodiversity effects, and the toxicological impacts of wood preservatives.¹²¹^,¹⁷³ Furthermore, transport distances and the use of biomass residues play an essential role. Longer transport routes increase the environmental burden, whereas the energetic utilization of residual materials can replace fossil fuels.³⁴ The one-sided focus on GHG emissions also increases the risk of overlooking other environmental aspects, such as biodiversity loss or deforestation. Therefore, a holistic consideration of multiple impact categories is essential to ensure robust ecological assessments in wood construction.¹⁷¹

As previously described, LCAs can be influenced by numerous factors. Consequently, it is necessary to examine multiple studies to identify consistent trends. Tupenaite et al. (2023) conducted a SR that examined the findings of numerous studies on wood as a building material, providing comprehensive insights into their environmental performance compared to conventional construction materials.¹² To provide a clearer overview, the findings of these studies were synthesised into three key statements. Consistency and comparability were maintained by including only studies based on LCAs:

Summarising statement

Wood buildings generate significantly lower GHG emissions and environmental impacts than conventional concrete or steel structures in every life cycle stage, with reported life cycle emission reductions ranging from 20 % to 90 %

Hart & Pomponi¹⁵¹

Chen et al.¹⁷⁴^,¹⁷⁵

Yang et al.¹⁷⁶

Balasbaneh & Bin Marsono¹⁷⁷^,¹⁷⁸^,¹⁷⁹

Amiri et al.¹⁸⁰

Wallhagen et al.¹⁸¹

The substitution of conventional building materials with wood components represents a significant factor in achieving a sustainable transformation within the

Construction sector

Balasbaneh & Bin Marsono¹⁷⁷^,¹⁷⁹

Amiri et al.¹⁸⁰

Wallhagen et al.¹⁸¹

Monteiro & Freire¹⁸²

The use of local and renewable materials, such as wood or bamboo, significantly reduces the

environmental impact during the production and

construction stages

Escamilla et al.¹⁸³

Bhochhibhoya et al.¹⁸⁴

Table 6: Summary of LCA findings on wood as a building material (own illustration based on Tupenaite et al. (2023))¹²

Table 6 indicates that wood-based construction substantially lowers GHG emissions compared with conventional concrete or steel structures. The replacement of conventional materials with wood is highlighted as a key strategy for mitigating emissions in the construction sector, particularly when local and renewable materials are employed.¹² However, the results of various studies also indicate that methodological differences affect the comparability of LCA outcomes, making it challenging to draw generalised conclusions.¹²^,²³ Overall, the findings confirm that wood buildings can substantially contribute to climate-friendly construction. Due to its ecological advantages, wood occupies a central role in the sustainable transformation of the construction sector.²³^,⁷⁸^,¹⁵¹

5 Social perspective

Chapter five explores the social dimension of wood construction, focusing on aspects that go beyond purely ecological and economic perspectives. It considers how wood construction can foster regional value creation, promote social equity, and support affordable housing development. The chapter then examines the effects of wood as a building material on both physical and mental health. Finally, it addresses public attitudes and levels of acceptance towards wood buildings, which represent essential factors for the wider adoption and long-term integration of this construction approach.

5.1 Regional value creation and social equity

The use of wood as a building material can significantly contribute to regional value creation and social equity by integrating ecological, economic, and social aspects.¹⁸⁵^,¹⁸⁶ This chapter examines the diverse positive and negative impacts that wood as a construction material can have on the social dimension.

Regional value creation

A major advantage of wood buildings lies in their potential to create employment opportunities along the entire value chain.¹⁸⁷ Compared with other building materials such as concrete or steel, the wood industry is more labor-intensive, as it comprises numerous stages ranging from raw material extraction to processing, construction, and building maintenance, and therefore requires more workers throughout the entire life cycle.¹⁸⁶ An additional aspect of regional value creation arises from the reuse and recycling of wood obtained from deconstruction and demolition activities.⁴⁰ The integration of recycled wood into new building products enables closing material cycles and reducing the demand for energy-intensive materials.⁴⁰ The establishment of such circular processes and small-scale forestry businesses opens new markets for local industry and provides long-term employment opportunities.¹⁸⁵ This enables local communities to generate stable incomes and develop economic independence.¹⁸⁸ Particularly in tropical and subtropical regions, where many people live in or near forests, timber production can serve as an instrument for poverty reduction.¹⁸⁶

Furthermore, a decisive factor for the long-term effectiveness of wood construction for regional value creation is the development of knowledge and qualifications. Training and further education programmes in the field of sustainable wood construction, implemented for example by international development organizations and local educational initiatives, contribute to the professionalisation of the construction sector. They ensure long-term, qualified employment and strengthen the skilled regional workforce.⁴ This not only leads to economic stabilisation but also to a reduction of social disparities, as new occupational fields become accessible.⁴^,¹⁸⁶ In North America, for instance, the development of the mass timber industry demonstrates that establishing local production capacities for CLT and other EWPs not only contributes to the decarbonisation of the construction sector but also creates numerous new jobs and strengthens regional economies.¹⁰⁵

Social equity

As previously described, the forestry sector offers the opportunity to create new jobs in regions with high unemployment or limited industrial diversification. However, a challenge that may occur in this context is that fair wages in the forestry sector are often not guaranteed, as forestry workers earn, on average, lower wages than workers in other sectors. In particular, in countries with a high proportion of migrant workers, there is a risk that employees are compelled to work for wages below the minimum, which can negatively affect social equity among the workforce.¹⁸⁹

Another significant concern in the forestry and construction sector is occupational safety, which is associated with a higher risk of accidents.¹⁸⁹^,¹⁹⁰ A study by Mair-Bauernfeind et al. (2025) demonstrated that in Austria, the likelihood of fatal accidents in forestry is 34 times higher than the national average, while the construction sector faces a threefold higher risk.¹⁹⁰ Accidents in the forestry sector mainly occur during tree-felling and processing activities, with falling trees posing the greatest danger. These risks are further exacerbated by factors such as steep terrain, adverse weather conditions, and improper machinery operation.¹⁸⁹^,¹⁹⁰

However, wood construction can also contribute positively to social equity by strengthening social cohesion through the integration of local identities and traditional craftsmanship. Projects that combine modern wood construction technologies with traditional building methods promote cultural affinity and foster acceptance within the population. Close involvement of local communities in planning and construction processes can foster a sense of responsibility and enhance social participation.¹⁹¹ Despite these advantages, the rights of indigenous peoples have often been inadequately addressed, even though their recognition is crucial for addressing historical inequalities, preserving cultural integrity, and ensuring the long-term well-being of indigenous communities.¹⁸⁹^,¹⁹²

Gender equality is also a key issue that needs to be addressed in the construction sector, as women continue to be underrepresented in the industry, comprising only a small proportion of the workforce.⁴^,¹⁹⁰ Training programmes related to sustainable construction and wood processing, such as the Buildher program in Kenya, demonstrate that targeted education and qualification measures enable women to access skilled and better-paid employment in the construction sector. In this program, 169 women were trained, of whom 80 % are now employed in professional occupations, contributing to the reduction of the skilled labor shortage while simultaneously enhancing the participants’ economic situation.⁴

Affordable housing

Wood construction is gaining increasing importance in the discussion on affordable housing, as it offers both ecological and socio-economic advantages.¹⁹³ Affordable housing refers to housing for which the cost does not exceed a certain proportion of a household’s income, commonly defined as no more than 30 %, allowing residents to meet other basic needs without financial strain.¹⁹⁴^,¹⁹⁵ The combination of wood construction and affordable housing has the potential to reduce construction costs, shorten construction time, and enhance living conditions for residents.¹⁹⁶ Housing affordability is often not solely determined by the rent or purchase price but also by additional costs such as energy consumption and maintenance.¹⁹⁵ In contrast to conventional building materials, wood offers high energy efficiency and can reduce operating costs due to its favorable insulation properties (see Chapter 4.3).⁵⁷ Furthermore, wood is a lightweight material that facilitates cost-efficient prefabrication and a reduction in construction time and transportation costs, thereby lowering the overall financial burden on households.¹⁹⁵

International examples demonstrate that wood as a building material has substantial potential to create affordable and sustainable housing. In the Netherlands, for instance, over 5,000 social housing units have been transformed into nearly energy-autonomous buildings through the Energiesprong initiative by using prefabricated wooden facades and integrated energy systems. Similar programmes, such as Destination Zero in the United Kingdom, illustrate that both ecological and social objectives can be achieved through renovation and new construction with wood.⁴ In addition to its affordability, these projects have the potential to contribute to regional value creation and social equity when regional construction companies are involved in their implementation.¹⁹³

Wood buildings, such as multi-story buildings with CLT designs, do not automatically reduce housing costs, as these buildings can be more expensive than buildings with concrete or steel structures. However, with appropriate policy measures, affordable housing can be created while simultaneously promoting sustainable building materials to reduce the environmental impact of the construction sector.¹⁰⁵ Another way to reduce the costs of wood construction in the context of affordable housing lies in the possibility of decentralised and scalable production. Modular timber systems allow for the serial production of housing units, which significantly reduces construction time and standardises planning processes.¹⁹⁷ This approach aligns with the requirements of many countries under pressure to rapidly provide affordable housing, due to urbanisation and increasing housing demand.⁸⁰^,¹⁹³

5.2 Influence of wood as a building material on human health

The built environment has a significant influence on human health. Buildings not only provide protection and functionality but also affect the physical and psychological well-being of their occupants through their materials, spatial design, and atmosphere.¹⁹⁸ In recent years, the use of natural building materials, particularly wood, has received increasing attention in the context of health-promoting and sustainable architecture.⁶³ The following chapter, therefore, examines the influence of wood as a building material on human health and is divided into two sections. First, the impact on physical health is considered, followed by an analysis of the potential effects on mental health.

5.2.1 Influence on physical health

The physical health of occupants is strongly influenced by the quality of the indoor environment. In wood buildings, the concept of Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) plays a central role, as it includes factors such as air quality, temperature, humidity, and chemical emissions. Generally, wood buildings do not have adverse effects on the physical health of their inhabitants, provided that established pollutant limits are observed.¹¹^,⁶³ CO2 and particulate matter levels in wood buildings are typically below recommended thresholds and therefore do not negatively affect well-being.¹¹

The regulation of temperature and humidity is crucial for maintaining physical health. Wood has hygroscopic properties, allowing it to act as a natural moisture regulator. It absorbs excess moisture from the air and releases it when the environment becomes dry (see Chapter 2.3). This property helps to stabilise indoor conditions and prevent extreme fluctuations in relative humidity.⁴⁰^,⁶¹ A relative humidity of 30 to 55 % is considered optimal for health, as it reduces the risk of respiratory problems and mould growth.⁶³

Air quality in wood buildings is also influenced by emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which may originate from building materials as well as occupants’ activities. Elevated levels can occur during the first months after construction due to wood preservatives or surface coatings. Substances such as xylene and tetrachloroethylene have occasionally been measured at concentrations above legal limits, with tetrachloroethylene being classified as potentially carcinogenic.¹¹^,⁶³ Regular ventilation during the construction and early occupancy phases can significantly lower these concentrations, thereby reducing potential health risks.¹⁹⁹ Ongoing air quality monitoring during this period is essential.¹¹ The use of newer, metal-free wood preservatives offers a promising alternative, as they carry lower toxicological and environmental risks.¹⁷³

Very volatile organic compounds (VVOCs), such as acetaldehyde, formic and acetic acid, or propane-1,2-diol, can also occur in new wood buildings. They can affect human health, causing tiredness, headaches, and irritation of the eyes and respiratory tract.²⁰⁰ VVOCs do not originate exclusively from wood but are often emitted from insulation material or adhesives. Elevated concentrations may be detected, especially during the construction and initial occupancy phases. However, they typically decrease rapidly with adequate ventilation. Compliance with applicable guidelines remains critical to ensure a long-term healthy indoor environment.¹⁹⁹

Furthermore, wood surfaces have been shown to possess antibacterial properties. This effect is particularly relevant in sensitive environments such as schools, kindergartens, or healthcare facilities. Although wood was long considered potentially unhygienic due to its porous structure, recent studies demonstrate that certain wood species exhibit antimicrobial effects, thereby reducing the spread of pathogens.⁶³ In addition, the antibacterial properties of wood can help reduce allergic reactions by inhibiting the growth of mould and other allergy-inducing microorganisms.⁴⁷

Disadvantages may also arise from the structural properties of wood. As a lightweight construction material, wood exhibits lower sound insulation, which can result in increased noise exposure, particularly in buildings with high occupancy.⁶³^,²⁰¹ Furthermore, chemical emissions from wood products in the first months after completion should not be neglected, especially when impregnated or coated surfaces are used.¹¹

5.2.2 Influence on mental health

In recent decades, the relevance of the built environment for psychological well-being has increasingly moved into the focus of scientific and societal discussions. As people spend the majority of their lives indoors, the quality of indoor environments is considered a key factor influencing mental health and overall well-being.⁶³ This has led to a growing interest in wood as a natural building material, as it is assumed to have the ability to evoke positive psychological responses.¹⁹⁸

The theoretical foundation for the positive effects of wood on mental health originates in environmental psychology.¹⁹⁸ Two central approaches in this field are the Attention Restoration Theory by Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) and Ulrich’s Psychoevolutionary Theory (1983).²⁰²^,²⁰³ Both assume that natural environments, and consequently materials perceived as being connected to nature, have a restorative effect on the human mind. According to the Attention Restoration Theory, nature, through its calm and appealing qualities, can help to restore cognitive resources.²⁰³ Ulrich’s approach emphasises emotional processes, assuming that positive emotions triggered by natural stimuli reduce negative feelings and tension.²⁰² Wood, as a natural material, can thus act as a surrogate for nature in the built environment and generate similar positive emotional and cognitive responses.¹⁹⁸ Furthermore, wood in interior spaces is frequently associated with positive attributes. It is often described as warm, natural, inviting, and calming, which distinguishes it clearly from industrial materials such as steel or plastic. Studies have shown that rooms with visible wooden surfaces are perceived by participants as more pleasant and comfortable than comparable rooms with neutral or synthetic surfaces.²⁰⁴^,²⁰⁵ The strength of the positive emotional responses evoked by wood in indoor spaces appears to be influenced by an individual’s degree of biophilia, which describes an innate affinity for natural environments.²⁰⁶

The perception of wood is shaped by visual and tactile stimuli. Visual characteristics such as color, texture, grain pattern, or the number of knots influence subjective evaluations. Light tones in the yellow-red spectrum are, for example, frequently perceived as particularly warm and cosy.¹⁹⁸ Wooden surfaces with a low number of knots have been shown to create a calmer visual impression, which may contribute to a more relaxed perception.²⁰⁷ In addition to visual aspects, tactile qualities play an important role. A study by Sakuragawa et al. (2008), in which participants were asked to touch wood, plastic, and metal, demonstrated that wood was perceived as more pleasant, warmer, and more natural.²⁰⁸ Furthermore, wood is perceived as comforting and familiar, thereby promoting overall well-being.¹⁹⁸

Most studies suggest that wood has a potentially stress-reducing effect. For example, research by Kelz, Grote, and Moser (2011) revealed that students in classrooms made of solid wood exhibited lower heart rates and reduced stress levels over the course of a school year compared to students in conventional classrooms.²⁰⁹ Other studies similarly report decreases in negative emotions and increases in calmness and satisfaction in wooden environments.²⁰⁴^,²¹⁰ These findings indicate that wood possesses not only aesthetic but also psychologically relevant qualities that contribute to regeneration and mental well-being.⁶³^,¹⁹⁸ Through its haptic and visual qualities and the presence of natural scents, wood helps to create environments that foster positive emotions, relaxation, and well-being. Nevertheless, research gaps remain regarding the long-term effects as well as specific factors, such as wood species, color tone, or surface treatment, which may affect perception and mental health outcomes.⁶³

5.3 Social acceptance and perception of wood buildings

Wood has been one of the most essential building materials of humankind for over 20,000 years and was used almost universally due to its favorable mechanical properties, high availability, and ease of processing (see Chapter 2.4).¹⁴^,⁶⁵ Events such as the Great Fire of London in 1666 led to growing scepticism among the population regarding the use of wood as a building material in densely populated areas.⁷⁰ With increasing industrialisation in the 19th century, wood was gradually replaced by new materials such as iron, steel, and concrete, as these better met the requirements of mass production and provided improved fire resistance.¹⁵^,⁶⁹^,⁷⁰ Since the second half of the 20th century, wood construction has experienced a renaissance, driven by technical innovations such as EWPs as well as ecological factors and climate policy measures.¹⁴^,⁷⁰ Today, wood construction is once again at the centre of scientific and political attention in the context of sustainability, CE, and prefabrication.⁵^,⁷¹ An essential factor for the future success of wood as a building material is the acceptance and perception within society.¹³^,²¹¹

When choosing residential buildings, people consider a wide range of factors that extend beyond purely economic aspects. In addition to construction and life cycle costs, location, accessibility, and spatial layout, qualitative aspects such as comfort, architectural design, material aesthetics, and energy performance are increasingly important. Consumers also attach value to durability, low maintenance requirements, safety, and fire protection, but also indoor air quality and environmental performance have gained significance in recent years.⁸^,¹⁰^,⁶⁸ For many households, emotional and social factors are also decisive, including a sense of well-being, identity, and alignment with sustainable lifestyles. Buildings are increasingly perceived not only as functional assets but as reflections of personal values and ecological responsibility, which strengthens the attractiveness of wood construction in specific consumer segments.⁷⁹^,¹¹⁴^,²¹²

As indicated in Chapter 4.2, wood as a building material is widely associated with positive attributes such as aesthetics, warmth, and a pleasant indoor environment.¹³^,¹¹⁶^,²¹¹ These associations are often rooted in cultural traditions and collective memories, for example, experiences with rural wood dwellings or holiday cabins.¹¹⁴^,²¹³ Another central driver of wood’s positive image is its perceived environmental performance. Wood is increasingly recognised as a climate-friendly and CO2-storing material that aligns with sustainability goals and CE.¹⁰^,⁷⁰ However, this awareness is not uniform across all population groups. Experts and people with prior knowledge of the construction sector tend to rate the benefits of wood as a building material more positively, while non-professionals are often uncertain or misinformed, particularly regarding fire safety, durability, and maintenance.¹⁸⁷

Figure 11: Beliefs about the durability and performance of multi-story wood buildings compared with multi-Story buildings made from steel or concrete (own illustration based on Larasatie et al. (2018)¹⁸⁷)

Figure 11 illustrates public beliefs about the durability and performance of multi-story wood buildings compared to those constructed from steel and concrete. The data are based on a study by Larasatie et al. (2018), which involved an online survey among 502 residents from the metropolitan regions of Portland and Seattle. The results show that fire risks, higher upkeep and maintenance requirements, and a perceived shorter lifespan were considered critical by a large proportion of respondents. At the same time, the high share of don’t know responses indicates that there are still significant information gaps and uncertainties within the population.¹⁸⁷ These findings highlight that technical knowledge and practical experience play a central role in the assessment of wood construction and that targeted information campaigns are necessary to reduce misconceptions and build trust.⁸

Other frequently mentioned critical aspects include acoustic properties and potential material deformations caused by moisture.¹⁰^,¹³^,²¹⁴ Ecological concerns regarding potential deforestation and unsustainable wood use have also been raised. The increasing demand for construction wood is partly perceived as a risk to natural forest ecosystems, particularly in countries with weak governance and certification systems.¹¹⁴^,¹⁸⁷ These differing perceptions indicate that wood as a building material is associated simultaneously with positive ecological and aesthetic qualities, as well as uncertainties and risks, resulting in an ambivalent societal evaluation.¹¹⁴

Empirical findings, however, show that many of these concerns diminish in practical use. Residents of wood buildings tend to revise their initial prejudices after a specific period of use. In everyday experience, perceived risks such as susceptibility to fire or moisture are often assessed as less critical, particularly when technical protective measures, such as fire-retardant coating, pretreated wood surfaces, or systems for regulating indoor humidity, are installed.¹⁸⁷^,²¹⁴ Overall, it is recognisable that uncertainties and scepticism towards wood as a building material are less based on objective material properties and more on insufficient information and limited personal experience. Transparent communication regarding SFM, certification systems, and the performance of modern wood construction technologies is, therefore, a crucial instrument for strengthening trust in wood construction methods and promoting long-term social acceptance.¹³^,²¹¹

6 Political and legal perspective

Chapter 6 provides an overview of the political and legal framework influencing the use of wood in buildings and examines selected international regulations and initiatives. The aim is to present the impacts of global climate policy, international forest governance, and timber trade regulations, as well as national support measures and building codes, on the wood construction market. Only a selection of measures and initiatives is considered in this chapter to provide a structured overview, as a comprehensive account of all existing regulations is not feasible within the scope of this article.

6.1 International political influences on the wood building market

6.1.1 International climate governance

The construction industry plays a central role in global climate protection, as it accounts for 34 % of global CO2 emissions and is one of the largest consumers of natural resources.⁴ In addition to conventional materials such as concrete and steel, which generate high emissions, natural building materials have the potential to improve the carbon footprint of buildings. In this context, natural building materials are increasingly seen as an integral part of global decarbonisation strategies for the construction sector. International initiatives and agreements contribute substantially to aligning the construction sector with sustainable practices.²¹⁵^,²¹⁶

The Conference of the Parties (COP) is an annual international meeting where governments negotiate climate policy. Additionally, The objective of the COP is the reduction of global warming and climate-related risks.²¹⁷ One of the most influential meetings was COP21 in Paris. The Paris Agreement of 2015, adopted at COP21, obliges signatory states to drastically reduce their GHG emissions. Moreover, The states are required to develop Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which serve as the central instrument through which each country defines its national climate targets, measures for reducing emissions, and strategies for adapting to climate change. The objective is to limit global warming to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, while pursuing efforts to avoid exceeding 1.5 °C.²¹⁸ The 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were also published in 2015 and provide a comprehensive framework for sustainable development. For the construction industry, SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) are particularly relevant, as they highlight the interconnection between urban development, resource efficiency, and climate protection. However, many other SDGs also influence the construction sector.²¹⁹

Within the framework of the Paris Agreement, the EU has developed NDCs that aim to reduce net GHG emissions by 55 % compared to 1990 levels by 2030 and achieve climate neutrality by 2050.²²⁰ To accomplish these targets, the EU Green Deal was introduced in 2019. It can serve as a pioneering example of ambitious climate policy, aiming to transform Europe’s economy, energy systems, transport, and industries towards a more sustainable and climate-neutral future.²²¹ Within the framework of the EU Green Deal, various initiatives have been launched to advance decarbonisation. The EU Circular Economy Action Plan, for instance, promotes circular material flows, the reuse and recycling of construction materials, and the development of products with longer lifespans, thereby generating ecological and economic benefits.²²² As a policy and funding initiative, the New European Bauhaus aims to advance the green transition in the built environment by fostering sustainable, inclusive, and aesthetically appealing solutions that enhance well-being, promote a sense of community, and reflect Europe’s cultural and regional diversity.¹²⁴ The Renovation Wave initiative of the European Commission focuses on the energy-efficient renovation of existing buildings and creates opportunities for the use of wood in insulation, interior finishes, and structural elements. It aims to increase renovation rates, significantly improve energy efficiency, and simultaneously consider social dimensions, particularly supporting low-income households.²²³ In addition, the harmonisation of standards and sustainability indicators under the Construction Products Regulation is being advanced within the EU, creating a uniform framework for assessing the environmental performance of construction products.²²⁴

The future of the construction sector is also influenced by various international organizations. They not only provide a robust scientific foundation for policy decisions, planning, and the implementation of sustainable projects but also play a key role in advancing the sustainable transformation of the construction sector.⁴ The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), comprising 195 member countries, prepares comprehensive assessment reports on climate change, its causes, potential impacts, and response options, with the latest being the Synthesis Report of the Sixth Assessment, published in March 2023.¹ The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) produces guidelines and strategies for resource-efficient, environmentally friendly production and use of materials, including wood, and promotes initiatives to minimise the ecological impact of the construction sector, as exemplified in the Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction 2024/2025.⁴ Particularly with regard to wood, the FAO influences the construction sector by providing guidelines for the sustainable management of forests and wood resources, assessing the environmental, social and economic dimension of forestry, and supporting the development of sustainable supply chains for construction timber, as demonstrated in the Global Forest Resource Assessment 2025.²²⁵

Trade between countries can be regulated through international trade agreements that reduce customs duties, facilitate market access, and establish legal frameworks for economic cooperation. This is also beneficial for the construction sector, as it eases access to sustainably produced materials and promotes the trade of climate-friendly building products.²²⁶ For instance, the EU-Mercosur Agreement between the European Union and the Mercosur states (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay) aims to remove trade barriers and promote the exchange of goods.²²⁷ Yet, it raises concerns regarding the environmental impact, particularly regarding agriculture and deforestation.²²⁸ The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada is a bilateral trade agreement that also reduces customs duties and facilitates trade, while specifically supporting the exchange of sustainably certified products, including wood, thereby providing economic incentives for climate-friendly building products.²²⁹

The effectiveness of these policy measures depends on various factors. Effective climate action relies on strong political commitment, coordinated governance, robust institutions, supportive laws and policies, and access to finance and technology. Regulatory and economic tools can drive substantial emissions reductions and resilience.¹ The combination of international agreements, national support measures, and market mechanisms fosters the development of a competitive market for sustainable construction materials and contributes to transforming the construction sector onto a climate-friendly path.⁶⁹^,²³⁰ However, current measures remain insufficient. Although almost all Parties to the Paris Agreement have submitted NDCs, these differ considerably in scope and level of ambition, and it appears that current efforts to combat climate change are inadequate to achieve the 2 °C target. According to the most recent UNEP forecast, global temperatures are expected to increase by approximately 2.8 °C by the end of this century if the existing climate protection measures are implemented exactly as currently planned.² Political setbacks, such as the signed decree on the withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement,²³¹ further weaken international cooperation and hinder the sustainable transformation of the construction sector.²³²

6.1.2 International forest governance and timber trade regulations

Forests play a central role in the Earth’s system. They function as carbon sinks, provide essential habitats for numerous species, and deliver a variety of ecosystem services that are essential for human health and well-being.¹⁵⁵^,¹⁶⁹^,²³³ The ongoing deforestation across many regions underscores the urgency of strengthening international governance and regulatory mechanisms in the forest and wood sector. For this reason, securing SFM is considered a necessary foundation for the provision of climate-friendly wood products (see Chapter 4.4).²²^,¹⁵⁵ International forest governance encompasses all political, institutional, and economic mechanisms aimed at regulating the use, protection, and sustainable management of forests worldwide. It emerged in the 1980s, when global trade was growing rapidly, and scientific and environmental concerns about the loss and degradation of tropical forests were increasing. At that time, it was seen as a central component of global sustainability, aiming to reconcile economic development, environmental protection, and social justice in the long term.²³⁴ Over the past decades, international forest governance has evolved into a complex network of political initiatives, multilateral agreements, and market-based instruments.²³⁴^,²³⁵ Despite political efforts, a comprehensive international forest convention has not yet been established due to divergent national interests and economic dependencies. Consequently, a system has emerged consisting of various legally binding and non-binding elements.²³⁴

Initiative

Year

Scope

Mandatory

Objective

Convention on Biological

Diversity

1992

Global

Legally

binding under

international law

Conservation of biological diversity and sustainable use of forest

ecosystems

UNFCCC

1992

Global

Legally

binding

convention

Mitigation of GHG emissions and protection of carbon-rich

ecosystems, including forests

FSC

1993

Global

Voluntary

certification

Promotion of SFM

PEFC

1999

Global

Voluntary

certification

Recognition and promotion of national standards for SFM

EU FLEGT

Action Plan

2003

EU and partner countries

Partly

binding

Combating illegal logging and improving forest sector governance

REED+

2007

Global

Voluntary mechanism

Reduction of deforestation and forest degradation, and enhancement of SFM

US Lacey Act

2008

United States

Legally binding national

legislation

Prohibition of trade with illegally harvested wood and strengthening supply chain legality

Australian

Illegal Logging Prohibition Act

2012

Australia

Legally binding national

legislation

Prevention of imports and sales of

illegally logged wood through due diligence requirements

United Nations Strategic Plan for Forests 2017-2030

2017

Global

Non-binding

Strengthening SFM, reversing forest loss, enhancing forest benefits

COP24: Katowice Ministerial Declaration Forest for the Climate

2018

Global (UNFCCC Parties)

Non-binding

Strengthening the role of forests in climate mitigation and supporting sustainable management

COP26: Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use

2021

Global

Non-binding

Halting forest loss and restoring

degraded forest landscapes

EU Forest Strategy for 2030

2021

European Union

Non-binding

Strengthen the resilience and

restoration of forests and promote SFM

EU Deforestation Regulation

2023

European Union

Legally

binding

Ensuring that products placed on the EU market are deforestation-free and legally produced

Table 7: Overview of key international forest governance initiatives and timber trade regulations (own illustration based on Sotirov et al. (2020)²³⁴)

Table 7 provides a summary of selected international initiatives and regulatory approaches established in recent decades to manage forest use and wood trade. The scope, the binding nature, and the objectives of the initiatives are described. Additionally, The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) from 1992 is regarded as a pioneering component for forest protection, as it incorporates the conservation and sustainable use of forest ecosystems as an essential element of global biodiversity goals. It aims to protect biological diversity, use it in a sustainable manner and ensure the fair sharing of the benefits arising from it.²³⁴^,²³⁶ Instruments have also been developed within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that explicitly integrate forests into international climate policy. The REDD program was established within the UNFCCC framework and aims to prevent deforestation and forest degradation. REDD+ expands the original approach by also promoting the preservation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks as well as SFM.²²^,²³⁷ Similarly, the EU FLEGT Action Plan of 2003 led to Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) between the EU and tropical timber-producing countries.²³⁴ The VPA process involves national discussions, working groups, joint committees, and negotiations between state and non-state actors before the agreement becomes legally effective.¹⁵⁹^,²³⁸ It aims to establish a national timber legality assurance system, whose compliance is ensured through verification procedures and the issuance of FLEGT licences for export to the EU.²²^,²³⁸

At the COP, additional political declarations were adopted, which emphasise the importance of forests for the climate system. The Katowice Ministerial Declaration on Forest for the Climate at the COP24 highlighted the need to integrate forest management more strongly into national climate strategies.¹⁵⁰^,²³⁹ Additionally, the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use at COP26 underlined the goal of halting global deforestation promptly and restoring degraded lands.²⁴⁰ Furthermore, additional strategies complement the international framework. Additionally, The United Nations Strategic Plan for Forests 2017-2030 establishes voluntary global goals and targets for 2030 aimed at expanding forest area and promoting collective action.²⁴¹ At the European Level, the EU Forest Strategy for 2030 is a key initiative of the EU Green Deal, which recognises forests as indispensable ecological and socio-economic systems. It aims to strengthen the resilience and restoration of forests and promote SFM.²⁴²^,²⁴³

In addition to international agreements, measures to protect forests are increasingly based on market-oriented and private-sector instruments. Certification systems are considered a key element in making SFM visible and controllable.¹⁵⁴^,²⁴⁴ Among the most essential wood certification schemes are the FSC and the PEFC, each with a different focus, which have established themselves in the international forestry and wood sector.²²^,⁴⁰^,²³⁴ The FSC system is based on a comparatively strict set of rules that combine ecological and social criteria and currently encompasses 167 million hectares of certified forest. It is often associated with high standards of forest management, occupational safety and the rights of local communities.²⁴⁵ The PEFC takes a different approach. Additionally, It is a system that recognises national standards as long as they comply with the basic principles of SFM, and it is applied to approximately 296 million hectares of forest worldwide. This allows for a high degree of regional flexibility, as existing forestry policy structures are taken into account.⁴⁰^,²⁴⁶^,²⁴⁷ The EU also uses the Conformité Européenne (CE) marking, which indicates compliance with basic safety and performance requirements. However, it is not a sustainability certificate, as aspects such as SFM and fair supply chains are not considered.²²

The regulation of global supply chains is also becoming increasingly important to reduce illegal logging and deforestation. This change has been facilitated by the realisation that international agreements alone are often insufficient to effectively combat illegal practices along complex, transnational supply chains. As a result, binding regulations were introduced in several regions to require importers to systematically verify the origin and legality of the wood products they trade.¹⁵⁹^,²⁴⁸ In the United States, this approach was implemented through the Lacey Act of 2008, which is one of the most comprehensive regulations against the trade of illegal wood. The law obliges companies to ensure the legality of the wood products they import. Violations of this regulation will be punished with penalties. The US Lacey Act is considered a milestone because it was the first legislation to establish clear legal responsibility throughout the entire supply chain, thereby sending a strong signal to global markets.¹⁵⁹^,²⁴⁸^,²⁴⁹ Australia also implemented a similar system with the Illegal Logging Prohibition Act, which is also based on mandatory due diligence. Companies must prove that they have taken measures to assess and mitigate risks before importing or placing wood products on the market.²⁵⁰

The European Timber Regulation (EUTR), which is part of the comprehensive FLEGT approach, aims to strengthen the rule of law in producer countries and has been applied for many years as a central instrument to prevent illegally harvested wood from entering the European market.¹⁵⁹^,²⁵¹ This regulation should now be replaced by the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), which has a broader scope.¹⁵⁹ The EUDR requires importers to provide detailed information on geographical origin. According to the regulation, only products produced on land that has not been deforested or degraded after 31 December 2021 are allowed to enter the EU market. The approach emphasises traceability along the entire value chain and supplements it with binding due diligence obligations, thereby aiming to achieve control from the area of origin to the European market.²⁵² Originally, the EUDR was supposed to come into force at the end of 2024, but due to technical and practical challenges, this has now been postponed to 30 December 2025.²⁵³

Although a large number of political instruments have been implemented, international forest governance continues to be viewed critically, as existing measures, despite their scope, have only a limited ability to effectively combat global deforestation dynamics.²²^,²³⁴ The recovery of many forest areas is evident, but structural deficits remain. Differing national interests make it difficult to formulate binding global rules. The enforceability of existing agreements is often considered to be limited.²³⁴^,²³⁵ In addition, there is tension between voluntary certificates and legal regulations, as their requirements and control mechanisms are not always harmonised. Despite technological advances, traceability in complex supply chains remains a challenge.¹⁵⁴^,¹⁶¹ In addition, social conflicts are emerging in many regions where local needs and global nature conservation goals clash. The leakage effect also illustrates that strict regulations in certain countries can lead to a shift in illegal activities to less-regulated regions.²⁴⁸^,²⁵⁴ These findings suggest that promoting wood as a climate-friendly building material will only contribute effectively to reducing emissions if it is linked to clear guidelines for SFM. Without a stable legal and institutional framework, there is a risk that increased demand for wood will intensify ecological trade-offs and lead to unintended consequences for biodiversity and forest conditions.¹⁶⁹^,²⁵⁵

6.2 National wood encouragement policies

In recent years, national wood encouragement policies (WEPs) have increasingly gained importance because the construction sector remains one of the most emission-intensive economic sectors.⁴^,⁷⁷ WEPs refer to political measures at the national, regional or local level that are specifically aimed at promoting wood as a building material. The objective of these strategies is to increase the use of wood in construction, thereby strengthening local forest industries, fostering sustainable economic development, and contributing to the mitigation of GHG emissions. WEPs comprise a range of instruments, from legal requirements and financial incentives to education and information programmes, designed to systematically promote wood construction practices.⁶² Thereby, legal requirements play a key role, as they can be used to define minimum standards for energy efficiency, material selection, and GHG accounting.¹^,⁷⁷

Figure 12: Selected instruments for national wood encouragement policies (own illustration based on Börner et al. (2020)²⁵⁶)

Figure 12 shows selected measures that can be used to promote wood as a building material at the national level. These measures are divided into three different categories: Enabling factors, incentives, and disincentives. Enabling factors promote the adoption of particular practices by creating favorable conditions for their implementation.²⁵⁶ In this context, wood construction could be supported by establishing a framework for the utilization of wood as a building material. This would include education and information programmes that impart specialist knowledge about modern wood construction technologies, reduce concerns and strengthen skills along the entire value chain. Training and further education programmes help to build the expertise needed for modern wood construction.³⁷^,⁶⁸ In addition, collaboration between the public and private sectors, as well as the advancement of research and innovation, is regarded as essential for developing new approaches and encouraging the broader adoption of innovative practices.²⁵⁶

Incentives are used to encourage the adoption of specific practices by increasing motivation and improving the conditions for their implementation.²⁵⁶ For wood construction, such incentives include financial subsidies for projects that utilize wood, tax benefits for sustainable materials, and support programmes for certified wood products. Certifications in sustainable construction provide motivation, as they ensure quality and transparency while contributing to improved sustainability performance in buildings.⁴^,⁸

Disincentives are used to limit certain practices by reducing their attractiveness and by creating conditions that discourage their continued application.²⁵⁶ In the context of the construction sector, such disincentives include regulations aimed at CO2 reduction, restrictions on environmentally harmful materials and penalties for the non-fulfilment of sustainability standards. These regulatory measures promote the use of low-carbon building materials, such as wood, by making conventional approaches less favorable or prohibiting them.⁴^,⁶²

Country

Year

Initiative

Mandatory

Canada

2013

Tall Wood Building Demonstration Initiative

Canada

2017

Green Construction through Wood Program

Finland

2011

National Wood Construction Program

Finland

2016

Wood Building Program

Finland

2023

National Forest Strategy 2035

France

2009

The Wood Construction Plans 2009–2030

France

2022

Sustainability Program, Ministry of Cities and Housing

Yes

Germany

2017

Charter for Wood 2.0

Germany

2022

National Wood Construction Initiative

Japan

2016

Wood Promotion Act

Sweden

2004

More Wood in Construction

Sweden

2018

Sweden’s National Forest Program

Table 8: Selection of national wood encouragement policies (own illustration based on Victorero and Bustamante (2025)⁷⁷)

Table 8 provides an overview of selected WEPs in six different countries. The selection of these countries was made because they are frequently cited in the literature and either take on a pioneering role in wood construction or have particularly promoted wood construction in recent years.⁶²^,²⁵⁷ For a better overview, only programmes at the national level were included in the table. While European countries, especially the Nordic countries, are particularly active in promoting wood construction, other regions are also increasingly introducing legal frameworks and support measures to encourage wood construction.¹⁴^,⁶²^,⁷⁷

Sweden and Finland are considered pioneers in integrating WEPs and in the construction of wood buildings. Both countries focus on national strategies that enable the systematic promotion of wood.¹⁴ Sweden launched its voluntary More Wood in Construction program in 2004 to promote the use of wood in new buildings and renovations.⁶²^,²⁵⁷ This was later supplemented by Sweden’s National Forest Program, which has been formulated to guide the development of forest-based businesses until 2030 through a coordinated strategy that reflects regional conditions.⁷⁷^,²⁵⁸ In Finland, the voluntary National Wood Construction Program has similar goals. In particular, it aims to increase the market share of multi-story wood buildings, support research projects and educational measures, and strengthen cooperation between stakeholders in the construction industry.⁷⁷^,²⁵⁷ The Wood Building Program, introduced in 2016, expanded these efforts by creating a national framework to promote wood as a building material in all regions and sectors of Finland.²⁵⁹ The National Forest Strategy 2035, adopted in 2023, further strengthened these objectives by aligning long-term goals for forest management and climate protection with an expansion of wood construction.²⁶⁰ Both countries are thus focusing on voluntary programmes that aim to enable the continuous development and stronger market presence of wood construction through coordinated strategies.⁷⁷

As a densely forested country, Canada has a long tradition of wood construction.¹⁴ Canada is attempting to increase the acceptance of wood in new buildings and larger projects by introducing WEPs such as the Tall Wood Building Demonstration Initiative and the Green Construction through Wood Program.²⁶¹^,²⁶² These approaches are not mandatory but focus on demonstrating innovative wood construction projects and supporting research and pilot projects to strengthen confidence in wood as a building material.⁷⁷^,²⁵⁷ This approach, for example, enabled the development of the 18-story Brock Commons building, which emerged from the Tall Wood Building Demonstration Initiative competition.²⁵⁷ Canada also promotes wood construction at the local level, for instance, in the province of British Columbia, where the Wood First Act was introduced in 2009. This law mandates that wood must be used as the primary building material in government-funded construction projects.⁴⁰^,²⁵⁷^,²⁶³ Similarly, Japan’s Wood Promotion Act takes a voluntary approach to establish wood as the preferred material in public buildings, increasing the use of sustainable wood resources and promoting innovative construction methods, including multi-story wood buildings.⁴⁰^,²⁶⁴

In recent years, wood construction has been increasingly promoted in Germany and in France. Additionally, In Germany, the Charter for Wood 2.0 aims to expand the use of wood in buildings by strengthening sustainable value chains and promoting innovative wood construction methods.⁸^,¹⁵⁰^,²⁶⁵ This objective is complemented by the National Wood Construction Initiative introduced in 2022.⁷⁷^,²⁶⁶ Both initiatives promote research, innovation and pilot projects, but rely on voluntary participation to increase the use of wood, especially in multi-story buildings.⁸^,⁷⁷ The relevance of these efforts is reflected in the market development, as the share of wood construction in newly constructed buildings grew by almost 10 % between 2004 and 2024, rising from 12.2 % to 22 %.²⁶⁷ France initially adopted a voluntary approach with The Wood Construction Plans 2009–2030, but in 2022, it also implemented a mandatory sustainability program that imposes regulations strictly on the use of wood in new buildings and public construction projects. France actively supports the expansion of wood buildings, which can be seen, for example, in the fact that France is the country with the most multi-story wood buildings in international comparison, with 51 registered projects in 2025.⁷⁷ The aim in France and in Germany is to establish wood as a climate-friendly material, replace energy-intensive building materials and strengthen sustainable forestry. The combination of support programmes, legal frameworks and pilot projects is intended to expand the market position of wood in the construction industry in the long term.⁴^,⁶²^,⁷⁷

It is evident that numerous countries have acknowledged the potential of wood as a sustainable building material and its suitability as an alternative to conventional building materials, particularly as WEPs are increasingly used to facilitate the broader adoption of wood-based construction practices.⁴^,⁶²^,⁷⁷ In the countries analyzed, it became apparent that WEPs accelerate market growth and that the proportion of wood houses is increasing.¹^,⁴^,⁷⁷ At the same time, it is evident that many WEPs are based on voluntary instruments and are characterised primarily by enabling framework conditions and incentives, thereby preventing the full transformational potential of wood construction from being realised. Moreover, constrained budgets, abbreviated project timelines, and challenging access conditions collectively impede the broader expansion of wood-based construction.⁶²^,⁷⁴^,²⁵⁷ However, well-designed WEPs have the potential to promote value-adding structures and initiate transformative processes in the construction sector.⁴^,⁷⁴^,⁷⁷

6.3 Legal and regulatory framework of building codes

The legal and regulatory framework of building codes has a decisive influence on the future role of wood construction, especially in urban areas and in the construction of multi-story wood buildings. Building codes that are not adapted to wood as a natural raw material represent a barrier that hinders rapid market penetration.⁸⁸^,²³⁰ In recent decades, however, there has been a clear shift from restrictive regulations to increasingly supportive ones. Until the 1990s, many national regulations limited wood building height to two storeys, with fire safety in particular being a major constraint. With the continuous development of solid wood products, such as CLT, restrictions have gradually been lifted, allowing the use of wood in taller buildings, while simultaneously creating opportunities for new technological advancements.²⁵⁷ At the same time, numerous countries established policy instruments to support wood construction, including mandatory wood requirements in public construction, funding programmes for research and demonstration projects, and information campaigns (see Chapter 6.2).⁶²^,⁷⁷ These measures promoted technological innovation and enabled an increase in both the number and maximum height of multi-story wood buildings, which can currently reach up to 25 storeys.¹⁷^,²⁵⁷

A frequently cited challenge in the expansion of wood buildings is the considerable heterogeneity of legal and regulatory frameworks within the building sector, a variability that manifests both at the international level and, in certain instances, within individual countries. The diversity of requirements makes it difficult to develop uniform standards, and innovative construction methods, especially multi-story wood buildings, are subject to different framework conditions depending on the legal jurisdiction.⁷⁴^,⁸⁸^,²⁵⁷ This challenge is especially pronounced in federal systems such as Germany. Additionally, The responsibility of federal states for building codes has led to regulatory divergence, resulting in significant variation in the permissibility of multi-story wood buildings across jurisdictions. While some states have already introduced equal treatment for wood and mineral building materials, restrictions remain in others, particularly regarding permissible building heights and fire safety requirements.⁷⁴^,⁸⁸ This lack of harmonisation creates planning uncertainty, hinders the international standardization of technical solutions and complicates the scalability of modern wood construction.⁴

In addition to building regulations, technical standards and building product approval procedures have a significant influence on the usability of wood in construction.²³⁰^,²⁵⁷ The standardization framework has historically been oriented towards mineral building materials, making it challenging to integrate wood as a natural material into this framework. Proving the usability is often a lengthy, time-consuming process due to complex approval procedures.¹⁰^,²⁶⁸ Furthermore, requirements for the sustainability of building materials remain largely non-binding within the legal framework, meaning that the ecological benefits of wood construction are not systematically reflected within the regulatory framework.⁷⁴

The legal and regulatory framework of building codes is particularly important for multi-story buildings, as they face specific challenges in the areas of fire safety and height restrictions.³²^,³⁷ The fire behavior of wood differs significantly from that of steel or concrete because wood is a combustible material. Additionally, The mechanical properties of wood decrease sharply even at relatively low temperatures, as illustrated by a reduction in strength of more than 50 % at 100 °C compared with 20 °C.²² Nevertheless, in the event of a fire, where considerably higher temperatures are usually reached, wood in load-bearing structures, particularly in mass timber construction, often performs better in terms of fire resistance than steel or aluminium. The formation of an insulating char layer protects the inner structure of the wood from direct heat exposure, thereby increasing the material’s fire resistance (see Chapter 2.3).²²^,³⁷ The specific fire characteristics of wood have led many countries to implement particularly strict regulations. These not only affect the fire safety design of a building but also frequently limit the permissible height of wood construction and regulate the extent of visible wood surfaces.³²^,³⁷

Through international harmonisation efforts, attempts are being made to reduce the existing fragmentation of building regulations in wood construction and to establish a more consistent technical understanding.²⁵⁷ The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) develops globally recognised technical standards, aiming to establish comparable quality and safety requirements.²⁶⁹ Examples of ISO standards relating to wood construction are ISO 21887:2007 and ISO 16598:2015. ISO 21887:2007 addresses the durability of wood and wood products and defines five categories representing the different service conditions to which wood and wood-based materials may be exposed during their service life.²⁷⁰ ISO 16598:2015 provides methods for classifying structural sawn timber and thus supports an international categorization of timber products based on uniform properties and testing procedures.²⁷¹ Within Europe, the Eurocodes constitute a unified European framework setting common technical standards for the structural design of buildings and civil engineering works.²⁷² EN 1995 Eurocode 5 serves as the primary design standard for wood structures, providing detailed guidance on structural planning, fire performance, and fundamental design parameters.²⁷³^,²⁷⁴ Significant progress has also been made in North America. The International Building Code (IBC) serves as the primary reference in North America and establishes minimum requirements for building safety, fire protection, structural design, and usage. In 2021, for example, the IBC was updated and introduced new building classifications for mass timber construction. This standardized the use of wood in multi-story buildings and allowed heights of up to 18 storeys under clearly defined fire safety and structural requirements, whereas previous regulations had limited such structures to six storeys.⁶²^,²⁵⁷^,²⁷⁵

In conclusion, the use of wood in construction is not only shaped by current technological possibilities but also by political will and policy design.⁷⁷ The regulatory framework determines the conditions under which wood can assume a substantial role within urban development and multi-story buildings.¹⁰^,²³⁰^,²⁵⁷ Its fragmentation at national and regional levels limits the expansion of wood construction because unclear requirements create significant uncertainty in planning processes.⁸⁸ Greater coherence in the formulation of building codes, together with their adaptation to the specific conditions of wood construction, is essential for reducing emissions in the construction sector and for supporting innovation in production methods and material development.¹⁰^,¹⁷^,²⁵⁷ At the same time, ambitions to increase the use of wood in construction are constrained by stringent fire safety rules and by the need for SFM.²²^,³⁷ Advancements in international standardization and harmonisation of building codes, coupled with the integration of sustainability-oriented requirements, constitute a critical prerequisite for enabling wood to fully realise its potential in transforming the construction sector.⁴

References

1
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Accessed on 29/11/2025. Available at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf (2023).
2
United Nations Environment Programme. Emissions Gap Report 2025: Off Target – Continued Collective inaction puts Global Temperature Goal at Risk. Accessed on 29/11/2025. Available at https://doi.org/10.59117/20.500.11822/48854 (2025).
3
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The State of the World’s Forests 2024. Forest-sector innovations towards a more sustainable future. Available at https://doi.org/10.4060/cd1211en (2024).
4
United Nations Environment Programme. Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction 2024/2025. Available at https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/47214;jsessionid=95B6F2D34AB6D685B2CEE60D63F169C3 (2025).
5
Ghobadi, M. & Sepasgozar, S. M. Circular economy strategies in modern timber construction as a potential response to climate change. Journal of Building Engineering 77; 10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107229 (2023).
6
Bragança, L., Cvetkovska, M., Askar, R. & Ungureanu, V. (eds.). Creating a Roadmap Towards Circularity in the Built Environment. 1st ed. (Springer Nature Switzerland; Imprint Springer, Cham, 2024).
7
D’Amico, B., Pomponi, F. & Hart, J. Global potential for material substitution in building construction: The case of cross laminated timber. Journal of Cleaner Production 279; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123487 (2021).
8
Mergel, C., Menrad, K. & Decker, T. Which factors influence consumers’ selection of wood as a building material for houses? Canadian Journal of Forest Research 54, 467–478; 10.1139/cjfr-2023-0197 (2024).
9
Khozin, V., Khokhryakov, O. & Nizamov, R. A «carbon footprint» of low water demand cements and cement-based concrete. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 890; 10.1088/1757-899X/890/1/012105 (2020).
10
Švajlenka, J. & Pošiváková, T. Innovation potential of wood constructions in the context of sustainability and efficiency of the construction industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 411, 1–14; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137209 (2023).
11
Vilčeková, S., Harčárová, K., Moňoková, A. & Burdová, E. K. Life Cycle Assessment and Indoor Environmental Quality of Wooden Family Houses. Sustainability 12, 1–17; 10.3390/su122410557 (2020).
12
Tupenaite, L., Kanapeckiene, L., Naimaviciene, J., Kaklauskas, A. & Gecys, T. Timber Construction as a Solution to Climate Change: A Systematic Literature Review. Buildings 13, 976; 10.3390/buildings13040976 (2023).
13
Petruch, M. & Walcher, D. Timber for future? Attitudes towards timber construction by young millennials in Austria – Marketing implications from a representative study. Journal of Cleaner Production 294; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126324 (2021).
14
Lobos Calquin, D. et al. Implementation of Building Information Modeling Technologies in Wood Construction: A Review of the State of the Art from a Multidisciplinary Approach. Buildings 14, 584; 10.3390/buildings14030584 (2024).
15
Schulz, H. Entwicklung der Holzverwendung im 19., 20. und 21. Jahrhundert. Holz als Roh- und Werkstoff 51, 75–82 (1993).
16
Harju, C. & Lähtinen, K. Consumers’ Consciousness for Sustainable Consumption and Their Perceptions of Wooden Building Product Quality. Forest Products Journal 72, 155–169; 10.13073/FPJ-D-22-00014 (2022).
17
Lattke, F. & Lehmann, S. Multi-storey residential timber construction: Current development in Europe. Journal of Green Building 2, 119–129 (2007).
18
Asiz, A. Sustainable Timber Construction: Challenges and Opportunities. International Journal of Engineering and Science Applications, 13-21 (2023).
19
Thomas, D. & Ding, G. Comparing the performance of brick and timber in residential buildings – The case of Australia. Energy and Buildings 159, 136–147; 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.10.094 (2018).
20
Management Research Group – University of Oldenburg. About the Sustainability Management Wiki. Accessed on 28/11/2025. Available at https://www.sustainability-management.wiki/about/ (2025).
21
Woodard, A. C. & Milner, H. R. Sustainability of timber and wood in construction. In Sustainability of construction materials, edited by J. M. Khatib (Woodhead Publishing, Amsterdam, 2016), pp. 129–157.
22
Ramage, M. H. et al. The wood from the trees: The use of timber in construction. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 68, 333–359; 10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.107 (2017).
23
Woodard, A. C. & Milner, H. R. Sustainability of timber and wood in construction. In Sustainability of Construction Materials (Elsevier2016), pp. 129–157.
24
Zhang, M. et al. Comparison of wood physical and mechanical traits between major gymnosperm and angiosperm tree species in China. Wood Science and Technology 51, 1405–1419; 10.1007/s00226-017-0954-1 (2017).
25
Zhang, J., Nieminen, K., Serra, J. A. A. & Helariutta, Y. The formation of wood and its control. Current opinion in plant biology 17, 56–63; 10.1016/j.pbi.2013.11.003 (2014).
26
Vazquez-Yanes, C. Trema micrantha (L.) Blume (Ulmaceae):. A promising neotropical tree for site amelioration of deforested land. Agroforestry Systems 40, 97–104 (1998).
27
Koch, G. W., Sillett, S. C., Jennings, G. M. & Davis, S. D. The limits to tree height. Nature 428, 851–854; 10.1038/nature02417 (2004).
28
Moore, J. et al. Getting the most out of UK’s timber resource. Scottish Forestry Vol 63 No 3, 3–8 (2009).
29
Palma, P. & Steiger, R. Structural health monitoring of timber structures – Review of available methods and case studies. Construction and Building Materials 248; 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118528 (2020).
30
Kretschmann, D. E. Chapter 5 – Mechanical Properties of Wood. Forest product laboratory, 1–46 (2010).
31
De Araujo et al. Classification of Wooden Housing Building Systems. BioResources, 7889–7901 (2016).
32
Zang, X. et al. Contemporary Fire Safety Engineering in Timber Structures: Challenges and Solutions. Fire 7; 10.3390/fire7010002 (2024).
33
Pramreiter, M. et al. A review of the resource efficiency and mechanical performance of commercial wood-based building materials. Sustainable Materials and Technologies 38; 10.1016/j.susmat.2023.e00728 (2023).
34
Herajarvi, H. et al. Building with wood as a driver for sustainable development in rural regions. Background and methodology for analysis of socio-economic impacts on rural development and rural-urban integration through wood construction. BASAJAUN; 10.5281/ZENODO.4781092 (2021).
35
Karabegović, I. (ed.). New technologies, development and application II (Springer, Cham, 2019).
36
Gardner, D. J., Han, Y. & Wang, L. Wood–Plastic Composite Technology. Current Forestry Reports 1, 139–150; 10.1007/s40725-015-0016-6 (2015).
37
Manninen, H. Long-term outlook for engineered wood products in Europe. European Forest Institute Technical Report 91, 1–46 (2014).
38
Brandner, R., Flatscher, G., Ringhofer, A., Schickhofer, G. & Thiel, A. Cross laminated timber (CLT): overview and development. European Journal of Wood and Wood Products 74, 331–351; 10.1007/s00107-015-0999-5 (2016).
39
Vanova, R., Stompf, P., Stefko, J. & Stefkova, J. Environmental Impact of a Mass Timber Building—A Case Study. Forests 12, 1571; 10.3390/f12111571 (2021).
40
Kremer, P. D. & Symmons, M. A. Mass timber construction as an alternative to concrete and steel in the Australia building industry: a PESTEL evaluation of the potential. International Wood Products Journal 6, 137–147; 10.1179/2042645315Y.0000000010 (2015).
41
Mallo, M. F. L. & Espinoza, O. Cross-laminated timber vs. concrete/steel: cost comparison using a case study. World Conference on Timber Engineering (2016).
42
Santi, S., Pierobon, F., Corradini, G., Cavalli, R. & Zanetti, M. Massive wood material for sustainable building design: the Massiv–Holz–Mauer wall system. Journal of Wood Science 62, 416–428; 10.1007/s10086-016-1570-7 (2016).
43
Ahmed, S. & Arocho, I. Analysis of cost comparison and effects of change orders during construction: Study of a mass timber and a concrete building project. Journal of Building Engineering 33; 10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101856 (2021).
44
Kuilen, J. de, Ceccotti, A., Xia, Z. & He, M. Very Tall Wooden Buildings with Cross Laminated Timber. Procedia Engineering 14, 1621–1628; 10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.204 (2011).
45
Kremer, P. D., Abbasnejad, B., Ahankoob, A. & Wakefield, R. Advancing global mass timber construction – a decade of progress, challenges and future directions: A systematic literature review. Building and Environment 284; 10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.113458 (2025).
46
Wagenführ, A., Buchelt, B., Kairi, M. & Weber, A. Veneers and Veneer-Based Materials. In Handbook of Wood Science and Technology, edited by P. Niemz, A. Teischinger & D. Sandberg. 1st ed. (Springer International Publishing; Imprint Springer, Cham, 2023), pp. 1347–1407.
47
Wacker, J. P. Use of Wood in Buildings and Bridges. General Technical Report FPL–GTR–282 Chapter 17, 1–16 (2021).
48
Nepal, P., Johnston, C. M. T. & Ganguly, I. Effects on Global Forests and Wood Product Markets of Increased Demand for Mass Timber. Sustainability 13, 1–26; 10.3390/su132413943 (2021).
49
Krug, D., Direske, M., Tobisch, S., Weber, A. & Wenderdel, C. Particle-Based Materials. In Handbook of Wood Science and Technology, edited by P. Niemz, A. Teischinger & D. Sandberg. 1st ed. (Springer International Publishing; Imprint Springer, Cham, 2023), pp. 1409–1490.
50
Gao, Z. & Gong, M. Strand-Based Engineered Wood Products in Construction. In Engineered Wood Products for Construction, edited by M. Gong (IntechOpen2022).
51
Ghazanfari, A., Malzl, L., Pramreiter, M., Konnerth, J. & Kromoser, B. A systematic review of strand-based engineered wood products for construction: standard test methods and mechanical properties. Wood Material Science & Engineering, 1–23; 10.1080/17480272.2025.2465562 (2025).
52
Zhiyong, C., Senalik, C. A. & Ross, R. J. Mechanical Properties of Wood-Based Composite Materials. Wood handbook—wood as an engineering material. Chapter 12 in General Technical Report FPL-GTR-282 (2021).
53
Zanuttini, R. & Negro, F. Wood-Based Composites: Innovation towards a Sustainable Future. Forests 12; 10.3390/f12121717 (2021).
54
Caldas, L. R. et al. Building materials in a circular economy: The case of wood waste as CO2-sink in bio concrete. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 166; 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105346 (2021).
55
Keskisaari, A. & Kärki, T. The use of waste materials in wood-plastic composites and their impact on the profitability of the product. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 134, 257–261; 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.03.023 (2018).
56
Caldas, L. R. et al. Environmental impact assessment of wood bio-concretes: Evaluation of the influence of different supplementary cementitious materials. Construction and Building Materials 268; 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121146 (2021).
57
Cabral, M. R. & Blanchet, P. A State of the Art of the Overall Energy Efficiency of Wood Buildings-An Overview and Future Possibilities. Materials 14; 10.3390/ma14081848 (2021).
58
Krötsch, S. Holz – nachhaltiger Baustoff mit Zukunft. In Fortschritte in der Nachhaltigkeitsforschung, edited by M. von Hauff & T. Nguyen (Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG2018), pp. 157–176.
59
National Academy of Engineering (ed.). Frontiers of Engineering: Reports on Leading-Edge Engineering from the 2017 Symposium (Washington (DC), 2018).
60
Joung, J.-G. et al. Timber Construction Materials in Modern Timber Buildings: Domestic and Global Market Trends. Trends in Agriculture & Life Sciences 62, 13–32; 10.29335/tals.2024.62.13 (2024).
61
Pajchrowski, G., Noskowiak, A., Lewandowska, A. & Strykowski, W. Wood as a building material in the light of environmental assessment of full life cycle of four buildings. Construction and Building Materials 52, 428–436; 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.11.066 (2014).
62
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Status of public policies encouraging wood use in construction – an overview. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://www.fao.org/forestry-fao/49801-0cae892398185071321d397e2c1e0d520.pdf (2020).
63
Alapieti, T., Mikkola, R., Pasanen, P. & Salonen, H. The influence of wooden interior materials on indoor environment: a review. European Journal of Wood and Wood Products 78, 617–634; 10.1007/s00107-020-01532-x (2020).
64
Sayigh, A. The Importance of Wood and Timber in Sustainable Buildings (Springer International Publishing AG, Cham, 2022).
65
Smith, I. & Snow, M. A. Timber: An ancient construction material with a bright future. The Forestry Chronicle Vol. 84 No. 4, 504–510 (2008).
66
Churkina, G. et al. Buildings as a global carbon sink. Nature Sustainability 3, 269–276; 10.1038/s41893-019-0462-4 (2020).
67
Niemz, P., Teischinger, A. & Sandberg, D. (eds.). Handbook of Wood Science and Technology. 1st ed. (Springer International Publishing; Imprint Springer, Cham, 2023).
68
Qu, M., Pelkonen, P., Tahvanainen, L., Arevalo, J. & Gritten, D. Experts’ assessment of the development of wood framed houses in China. Journal of Cleaner Production 31, 100–105; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.03.002 (2012).
69
Sathre, R. & Gustavsson, L. Using wood products to mitigate climate change: External costs and structural change. Applied Energy 86, 251–257; 10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.04.007 (2008).
70
Santana-Sosa, A. & Kovacic, I. Barriers, Opportunities and Recommendations to Enhance the Adoption of Timber within Multi-Storey Buildings in Austria. Buildings 12; 10.3390/buildings12091416 (2022).
71
Huang, H., Su, S. & Li, L. Advancing timber construction: historical growth, research frontiers, and time series forecasting. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 1–30; 10.1080/13467581.2024.2373829 (2024).
72
United Nations. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework. Convention on Climate Change. Accessed on 01/12/2025. Available at https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf (1997).
73
Svatoš-Ražnjević, H., Orozco, L. & Menges, A. Advanced Timber Construction Industry: A Review of 350 Multi-Storey Timber Projects from 2000–2021. Buildings 12; 10.3390/buildings12040404 (2022).
74
Ludwig, G. The Role of Law in Transformative Environmental Policies—A Case Study of “Timber in Buildings Construction in Germany”. Sustainability 11; 10.3390/su11030842 (2019).
75
Sikkema, R., Styles, D., Jonsson, R., Tobin, B. & Byrne, K. A. A market inventory of construction wood for residential building in Europe – in the light of the Green Deal and new circular economy ambitions. Sustainable Cities and Society 90, 1–17; 10.1016/j.scs.2022.104370 (2023).
76
Schauerte, T. Consumer Perceptions on Wooden Multistory Houses: Segmenting International Markets. International Convention of Society of Wood Science and Technology (2010).
77
Victorero, F. & Bustamante, W. Identifying Urban Wood Construction Trends, Global Tall Timber Building Development, and the Role of Wood Promotion Policies. Buildings 15; 10.3390/buildings15091502 (2025).
78
Sandanayake, M., Lokuge, W., Zhang, G., Setunge, S. & Thushar, Q. Greenhouse gas emissions during timber and concrete building construction —A scenario based comparative case study. Sustainable Cities and Society 38, 91–97; 10.1016/j.scs.2017.12.017 (2018).
79
Gold, S. & Rubik, F. Consumer attitudes towards timber as a construction material and towards timber frame houses – selected findings of a representative survey among the German population. Journal of Cleaner Production 17, 303–309; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.07.001 (2009).
80
Wang, L., Toppinen, A. & Juslin, H. Use of wood in green building: a study of expert perspectives from the UK. Journal of Cleaner Production 65, 350–361; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.023 (2014).
81
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020. Key findings. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/9f24d451-2e56-4ae2-8a4a-1bc511f5e60e/content (2020).
82
Liu, L., Chen, Y., Yu, J. & Cheng, R. Analysis of the Trade Network of Global Wood Forest Products and its Evolution from 1995 to 2020. Forest Products Journal 74, 121–129; 10.13073/FPJ-D-23-00065 (2024).
83
Li, Y., Mei, B. & Linhares-Juvenal, T. The economic contribution of the world’s forest sector. Forest Policy and Economics 100, 236–253; 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.01.004 (2019).
84
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Global forest products facts and figures 2023. Available at https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/3740bc34-b22a-4ba9-8962-1486af5ba25a (2024).
85
United Nations and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Forest Products Annual Market Review 2023-2024. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://www.un-ilibrary.org/content/books/9789211065480 (2024).
86
Vehola, A. et al. Citizen beliefs concerning wood as a construction material under extreme weather events. Can. J. For. Res. 52, 1266–1279; 10.1139/cjfr-2022-0108 (2022).
87
Lim, W. M., Kumar, S. & Ali, F. Advancing knowledge through literature reviews: ‘what’, ‘why’, and ‘how to contribute’. The Service Industries Journal 42, 481–513; 10.1080/02642069.2022.2047941 (2022).
88
Mergel, C., Menrad, K. & Decker, T. Wood or not? An analysis of regional differences in wooden residential building permits in Germany. Journal of Cleaner Production 376; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134328 (2022).
89
Zanello, R., Shi, Y., Zeinolebadi, A. & van Kooten, G. C. COVID-19 and the Mystery of Lumber Price Movements. Forests 14, 152, 1–11; 10.3390/f14010152 (2023).
90
European Commission. Cascades. Study on the optimised cascading use of wood (Publications Office, Luxembourg, 2016).
91
Zhang, N., Mei, B. & Yanshu Li. A review of the financial performance of lumber futures and some prospects. Forest Policy and Economics (2023).
92
van Kooten, G. C., Zanello, R. & Schmitz, A. Explaining Post-Pandemic Lumber Price Volatility and its Welfare Effects. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization 21, 11–19; 10.1515/jafio-2022-0018 (2023).
93
Busby, G. & Binkley, C. Explaining the disconnect between lumber and timber prices. Natural Capital, 1–8 (2021).
94
Macrotrends. Lumber Prices (1972-2025). Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://www.macrotrends.net/2637/lumber-prices-historical-chart-data (2025).
95
Nepal, P., Lamica, A. & Parajuli, R. Projected effects of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on global forest products markets. Forest Policy and Economics 168; 10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103301 (2024).
96
Lööf, H. & Stephan, A. The Impact of the Russian-Ukrainian War on Europe’s Forest-Based Bioeconomy. Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung 91, 63–82; 10.3790/vjh.91.3.63 (2022).
97
Tian, N., Poudyal, N. C., Augé, R. M., Hodges, D. G. & Young, T. M. Meta-Analysis of Price Responsiveness of Timber Supply. Forest Products Journal 67, 152–163; 10.13073/FPJ-D-16-00017 (2017).
98
Hrdlicka, T., Cupal, M. & Komosna, M. Wood vs. brick: Impact on investment costs of houses. Journal of Building Engineering 49; 10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104088 (2022).
99
Gu, H., Liang, S. & Bergman, R. Comparison of Building Construction and Life-Cycle Cost for a High-Rise Mass Timber Building with its Concrete Alternative. Forest Products Journal 70, 482–492; 10.13073/FPJ-D-20-00052 (2020).
100
Koppelhuber, J., Bauer, B., Wall, J. & Heck, D. Industrialized Timber Building Systems for an Increased Market Share – a Holistic Approach Targeting Construction Management and Building Economics. Procedia Engineering 171, 333–340; 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.01.341 (2017).
101
Amiri, A., Ottelin, J., Sorvari, J. & Junnila, S. Cities as carbon sinks—classification of wooden buildings. Environmental Research Letters 15; 10.1088/1748-9326/aba134 (2020).
102
Tsai, M.-T. & Sugiharto Wonodihardjo, A. Achieving Sustainability of Traditional Wooden Houses in Indonesia by Utilization of Cost-Efficient Waste-Wood Composite. Sustainability 10; 10.3390/su10061718 (2018).
103
Arkhangelskaya, Y. & Arkhangelskaya, E. Comparing the Economic Indicators of Sustainable Development in Wooden Housing. IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 753, 1–10; 10.1088/1757-899X/753/8/082022 (2020).
104
Patlakas, P., Menendez, J. & Hairstans, R. The Potential, Requirements, and Limitations of BIM for Offsite Timber Construction. International Journal of 3-D Information Modeling 4, 54–70; 10.4018/IJ3DIM.2015010104 (2015).
105
Scouse, A., Kelley, S. S., Liang, S. & Bergman, R. Regional and net economic impacts of high-rise mass timber construction in Oregon. Sustainable Cities and Society 61; 10.1016/j.scs.2020.102154 (2020).
106
Tavares, V., Soares, N., Raposo, N., Marques, P. & Freire, F. Prefabricated versus conventional construction: Comparing life-cycle impacts of alternative structural materials. Journal of Building Engineering 41; 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102705 (2021).
107
Malesza, J. & Miedziałowski, C. Current Directions in Development of Modern Wood-framed Houses. Procedia Engineering 172, 701–705; 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.02.084 (2017).
108
Caniato, M. et al. Acoustic of lightweight timber buildings: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80, 585–596; 10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.110 (2017).
109
Ostapska, K., Rüther, P., Loli, A. & Gradeci, K. Design for Disassembly: A systematic scoping review and analysis of built structures Designed for Disassembly. Sustainable Production and Consumption 48, 377–395; 10.1016/j.spc.2024.05.014 (2024).
110
Patlakas, P., LivInestone, A. & Hairstans, R. A BIM Platform for Offsite Timber Construction. In Proceedings of the 33th International Conference on Education and Research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe (eCAADe) [Volume 1], edited by B. Martens, G. Wurzer, T. Grasl, W. E. Lorenz & R. Schaffranek (eCAADe2015), pp. 597–604.
111
Zadeh, P. et al. (eds.). Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA) for Mass Timber Construction (BIM TOPiCS Research Lab, 2018).
112
Gharaibeh, L., Matarneh, S., Eriksson, K. & Lantz, B. An Empirical Analysis of Barriers to Building Information Modelling (BIM) Implementation in Wood Construction Projects: Evidence from the Swedish Context. Buildings 12, 1067; 10.3390/buildings12081067 (2022).
113
Alwisy, A., Bu Hamdan, S., Barkokebas, B., Bouferguene, A. & Al-Hussein, M. A BIM-based automation of design and drafting for manufacturing of wood panels for modular residential buildings. International Journal of Construction Management 19, 187–205; 10.1080/15623599.2017.1411458 (2019).
114
Viholainen, N. et al. Citizen views on wood as a construction material: results from seven European countries. Can. J. For. Res. 51, 647–659; 10.1139/cjfr-2020-0274 (2021).
115
Paskoff, C., Boton, C. & Blanchet, P. BIM-Based Checking Method for the Mass Timber Industry. Buildings 13; 10.3390/buildings13061474 (2023).
116
Franzini, F., Toivonen, R. & Toppinen, A. Why Not Wood? Benefits and Barriers of Wood as a Multistory Construction Material: Perceptions of Municipal Civil Servants from Finland. Buildings 8, 159; 10.3390/buildings8110159 (2018).
117
Toivonen, R., Vihemäki, H. & Toppinen, A. Policy narratives on wooden multi-storey construction and implications for technology innovation system governance. Forest Policy and Economics 125; 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102409 (2021).
118
Geng, A., Yang, H., Chen, J. & Hong, Y. Review of carbon storage function of harvested wood products and the potential of wood substitution in greenhouse gas mitigation. Forest Policy and Economics 85, 192–200; 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.08.007 (2017).
119
Backéus, S., Wikström, P. & Lämås, T. A model for regional analysis of carbon sequestration and timber production. Forest Ecology and Management 216, 28–40; 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.05.059 (2005).
120
Toochi, E. C. Carbon sequestration: how much can forestry sequester CO2? Forestry Research and Engineering: International Journal 2, 148–150; 10.15406/freij.2018.02.00040 (2018).
121
Vogtländer, J. G., van der Velden, N. M. & van der Lugt, P. Carbon sequestration in LCA, a proposal for a new approach based on the global carbon cycle; cases on wood and on bamboo. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 19, 13–23; 10.1007/s11367-013-0629-6 (2014).
122
Lin, L., Trabucco, D. & Perrucci, G. End-of-Life Scenarios for Mass Timber: Assumptions, Limitations and Potentials—A Literature Review. Applied Sciences 15; 10.3390/app15031208 (2025).
123
Sathre, R. & O’Connor, J. Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas displacement factors of wood product substitution. Environmental Science & Policy 13, 104–114; 10.1016/j.envsci.2009.12.005 (2010).
124
European Commission. New European Bauhaus. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://new-european-bauhaus.europa.eu/about/about-initiative_en (2021).
125
Hung, C.-P., Wei, C., Wang, S. Y. & Lin, F.-C. The study on the carbon dioxide sequestration by applying wooden structure on eco-technological and leisure facilities. Renewable Energy 34, 1896–1901; 10.1016/j.renene.2008.12.015 (2009).
126
World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf (1987).
127
Nambiar, E. S. Tamm Review: Re-imagining forestry and wood business: pathways to rural development, poverty alleviation and climate change mitigation in the tropics. Forest Ecology and Management 448, 160–173; 10.1016/j.foreco.2019.06.014 (2019).
128
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D. & Hekkert, M. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 127, 221–232; 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005 (2017).
129
Ogunmakinde, O. E., Egbelakin, T. & Sher, W. Contributions of the circular economy to the UN sustainable development goals through sustainable construction. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 178; 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.106023 (2022).
130
European Environment Agency. Addressing the environmental and climate footprint of buildings (Publications Office, Luxembourg, 2024).
131
Circle Economy. The Circularity Gap Report 2023. A circular economy to live within the safe limits of the planet. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5e185aa4d27bcf348400ed82/63ecb3ad94e12d3e5599cf54_CGR%202023%20-%20Report.pdf (2023).
132
Morseletto, P. Targets for a circular economy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 153; 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104553 (2020).
133
Jahan, I., Zhang, G., Bhuiyan, M. & Navaratnam, S. Circular Economy of Construction and Demolition Wood Waste—A Theoretical Framework Approach. Sustainability 14; 10.3390/su141710478 (2022).
134
Mair, C. & Stern, T. Cascading Utilization of Wood: a Matter of Circular Economy? Current Forestry Reports 3, 281–295; 10.1007/s40725-017-0067-y (2017).
135
Sirkin, T. & Houten, M. ten. The cascade chain: a theory and tool for achieving resource sustainability with applications for product design. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 10(3), 213–276 (1994).
136
Höglmeier, K., Weber-Blaschke, G. & Richter, K. Potentials for cascading of recovered wood from building deconstruction—A case study for south-east Germany. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117, 304–314; 10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.10.030 (2017).
137
Hua, L. S., Fatriasari, W. & Chen, L. W. Wood cascading: a brief review on principles, impacts and limitations. Global Forest Journal 3, 1–8; 10.32734/gfj.v3i01.19414 (2025).
138
Sathre, R. & Gustavsson, L. Energy and carbon balances of wood cascade chains. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47, 332–355; 10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.12.008 (2006).
139
Keegan, D., Kretschmer, B., Elbersen, B. & Panoutsou, C. Cascading use: a systematic approach to biomass beyond the energy sector. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 7, 193–206; 10.1002/bbb.1351 (2013).
140
Höglmeier, K., Weber‐Blaschke, G. & Richter, K. Evaluation of Wood Cascading. In Sustainability Assessment of Renewables‐Based Products, edited by J. Dewulf, S. de Meester & R. A. F. Alvarenga (Wiley2015), pp. 335–346.
141
Besserer, A., Troilo, S., Girods, P., Rogaume, Y. & Brosse, N. Cascading Recycling of Wood Waste: A Review. Polymers 13; 10.3390/polym13111752 (2021).
142
Dodoo, A., Gustavsson, L. & Sathre, R. Recycling of Lumber. In Handbook of Recycling (Elsevier2014), pp. 151–163.
143
Farjana, S. H., Tokede, O., Tao, Z. & Ashraf, M. Life cycle assessment of end-of-life engineered wood. The Science of the total environment 887; 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164018 (2023).
144
Ottenhaus, L.-M., Hernández-Aldaz, M., Davies, A. & Cabrero, J. M. Evaluating the disassembly potential of timber buildings: development of calculation tool and proof of concept. Wood Material Science & Engineering, 1–29; 10.1080/17480272.2025.2510562 (2025).
145
Hafner, A., Ott, S. & Winter, S. Recycling and End-of-Life Scenarios for Timber Structures. In Materials and Joints in Timber Structures, edited by S. Aicher, H.-W. Reinhardt & H. Garrecht (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2014), Vol. 9, pp. 89–98.
146
Pittau, F., Lumia, G., Heeren, N., Iannaccone, G. & Habert, G. Retrofit as a carbon sink: The carbon storage potentials of the EU housing stock. Journal of Cleaner Production 214, 365–376; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.304 (2019).
147
Blanchet, P., Perez, C. & Cabral, M. R. Wood Building Construction: Trends and Opportunities in Structural and Envelope Systems. Curr. For. Rep. 10, 21–38; 10.1007/s40725-023-00196-z (2024).
148
Schenk, D. & Amiri, A. Life cycle energy analysis of residential wooden buildings versus concrete and steel buildings: A review. Front. Built Environ. 8; 10.3389/fbuil.2022.975071 (2022).
149
Švajlenka, J. & Kozlovská, M. Houses Based on Wood as an Ecological and Sustainable Housing Alternative—Case Study. Sustainability 10, 1–20; 10.3390/su10051502 (2018).
150
Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL). Klima schützen. Werte schaffen. Ressourcen effizient nutzen. Charta für Holz 2.0 (2021).
151
Hart, J. & Pomponi, F. More Timber in Construction: Unanswered Questions and Future Challenges. Sustainability 12, 3473; 10.3390/su12083473 (2020).
152
Shono, K., Ouml & Jonsson. Global progress towards sustainable forest management: bright spots and challenges. International Forestry Review Vol. 24(1), 85–97 (2022).
153
Jhariya, M. K., Banerjee, A., Meena, R. S. & Yadav, D. K. (eds.). Sustainable Agriculture, Forest and Environmental Management (Springer, Singapore, 2019).
154
Bosela, M., Larocque, G. R., Baycheva, T., Valbuena, R. & Lier, M. Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management. In Ecological Forest Management Handbook, edited by G. R. Larocque (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2024), pp. 356–385.
155
European Union. Regulation (EU) 2023/ of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1115/oj/eng (2023).
156
Sing, L., Metzger, M. J., Paterson, J. S. & Ray, D. A review of the effects of forest management intensity on ecosystem services for northern European temperate forests with a focus on the UK. Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research 91, 151–164; 10.1093/forestry/cpx042 (2018).
157
Hill, C. A. S. The Environmental Consequences Concerning the Use of Timber in the Built Environment. Front. Built Environ. 5; 10.3389/fbuil.2019.00129 (2019).
158
Carle, J. & Holmgren, P. Wood from Planted Forests. Forest Products Journal Vol. 58 No. 12, 6–18 (2008).
159
Kim, D. H., Ahn, B. I. & Shim, G. Analyzing the Impact of EU’s Legality Requirements Policies on Sustainable Timber and Sawnwood Trade—Focusing on Tropical Wood Trade. Forests 15; 10.3390/f15111879 (2024).
160
Barrette, J., Achim, A. & Auty, D. Impact of Intensive Forest Management Practices on Wood Quality from Conifers: Literature Review and Reflection on Future Challenges. Current Forestry Reports 9, 101–130; 10.1007/s40725-023-00181-6 (2023).
161
Nasi, R. & Frost, P. G. H. Sustainable Forest Management in the Tropics: Is Everything in Order but the Patient Still Dying? Ecology and Society 14(2) (2009).
162
Gustavsson, L. & Sathre, R. Energy and CO2 analysis of wood substitution in construction. Climatic Change 105, 129–153; 10.1007/s10584-010-9876-8 (2011).
163
Mishra, A. et al. Land use change and carbon emissions of a transformation to timber cities. Nature communications 13; 10.1038/s41467-022-32244-w (2022).
164
Meena, C. et al. Innovation in Green Building Sector for Sustainable Future. Energies 15; 10.3390/en15186631 (2022).
165
Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Forest Strategy 2020: Sustainable Forest Management—An Opportunity and a Challenge for Society. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Publications/ForestStrategy2020. html (2020).
166
Linser, S. & O’Hara, P. (eds.). Guidelines for the Development of a Criteria and Indicator Set for Sustainable Forest Management (United Nations and the FAO, 2019).
167
Pan, Y. et al. The enduring world forest carbon sink. Nature 631, 563–569 (2024).
168
Lazdinis, M., Angelstam, P. & Pülzl, H. Towards sustainable forest management in the European Union through polycentric forest governance and an integrated landscape approach. Landscape Ecology 34, 1737–1749; 10.1007/s10980-019-00864-1 (2019).
169
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. State of the world’s forests. Forests pathways to sustainable development (FAO, Rome, 2018).
170
Jashimuddin, M. & Inoue, M. Community Forestry for Sustainable Forest Management: Experiences from Bangladesh and Policy Recommendations. FORMATH Vol. 11, 133–166 (2012).
171
Andersen, C. E., Rasmussen, F. N., Habert, G. & Birgisdóttir, H. Embodied GHG Emissions of Wooden Buildings—Challenges of Biogenic Carbon Accounting in Current LCA Methods. Frontiers in Built Environment 7; 10.3389/fbuil.2021.729096 (2021).
172
Börjesson, P. & Gustavsson, L. Greenhouse gas balances in building construction: wood versus concrete from life-cycle and forest land-use perspectives. wood versus concrete from life-cycle and forest land-use perspectives. Energy Policy, 575–588 (2000).
173
Werner, F. & Richter, K. Wooden building products in comparative LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 12, 470–479; 10.1065/lca2007.04.317 (2007).
174
Chen, C. X. et al. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Mass Timber and Concrete Residential Buildings: A Case Study in China. Sustainability 14; 10.3390/su14010144 (2022).
175
Chen, C. X., Pierobon, F. & Ganguly, I. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) Produced in Western Washington: The Role of Logistics and Wood Species Mix. Sustainability 11; 10.3390/su11051278 (2019).
176
Yang, X., Zhang, S. & Wang, K. Quantitative study of life cycle carbon emissions from 7 timber buildings in China. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26, 1721–1734; 10.1007/s11367-021-01960-8 (2021).
177
Balasbaneh, A. T., Bin Marsono, A. K. & Gohari, A. Sustainable materials selection based on flood damage assessment for a building using LCA and LCC. Journal of Cleaner Production 222, 844–855; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.005 (2019).
178
Balasbaneh, A. T. & Bin Marsono, A. K. Proposing of new building scheme and composite towards global warming mitigation for Malaysia. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 10, 176–184; 10.1080/19397038.2017.1293184 (2017).
179
Balasbaneh, A. T. & Bin Marsono, A. K. Strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from residential sector by proposing new building structures in hot and humid climatic conditions. Building and Environment 124, 357–368; 10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.08.025 (2017).
180
Amiri, A. et al. Embodied emissions of buildings – A forgotten factor in green building certificates. Energy and Buildings 241; 10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.110962 (2021).
181
Wallhagen, M., Glaumann, M. & Malmqvist, T. Basic building life cycle calculations to decrease contribution to climate change – Case study on an office building in Sweden. Building and Environment 46, 1863–1871; 10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.02.003 (2011).
182
Monteiro, H. & Freire, F. Life-cycle assessment of a house with alternative exterior walls: Comparison of three impact assessment methods. Energy and Buildings 47, 572–583; 10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.12.032 (2012).
183
Escamilla, E. Z. et al. Industrial or Traditional Bamboo Construction? Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Bamboo-Based Buildings. Sustainability 10; 10.3390/su10093096 (2018).
184
Bhochhibhoya, S. et al. The Global Warming Potential of Building Materials: An Application of Life Cycle Analysis in Nepal. Mountain Research and Development 37; 10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-15-00043.1 (2017).
185
Jussila, J. et al. Wooden multi-storey construction market development – systematic literature review within a global scope with insights on the Nordic region. Silva Fennica 56; 10.14214/sf.10609 (2022).
186
Balasbaneh, A. T., Marsono, A. K. B. & Khaleghi, S. J. Sustainability choice of different hybrid timber structure for low medium cost single-story residential building: Environmental, economic and social assessment. Journal of Building Engineering 20, 235–247; 10.1016/j.jobe.2018.07.006 (2018).
187
Larasatie, P. et al. What Does the Public Believe about Tall Wood Buildings? An Exploratory Study in the US Pacific Northwest. Journal of Forestry 116, 429–436; 10.1093/jofore/fvy025 (2018).
188
Carias Vega, D. & Page, T. Conditions that Enable Successful Participation of Smallholder Tree Growers in Timber Value Chains. Small-scale Forestry 22, 457–479; 10.1007/s11842-023-09539-x (2023).
189
Roberts, G., Skinner, C. & Ormondroyd, G. A. The environmental and social impacts of modified wood production: effect of timber sourcing. International Wood Products Journal 13, 236–254; 10.1080/20426445.2022.2117923 (2022).
190
Mair-Bauernfeind, C., Boiger, T., Asada, R. & Stern, T. Social consequences of wood-based innovations: a generic analysis of sectoral differences in Austria. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 30, 1281–1305; 10.1007/s11367-024-02361-3 (2025).
191
Starzyk, A., Cortiços, N. D., Duarte, C. C. & Łacek, P. Timber Architecture for Sustainable Futures: A Critical Review of Design and Research Challenges in the Era of Environmental and Social Transition. Buildings 15; 10.3390/buildings15152774 (2025).
192
Lizarazo-Rodriguez, L., Fabris, A. L. & Montag, D. Indigenous peoples as trustees of forests: a bio-socio-cultural approach to international law. International environmental agreements : politics, law and economics 25, 145–170; 10.1007/s10784-024-09654-w (2025).
193
Bredenoord, J. Sustainable Housing and Building Materials for Low-income Households. Journal of Architectural Engineering Technology 05; 10.4172/2168-9717.1000158 (2015).
194
Nguyen, M. T. Does Affordable Housing Detrimentally Affect Property Values? A Review of the Literature. Journal of Planning Literature 20, 15–26; 10.1177/0885412205277069 (2005).
195
Gan, X. et al. How affordable housing becomes more sustainable? A stakeholder study. Journal of Cleaner Production 162, 427–437; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.048 (2017).
196
Kim, S. Prefabricated and Modularized Residential Construction: A Review of Present Status, Opportunities, and Future Challenges. Buildings 15; 10.3390/buildings15162889 (2025).
197
Li, J., Andersen, L. V. & Hudert, M. M. The Potential Contribution of Modular Volumetric Timber Buildings to Circular Construction: A State-of-the-Art Review Based on Literature and 60 Case Studies. Sustainability 15; 10.3390/su152316203 (2023).
198
Nyrud, A. Q. & Bringslimark, T. Is interior wood use psychologically beneficial? A review of psychological responses toward wood. Wood and Fiber Science, 202–218 (2010).
199
Schieweck, A. Very volatile organic compounds (VVOC) as emissions from wooden materials and in indoor air of new prefabricated wooden houses. Building and Environment 190; 10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107537 (2021).
200
Fromme, H. et al. Very volatile and volatile organic compounds (VVOCs/VOCs) and endotoxins in the indoor air of German schools and apartments (LUPE10). Atmospheric Environment 351; 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2025.121178 (2025).
201
Ikei, H., Song, C. & Miyazaki, Y. Physiological effects of wood on humans: a review. Journal of Wood Science 63, 1–23; 10.1007/s10086-016-1597-9 (2017).
202
Ulrich, R. S. Aesthetic and Affective Response to Natural Environment. In Behavior and the Natural Environment, edited by I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1983), pp. 85–125.
203
Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge university press (1989).
204
Sakuragawa, S., Miyazaki, Y., Kaneko, T. & Makita, T. Influence of wood wall panels on physiological and psychological responses. Journal of Wood Science 51, 136–140; 10.1007/s10086-004-0643-1 (2005).
205
Cohen, D. H., Kozak, R. A., Meitner, M. J. & Rice, J. Appearance wood products and psychological well-being. Wood and Fiber Science V. 38(4), 644–659 (2006).
206
Demattè, M. L. et al. New insights into the psychological dimension of wood–human interaction. European Journal of Wood and Wood Products 76, 1093–1100; 10.1007/s00107-018-1315-y (2018).
207
Nakamura, M. & Kondo, T. Quantification of visual inducement of knots by eye-tracking. Journal of Wood Science 54, 22–27; 10.1007/s10086-007-0910-z (2008).
208
Sakuragawa, S., Kaneko, T. & Miyazaki, Y. Effects of contact with wood on blood pressure and subjective evaluation. Journal of Wood Science 54, 107–113; 10.1007/s10086-007-0915-7 (2008).
209
Kelz, C., Grote, V. & Moser, M. Interior wood use in classrooms reduces pupils’ stress levels. Proceedings of the 9th Biennial Conference on Environmental Psychology, 26–28 (2011).
210
Tsunetsugu, Y., Miyazaki, Y. & Sato, H. Physiological effects in humans induced by the visual stimulation of room interiors with different wood quantities. Journal of Wood Science 53, 11–16; 10.1007/s10086-006-0812-5 (2007).
211
Leszczyszyn, E. et al. The Future of Wood Construction: Opportunities and Barriers Based on Surveys in Europe and Chile. Sustainability 14; 10.3390/su14074358 (2022).
212
Harju, C. The perceived quality of wooden building materials – A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Int J Consumer Studies 46, 29–55; 10.1111/ijcs.12764 (2022).
213
Häkkänen, L., Ilgın, H. E. & Karjalainen, M. Cottage Culture in Finland: Development and Perspectives. Encyclopedia 2, 705–716; 10.3390/encyclopedia2020049 (2022).
214
Viholainen, N., Kylkilahti, E., Autio, M. & Toppinen, A. A home made of wood: Consumer experiences of wooden building materials. Int J Consumer Studies 44, 542–551; 10.1111/ijcs.12586 (2020).
215
Gustavsson, L. et al. The Role of Wood Material for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 11, 1097–1127; 10.1007/s11027-006-9035-8 (2006).
216
European Commission. A sustainable bioeconomy for Europe. Strengthening the connection between economy, society and the environment: updated bioeconomy strategy. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/edace3e3-e189-11e8-b690-01aa75ed71a1/language-en (2018).
217
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Conference of the Parties (COP). Accessed on 04/12/2025. Available at https://unfccc.int/process/bodies/supreme-bodies/conference-of-the-parties-cop (2025).
218
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Paris Agreement (2015).
219
United Nations. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda (2015).
220
European Commission. Subject: The nationally determined contribution of the European Union and its Member States. Accessed on 04/12/2025. Available at https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/2025-11/DK-2025-11-05%20EU%20NDC.pdf (2025).
221
European Commission. The European Green Deal. COM(2019) 640 Final. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0640 (2019).
222
European Commission. Circular Economy Action Plan. For a cleaner and more competitive Europe. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/45cc30f6-cd57-11ea-adf7-01aa75ed71a1/language-en (2020).
223
European Commission. Renovation Wave:. Doubling the renovation rate to cut emissions, boost recovery and reduce energy poverty. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_1835 (2020).
224
European Commission. Construction Products Regulation. Accessed on 12/11/2025. Available at https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/construction/construction-products-regulation-cpr_en (2013).
225
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2025. Accessed on 12/11/2025. Available at https://doi.org/10.4060/cd6709en (2025).
226
Jung, J. Economic Transformation and Sustainable Development through Multilateral Free Trade Agreements. Sustainability 13; 10.3390/su13052519 (2021).
227
European Commission & MERCOSUR. EU-Mercosur agreement. Accessed on 12/11/2025. Available at https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/mercosur/eu-mercosur-agreement/documents_en (2024).
228
Arima, E., Barreto, P., Taheripour, F. & Aguiar, A. Dynamic Amazonia: The EU–Mercosur Trade Agreement and Deforestation. Land 10; 10.3390/land10111243 (2021).
229
European Commission & Government of Canada. EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/canada/eu-canada-agreement_en (2017).
230
Himes, A. & Busby, G. Wood buildings as a climate solution. Developments in the Built Environment 4; 10.1016/j.dibe.2020.100030 (2020).
231
European Parliament. Rücktritt der USA von dem Übereinkommen von Paris und Austritt aus der WHO. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2025/767230/EPRS_ATA(2025)767230_DE.pdf (2025).
232
Bigerna, S. & Micheli, S. Global costs of US withdrawal: Quantifying the impact on Paris Agreement cooperation. Journal of environmental management 392; 10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126733 (2025).
233
Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft. Internationale Projekte zur nachhaltigen Waldbewirtschaftung. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://www.bmleh.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Broschueren/internationale-projekte-waldbewirtschaftung.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=7 (2024).
234
Sotirov, M., Pokorny, B., Kleinschmit, D. & Kanowski, P. International Forest Governance and Policy: Institutional Architecture and Pathways of Influence in Global Sustainability. Sustainability 12; 10.3390/su12177010 (2020).
235
Arts, B., Brockhaus, M., Giessen, L. & McDermott, C. L. The performance of global forest governance: Three contrasting perspectives. Forest Policy and Economics 161; 10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103165 (2024).
236
United Nations. Convention on Biological Diversity. No L 309/6. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:21993A1213(01) (1992).
237
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. REDD+. Accessed on 17/11/2025. Available at https://unfccc.int/topics/land-use/workstreams/reddplus (2007).
238
European Commission. EU FLEGT Action Plan. Council Regulation (EC) No 2173/2005. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32005R2173 (2003).
239
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Ministerial Katowice Declaration on Forests for the Climate. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://www.iri.edu.ar/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/a2019MedAmbDocONUcop24Declaración-de-Katowice-Bosques-por-el-Clima.pdf (2018).
240
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://ukcop26.org/glasgow-leaders-declaration-on-forests-and-land-use/ (2021).
241
United Nations. United Nations Strategic Plan for Forests 2017–2030. Accessed on 17/11/2025. Available at https://www.un.org/esa/forests/documents/un-strategic-plan-for-forests-2030/index.html (2017).
242
European Commission. EU Forest Strategy for 2030. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2021) 572 Final. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/forest-strategy_en (2021).
243
Lier, M. et al. The New EU Forest Strategy for 2030: A New Understanding of Sustainable Forest Management? Forests 13; 10.3390/f13020245 (2022).
244
Siry, J. P., Cubbage, F. W. & Ahmed, M. R. Sustainable forest management: global trends and opportunities. Forest Policy and Economics 7, 551–561; 10.1016/j.forpol.2003.09.003 (2005).
245
Forest Stewardship Council. Was ist FSC? Accessed on 18/11/2025. Available at https://www.fsc-deutschland.de/was-ist-fsc/ (2025).
246
Damette, O. & Delacote, P. Unsustainable timber harvesting, deforestation and the role of certification. Ecological Economics 70, 1211–1219; 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.01.025 (2011).
247
Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification. PEFC – your partner for the EUDR. Accessed on 18/11/2025. Available at https://pefc.org/ (2025).
248
Prestemon, J. P. The impacts of the Lacey Act Amendment of 2008 on U.S. hardwood lumber and hardwood plywood imports. Forest Policy and Economics 50, 31–44; 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.10.002 (2015).
249
United States of America. Lacey Act. 18 U.S.C. 42 (2008).
250
Parliament of Australia. Illegal Logging Prohibition Act. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/aus158000.pdf (2012).
251
European Commission. European Timber Regulation. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2010/995/oj/eng (2013).
252
European Commission. Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 on deforestation-free products. Accessed on 17/11/2025. Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32023R1115&qid=1687867231461 (2023).
253
Bundesministerium für Landwirtschaft, Ernährung und Heimat. EU-weit einheitliche Regelung für entwaldungsfreie Lieferketten. Accessed on 18/11/2025. Available at https://www.bmleh.de/DE/themen/wald/waelder-weltweit/entwaldungsfreie-Lieferketten-eu-vo.html (2025).
254
Lundmark, R. Leakage Effects from Restrictions in Timber Supply: An Application to Sweden. Forests (2025).
255
Soimakallio, S., Kalliokoski, T., Lehtonen, A. & Salminen, O. On the trade-offs and synergies between forest carbon sequestration and substitution. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 26; 10.1007/s11027-021-09942-9 (2021).
256
Börner, J., Schulz, D., Wunder, S. & Pfaff, A. The Effectiveness of Forest Conservation Policies and Programs. Annual Review of Resource Economics 12, 45–64 (2020).
257
Wiegand, E. & Ramage, M. The impact of policy instruments on the first generation of Tall Wood Buildings. Building Research & Information 50, 254–275; 10.1080/09613218.2021.1905501 (2022).
258
Government of Sweden. Sweden´s National Forest Program. Accessed on 21/11/2025. Available at https://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/en/about-us/national-forest-program/ (2018).
259
Ministry of Environment of Finland. Wood Building Programme. Accessed on 22/11/2025. Available at https://ym.fi/en/wood-building (2016).
260
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland. The National Forest Strategy 2035. Accessed on 22/11/2025. Available at https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/bacd6d9b-5c55-4fb5-bb37-a1a6a78da265/content (2023).
261
Natural Resources Canada. Tall Wood Building Demonstration Initiative. Accessed on 22/11/2025. Available at https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2021/rncan-nrcan/Fo52-6-2021-eng.pdf (2013).
262
Government of Canada. Green Construction through Wood (GCWood) Program. Accessed on 22/11/2025. Available at https://natural-resources.canada.ca/funding-partnerships/green-construction-through-wood-gcwood-program (2017).
263
Government of British Columbia. Wood First Act. Accessed on 22/11/2025. Available at https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/supporting-innovation/bio-economy/wood-first-initiative (2009).
264
Government of Japan. Act on Promoting the Distribution and Use of Legally Harvested Wood and Wood Products. Act No. 48. Accessed on 22/11/2025. Available at https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3336/en (2016).
265
Purkus et al. Entwicklung der Rahmenbedingungen für das Bauen mit Holz in Deutschland: Eine Innovationssystemanalyse im Kontext der Evaluation der Charta für Holz 2.0. Thühnen Report 78 (2020).
266
Bundesministerium für Landwirtschaft, Ernährung und Heimat. Holzbauinitiative. Accessed on 22/11/2025. Available at https://www.bmleh.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Broschueren/holzbauinitiative.html (2022).
267
Scholle, K. Anteil der genehmigten Wohngebäude in Holzbauweise an allen genehmigten Wohngebäuden in Deutschland in den Jahren 2004 bis 2024. Statista (2025).
268
Araujo, V. de et al. Timber Construction Regulations in Brazil: A Perspective from Its National Industry of Timber Houses. Buildings 13; 10.3390/buildings13092136 (2023).
269
International Organization for Standardization. About ISO. Accessed on 02/12/2025. Available at https://www.iso.org/about (2025).
270
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 21887:2007. Accessed on 25/11/2025. Available at https://www.iso.org/standard/40502.html (2007).
271
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 16598:2015. Accessed on 25/11/2025. Available at https://www.iso.org/standard/57243.html (2015).
272
European Commission. About the EN Eurocodes. Accessed on 25/11/2025. Available at https://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en-eurocodes/about-en-eurocodes (2021).
273
European Commission. Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures. Accessed on 25/11/2025. Available at https://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/EN-Eurocodes/eurocode-5-design-timber-structures (2004).
274
Gravit, M., Serdjuks, D., Bardin, A., Prusakov, V. & Buka-Vaivade, K. Fire design methods for structures with timber framework. Magazine of Civil Engineering, 92–106 (2019).
275
International Code Council. 2024 International Building Code. Accessed on 25/11/2025. Available at https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC2024V2.0/preface (2024).

1
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Accessed on 29/11/2025. Available at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf (2023).
2
United Nations Environment Programme. Emissions Gap Report 2025: Off Target – Continued Collective inaction puts Global Temperature Goal at Risk. Accessed on 29/11/2025. Available at https://doi.org/10.59117/20.500.11822/48854 (2025).
3
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The State of the World’s Forests 2024. Forest-sector innovations towards a more sustainable future. Available at https://doi.org/10.4060/cd1211en (2024).
4
United Nations Environment Programme. Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction 2024/2025. Available at https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/47214;jsessionid=95B6F2D34AB6D685B2CEE60D63F169C3 (2025).
5
Ghobadi, M. & Sepasgozar, S. M. Circular economy strategies in modern timber construction as a potential response to climate change. Journal of Building Engineering 77; 10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107229 (2023).
6
Bragança, L., Cvetkovska, M., Askar, R. & Ungureanu, V. (eds.). Creating a Roadmap Towards Circularity in the Built Environment. 1st ed. (Springer Nature Switzerland; Imprint Springer, Cham, 2024).
7
D’Amico, B., Pomponi, F. & Hart, J. Global potential for material substitution in building construction: The case of cross laminated timber. Journal of Cleaner Production 279; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123487 (2021).
8
Mergel, C., Menrad, K. & Decker, T. Which factors influence consumers’ selection of wood as a building material for houses? Canadian Journal of Forest Research 54, 467–478; 10.1139/cjfr-2023-0197 (2024).
9
Khozin, V., Khokhryakov, O. & Nizamov, R. A «carbon footprint» of low water demand cements and cement-based concrete. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 890; 10.1088/1757-899X/890/1/012105 (2020).
10
Švajlenka, J. & Pošiváková, T. Innovation potential of wood constructions in the context of sustainability and efficiency of the construction industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 411, 1–14; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137209 (2023).
11
Vilčeková, S., Harčárová, K., Moňoková, A. & Burdová, E. K. Life Cycle Assessment and Indoor Environmental Quality of Wooden Family Houses. Sustainability 12, 1–17; 10.3390/su122410557 (2020).
12
Tupenaite, L., Kanapeckiene, L., Naimaviciene, J., Kaklauskas, A. & Gecys, T. Timber Construction as a Solution to Climate Change: A Systematic Literature Review. Buildings 13, 976; 10.3390/buildings13040976 (2023).
13
Petruch, M. & Walcher, D. Timber for future? Attitudes towards timber construction by young millennials in Austria – Marketing implications from a representative study. Journal of Cleaner Production 294; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126324 (2021).
14
Lobos Calquin, D. et al. Implementation of Building Information Modeling Technologies in Wood Construction: A Review of the State of the Art from a Multidisciplinary Approach. Buildings 14, 584; 10.3390/buildings14030584 (2024).
15
Schulz, H. Entwicklung der Holzverwendung im 19., 20. und 21. Jahrhundert. Holz als Roh- und Werkstoff 51, 75–82 (1993).
16
Harju, C. & Lähtinen, K. Consumers’ Consciousness for Sustainable Consumption and Their Perceptions of Wooden Building Product Quality. Forest Products Journal 72, 155–169; 10.13073/FPJ-D-22-00014 (2022).
17
Lattke, F. & Lehmann, S. Multi-storey residential timber construction: Current development in Europe. Journal of Green Building 2, 119–129 (2007).
18
Asiz, A. Sustainable Timber Construction: Challenges and Opportunities. International Journal of Engineering and Science Applications, 13-21 (2023).
19
Thomas, D. & Ding, G. Comparing the performance of brick and timber in residential buildings – The case of Australia. Energy and Buildings 159, 136–147; 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.10.094 (2018).
20
Management Research Group – University of Oldenburg. About the Sustainability Management Wiki. Accessed on 28/11/2025. Available at https://www.sustainability-management.wiki/about/ (2025).
21
Woodard, A. C. & Milner, H. R. Sustainability of timber and wood in construction. In Sustainability of construction materials, edited by J. M. Khatib (Woodhead Publishing, Amsterdam, 2016), pp. 129–157.
22
Ramage, M. H. et al. The wood from the trees: The use of timber in construction. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 68, 333–359; 10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.107 (2017).
23
Woodard, A. C. & Milner, H. R. Sustainability of timber and wood in construction. In Sustainability of Construction Materials (Elsevier2016), pp. 129–157.
24
Zhang, M. et al. Comparison of wood physical and mechanical traits between major gymnosperm and angiosperm tree species in China. Wood Science and Technology 51, 1405–1419; 10.1007/s00226-017-0954-1 (2017).
25
Zhang, J., Nieminen, K., Serra, J. A. A. & Helariutta, Y. The formation of wood and its control. Current opinion in plant biology 17, 56–63; 10.1016/j.pbi.2013.11.003 (2014).
26
Vazquez-Yanes, C. Trema micrantha (L.) Blume (Ulmaceae):. A promising neotropical tree for site amelioration of deforested land. Agroforestry Systems 40, 97–104 (1998).
27
Koch, G. W., Sillett, S. C., Jennings, G. M. & Davis, S. D. The limits to tree height. Nature 428, 851–854; 10.1038/nature02417 (2004).
28
Moore, J. et al. Getting the most out of UK’s timber resource. Scottish Forestry Vol 63 No 3, 3–8 (2009).
29
Palma, P. & Steiger, R. Structural health monitoring of timber structures – Review of available methods and case studies. Construction and Building Materials 248; 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118528 (2020).
30
Kretschmann, D. E. Chapter 5 – Mechanical Properties of Wood. Forest product laboratory, 1–46 (2010).
31
De Araujo et al. Classification of Wooden Housing Building Systems. BioResources, 7889–7901 (2016).
32
Zang, X. et al. Contemporary Fire Safety Engineering in Timber Structures: Challenges and Solutions. Fire 7; 10.3390/fire7010002 (2024).
33
Pramreiter, M. et al. A review of the resource efficiency and mechanical performance of commercial wood-based building materials. Sustainable Materials and Technologies 38; 10.1016/j.susmat.2023.e00728 (2023).
34
Herajarvi, H. et al. Building with wood as a driver for sustainable development in rural regions. Background and methodology for analysis of socio-economic impacts on rural development and rural-urban integration through wood construction. BASAJAUN; 10.5281/ZENODO.4781092 (2021).
35
Karabegović, I. (ed.). New technologies, development and application II (Springer, Cham, 2019).
36
Gardner, D. J., Han, Y. & Wang, L. Wood–Plastic Composite Technology. Current Forestry Reports 1, 139–150; 10.1007/s40725-015-0016-6 (2015).
37
Manninen, H. Long-term outlook for engineered wood products in Europe. European Forest Institute Technical Report 91, 1–46 (2014).
38
Brandner, R., Flatscher, G., Ringhofer, A., Schickhofer, G. & Thiel, A. Cross laminated timber (CLT): overview and development. European Journal of Wood and Wood Products 74, 331–351; 10.1007/s00107-015-0999-5 (2016).
39
Vanova, R., Stompf, P., Stefko, J. & Stefkova, J. Environmental Impact of a Mass Timber Building—A Case Study. Forests 12, 1571; 10.3390/f12111571 (2021).
40
Kremer, P. D. & Symmons, M. A. Mass timber construction as an alternative to concrete and steel in the Australia building industry: a PESTEL evaluation of the potential. International Wood Products Journal 6, 137–147; 10.1179/2042645315Y.0000000010 (2015).
41
Mallo, M. F. L. & Espinoza, O. Cross-laminated timber vs. concrete/steel: cost comparison using a case study. World Conference on Timber Engineering (2016).
42
Santi, S., Pierobon, F., Corradini, G., Cavalli, R. & Zanetti, M. Massive wood material for sustainable building design: the Massiv–Holz–Mauer wall system. Journal of Wood Science 62, 416–428; 10.1007/s10086-016-1570-7 (2016).
43
Ahmed, S. & Arocho, I. Analysis of cost comparison and effects of change orders during construction: Study of a mass timber and a concrete building project. Journal of Building Engineering 33; 10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101856 (2021).
44
Kuilen, J. de, Ceccotti, A., Xia, Z. & He, M. Very Tall Wooden Buildings with Cross Laminated Timber. Procedia Engineering 14, 1621–1628; 10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.204 (2011).
45
Kremer, P. D., Abbasnejad, B., Ahankoob, A. & Wakefield, R. Advancing global mass timber construction – a decade of progress, challenges and future directions: A systematic literature review. Building and Environment 284; 10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.113458 (2025).
46
Wagenführ, A., Buchelt, B., Kairi, M. & Weber, A. Veneers and Veneer-Based Materials. In Handbook of Wood Science and Technology, edited by P. Niemz, A. Teischinger & D. Sandberg. 1st ed. (Springer International Publishing; Imprint Springer, Cham, 2023), pp. 1347–1407.
47
Wacker, J. P. Use of Wood in Buildings and Bridges. General Technical Report FPL–GTR–282 Chapter 17, 1–16 (2021).
48
Nepal, P., Johnston, C. M. T. & Ganguly, I. Effects on Global Forests and Wood Product Markets of Increased Demand for Mass Timber. Sustainability 13, 1–26; 10.3390/su132413943 (2021).
49
Krug, D., Direske, M., Tobisch, S., Weber, A. & Wenderdel, C. Particle-Based Materials. In Handbook of Wood Science and Technology, edited by P. Niemz, A. Teischinger & D. Sandberg. 1st ed. (Springer International Publishing; Imprint Springer, Cham, 2023), pp. 1409–1490.
50
Gao, Z. & Gong, M. Strand-Based Engineered Wood Products in Construction. In Engineered Wood Products for Construction, edited by M. Gong (IntechOpen2022).
51
Ghazanfari, A., Malzl, L., Pramreiter, M., Konnerth, J. & Kromoser, B. A systematic review of strand-based engineered wood products for construction: standard test methods and mechanical properties. Wood Material Science & Engineering, 1–23; 10.1080/17480272.2025.2465562 (2025).
52
Zhiyong, C., Senalik, C. A. & Ross, R. J. Mechanical Properties of Wood-Based Composite Materials. Wood handbook—wood as an engineering material. Chapter 12 in General Technical Report FPL-GTR-282 (2021).
53
Zanuttini, R. & Negro, F. Wood-Based Composites: Innovation towards a Sustainable Future. Forests 12; 10.3390/f12121717 (2021).
54
Caldas, L. R. et al. Building materials in a circular economy: The case of wood waste as CO2-sink in bio concrete. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 166; 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105346 (2021).
55
Keskisaari, A. & Kärki, T. The use of waste materials in wood-plastic composites and their impact on the profitability of the product. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 134, 257–261; 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.03.023 (2018).
56
Caldas, L. R. et al. Environmental impact assessment of wood bio-concretes: Evaluation of the influence of different supplementary cementitious materials. Construction and Building Materials 268; 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121146 (2021).
57
Cabral, M. R. & Blanchet, P. A State of the Art of the Overall Energy Efficiency of Wood Buildings-An Overview and Future Possibilities. Materials 14; 10.3390/ma14081848 (2021).
58
Krötsch, S. Holz – nachhaltiger Baustoff mit Zukunft. In Fortschritte in der Nachhaltigkeitsforschung, edited by M. von Hauff & T. Nguyen (Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG2018), pp. 157–176.
59
National Academy of Engineering (ed.). Frontiers of Engineering: Reports on Leading-Edge Engineering from the 2017 Symposium (Washington (DC), 2018).
60
Joung, J.-G. et al. Timber Construction Materials in Modern Timber Buildings: Domestic and Global Market Trends. Trends in Agriculture & Life Sciences 62, 13–32; 10.29335/tals.2024.62.13 (2024).
61
Pajchrowski, G., Noskowiak, A., Lewandowska, A. & Strykowski, W. Wood as a building material in the light of environmental assessment of full life cycle of four buildings. Construction and Building Materials 52, 428–436; 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.11.066 (2014).
62
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Status of public policies encouraging wood use in construction – an overview. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://www.fao.org/forestry-fao/49801-0cae892398185071321d397e2c1e0d520.pdf (2020).
63
Alapieti, T., Mikkola, R., Pasanen, P. & Salonen, H. The influence of wooden interior materials on indoor environment: a review. European Journal of Wood and Wood Products 78, 617–634; 10.1007/s00107-020-01532-x (2020).
64
Sayigh, A. The Importance of Wood and Timber in Sustainable Buildings (Springer International Publishing AG, Cham, 2022).
65
Smith, I. & Snow, M. A. Timber: An ancient construction material with a bright future. The Forestry Chronicle Vol. 84 No. 4, 504–510 (2008).
66
Churkina, G. et al. Buildings as a global carbon sink. Nature Sustainability 3, 269–276; 10.1038/s41893-019-0462-4 (2020).
67
Niemz, P., Teischinger, A. & Sandberg, D. (eds.). Handbook of Wood Science and Technology. 1st ed. (Springer International Publishing; Imprint Springer, Cham, 2023).
68
Qu, M., Pelkonen, P., Tahvanainen, L., Arevalo, J. & Gritten, D. Experts’ assessment of the development of wood framed houses in China. Journal of Cleaner Production 31, 100–105; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.03.002 (2012).
69
Sathre, R. & Gustavsson, L. Using wood products to mitigate climate change: External costs and structural change. Applied Energy 86, 251–257; 10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.04.007 (2008).
70
Santana-Sosa, A. & Kovacic, I. Barriers, Opportunities and Recommendations to Enhance the Adoption of Timber within Multi-Storey Buildings in Austria. Buildings 12; 10.3390/buildings12091416 (2022).
71
Huang, H., Su, S. & Li, L. Advancing timber construction: historical growth, research frontiers, and time series forecasting. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 1–30; 10.1080/13467581.2024.2373829 (2024).
72
United Nations. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework. Convention on Climate Change. Accessed on 01/12/2025. Available at https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf (1997).
73
Svatoš-Ražnjević, H., Orozco, L. & Menges, A. Advanced Timber Construction Industry: A Review of 350 Multi-Storey Timber Projects from 2000–2021. Buildings 12; 10.3390/buildings12040404 (2022).
74
Ludwig, G. The Role of Law in Transformative Environmental Policies—A Case Study of “Timber in Buildings Construction in Germany”. Sustainability 11; 10.3390/su11030842 (2019).
75
Sikkema, R., Styles, D., Jonsson, R., Tobin, B. & Byrne, K. A. A market inventory of construction wood for residential building in Europe – in the light of the Green Deal and new circular economy ambitions. Sustainable Cities and Society 90, 1–17; 10.1016/j.scs.2022.104370 (2023).
76
Schauerte, T. Consumer Perceptions on Wooden Multistory Houses: Segmenting International Markets. International Convention of Society of Wood Science and Technology (2010).
77
Victorero, F. & Bustamante, W. Identifying Urban Wood Construction Trends, Global Tall Timber Building Development, and the Role of Wood Promotion Policies. Buildings 15; 10.3390/buildings15091502 (2025).
78
Sandanayake, M., Lokuge, W., Zhang, G., Setunge, S. & Thushar, Q. Greenhouse gas emissions during timber and concrete building construction —A scenario based comparative case study. Sustainable Cities and Society 38, 91–97; 10.1016/j.scs.2017.12.017 (2018).
79
Gold, S. & Rubik, F. Consumer attitudes towards timber as a construction material and towards timber frame houses – selected findings of a representative survey among the German population. Journal of Cleaner Production 17, 303–309; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.07.001 (2009).
80
Wang, L., Toppinen, A. & Juslin, H. Use of wood in green building: a study of expert perspectives from the UK. Journal of Cleaner Production 65, 350–361; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.023 (2014).
81
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020. Key findings. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/9f24d451-2e56-4ae2-8a4a-1bc511f5e60e/content (2020).
82
Liu, L., Chen, Y., Yu, J. & Cheng, R. Analysis of the Trade Network of Global Wood Forest Products and its Evolution from 1995 to 2020. Forest Products Journal 74, 121–129; 10.13073/FPJ-D-23-00065 (2024).
83
Li, Y., Mei, B. & Linhares-Juvenal, T. The economic contribution of the world’s forest sector. Forest Policy and Economics 100, 236–253; 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.01.004 (2019).
84
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Global forest products facts and figures 2023. Available at https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/3740bc34-b22a-4ba9-8962-1486af5ba25a (2024).
85
United Nations and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Forest Products Annual Market Review 2023-2024. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://www.un-ilibrary.org/content/books/9789211065480 (2024).
86
Vehola, A. et al. Citizen beliefs concerning wood as a construction material under extreme weather events. Can. J. For. Res. 52, 1266–1279; 10.1139/cjfr-2022-0108 (2022).
87
Lim, W. M., Kumar, S. & Ali, F. Advancing knowledge through literature reviews: ‘what’, ‘why’, and ‘how to contribute’. The Service Industries Journal 42, 481–513; 10.1080/02642069.2022.2047941 (2022).
88
Mergel, C., Menrad, K. & Decker, T. Wood or not? An analysis of regional differences in wooden residential building permits in Germany. Journal of Cleaner Production 376; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134328 (2022).
89
Zanello, R., Shi, Y., Zeinolebadi, A. & van Kooten, G. C. COVID-19 and the Mystery of Lumber Price Movements. Forests 14, 152, 1–11; 10.3390/f14010152 (2023).
90
European Commission. Cascades. Study on the optimised cascading use of wood (Publications Office, Luxembourg, 2016).
91
Zhang, N., Mei, B. & Yanshu Li. A review of the financial performance of lumber futures and some prospects. Forest Policy and Economics (2023).
92
van Kooten, G. C., Zanello, R. & Schmitz, A. Explaining Post-Pandemic Lumber Price Volatility and its Welfare Effects. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization 21, 11–19; 10.1515/jafio-2022-0018 (2023).
93
Busby, G. & Binkley, C. Explaining the disconnect between lumber and timber prices. Natural Capital, 1–8 (2021).
94
Macrotrends. Lumber Prices (1972-2025). Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://www.macrotrends.net/2637/lumber-prices-historical-chart-data (2025).
95
Nepal, P., Lamica, A. & Parajuli, R. Projected effects of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on global forest products markets. Forest Policy and Economics 168; 10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103301 (2024).
96
Lööf, H. & Stephan, A. The Impact of the Russian-Ukrainian War on Europe’s Forest-Based Bioeconomy. Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung 91, 63–82; 10.3790/vjh.91.3.63 (2022).
97
Tian, N., Poudyal, N. C., Augé, R. M., Hodges, D. G. & Young, T. M. Meta-Analysis of Price Responsiveness of Timber Supply. Forest Products Journal 67, 152–163; 10.13073/FPJ-D-16-00017 (2017).
98
Hrdlicka, T., Cupal, M. & Komosna, M. Wood vs. brick: Impact on investment costs of houses. Journal of Building Engineering 49; 10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104088 (2022).
99
Gu, H., Liang, S. & Bergman, R. Comparison of Building Construction and Life-Cycle Cost for a High-Rise Mass Timber Building with its Concrete Alternative. Forest Products Journal 70, 482–492; 10.13073/FPJ-D-20-00052 (2020).
100
Koppelhuber, J., Bauer, B., Wall, J. & Heck, D. Industrialized Timber Building Systems for an Increased Market Share – a Holistic Approach Targeting Construction Management and Building Economics. Procedia Engineering 171, 333–340; 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.01.341 (2017).
101
Amiri, A., Ottelin, J., Sorvari, J. & Junnila, S. Cities as carbon sinks—classification of wooden buildings. Environmental Research Letters 15; 10.1088/1748-9326/aba134 (2020).
102
Tsai, M.-T. & Sugiharto Wonodihardjo, A. Achieving Sustainability of Traditional Wooden Houses in Indonesia by Utilization of Cost-Efficient Waste-Wood Composite. Sustainability 10; 10.3390/su10061718 (2018).
103
Arkhangelskaya, Y. & Arkhangelskaya, E. Comparing the Economic Indicators of Sustainable Development in Wooden Housing. IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 753, 1–10; 10.1088/1757-899X/753/8/082022 (2020).
104
Patlakas, P., Menendez, J. & Hairstans, R. The Potential, Requirements, and Limitations of BIM for Offsite Timber Construction. International Journal of 3-D Information Modeling 4, 54–70; 10.4018/IJ3DIM.2015010104 (2015).
105
Scouse, A., Kelley, S. S., Liang, S. & Bergman, R. Regional and net economic impacts of high-rise mass timber construction in Oregon. Sustainable Cities and Society 61; 10.1016/j.scs.2020.102154 (2020).
106
Tavares, V., Soares, N., Raposo, N., Marques, P. & Freire, F. Prefabricated versus conventional construction: Comparing life-cycle impacts of alternative structural materials. Journal of Building Engineering 41; 10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102705 (2021).
107
Malesza, J. & Miedziałowski, C. Current Directions in Development of Modern Wood-framed Houses. Procedia Engineering 172, 701–705; 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.02.084 (2017).
108
Caniato, M. et al. Acoustic of lightweight timber buildings: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 80, 585–596; 10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.110 (2017).
109
Ostapska, K., Rüther, P., Loli, A. & Gradeci, K. Design for Disassembly: A systematic scoping review and analysis of built structures Designed for Disassembly. Sustainable Production and Consumption 48, 377–395; 10.1016/j.spc.2024.05.014 (2024).
110
Patlakas, P., LivInestone, A. & Hairstans, R. A BIM Platform for Offsite Timber Construction. In Proceedings of the 33th International Conference on Education and Research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe (eCAADe) [Volume 1], edited by B. Martens, G. Wurzer, T. Grasl, W. E. Lorenz & R. Schaffranek (eCAADe2015), pp. 597–604.
111
Zadeh, P. et al. (eds.). Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DfMA) for Mass Timber Construction (BIM TOPiCS Research Lab, 2018).
112
Gharaibeh, L., Matarneh, S., Eriksson, K. & Lantz, B. An Empirical Analysis of Barriers to Building Information Modelling (BIM) Implementation in Wood Construction Projects: Evidence from the Swedish Context. Buildings 12, 1067; 10.3390/buildings12081067 (2022).
113
Alwisy, A., Bu Hamdan, S., Barkokebas, B., Bouferguene, A. & Al-Hussein, M. A BIM-based automation of design and drafting for manufacturing of wood panels for modular residential buildings. International Journal of Construction Management 19, 187–205; 10.1080/15623599.2017.1411458 (2019).
114
Viholainen, N. et al. Citizen views on wood as a construction material: results from seven European countries. Can. J. For. Res. 51, 647–659; 10.1139/cjfr-2020-0274 (2021).
115
Paskoff, C., Boton, C. & Blanchet, P. BIM-Based Checking Method for the Mass Timber Industry. Buildings 13; 10.3390/buildings13061474 (2023).
116
Franzini, F., Toivonen, R. & Toppinen, A. Why Not Wood? Benefits and Barriers of Wood as a Multistory Construction Material: Perceptions of Municipal Civil Servants from Finland. Buildings 8, 159; 10.3390/buildings8110159 (2018).
117
Toivonen, R., Vihemäki, H. & Toppinen, A. Policy narratives on wooden multi-storey construction and implications for technology innovation system governance. Forest Policy and Economics 125; 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102409 (2021).
118
Geng, A., Yang, H., Chen, J. & Hong, Y. Review of carbon storage function of harvested wood products and the potential of wood substitution in greenhouse gas mitigation. Forest Policy and Economics 85, 192–200; 10.1016/j.forpol.2017.08.007 (2017).
119
Backéus, S., Wikström, P. & Lämås, T. A model for regional analysis of carbon sequestration and timber production. Forest Ecology and Management 216, 28–40; 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.05.059 (2005).
120
Toochi, E. C. Carbon sequestration: how much can forestry sequester CO2? Forestry Research and Engineering: International Journal 2, 148–150; 10.15406/freij.2018.02.00040 (2018).
121
Vogtländer, J. G., van der Velden, N. M. & van der Lugt, P. Carbon sequestration in LCA, a proposal for a new approach based on the global carbon cycle; cases on wood and on bamboo. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 19, 13–23; 10.1007/s11367-013-0629-6 (2014).
122
Lin, L., Trabucco, D. & Perrucci, G. End-of-Life Scenarios for Mass Timber: Assumptions, Limitations and Potentials—A Literature Review. Applied Sciences 15; 10.3390/app15031208 (2025).
123
Sathre, R. & O’Connor, J. Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas displacement factors of wood product substitution. Environmental Science & Policy 13, 104–114; 10.1016/j.envsci.2009.12.005 (2010).
124
European Commission. New European Bauhaus. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://new-european-bauhaus.europa.eu/about/about-initiative_en (2021).
125
Hung, C.-P., Wei, C., Wang, S. Y. & Lin, F.-C. The study on the carbon dioxide sequestration by applying wooden structure on eco-technological and leisure facilities. Renewable Energy 34, 1896–1901; 10.1016/j.renene.2008.12.015 (2009).
126
World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf (1987).
127
Nambiar, E. S. Tamm Review: Re-imagining forestry and wood business: pathways to rural development, poverty alleviation and climate change mitigation in the tropics. Forest Ecology and Management 448, 160–173; 10.1016/j.foreco.2019.06.014 (2019).
128
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D. & Hekkert, M. Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 127, 221–232; 10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005 (2017).
129
Ogunmakinde, O. E., Egbelakin, T. & Sher, W. Contributions of the circular economy to the UN sustainable development goals through sustainable construction. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 178; 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.106023 (2022).
130
European Environment Agency. Addressing the environmental and climate footprint of buildings (Publications Office, Luxembourg, 2024).
131
Circle Economy. The Circularity Gap Report 2023. A circular economy to live within the safe limits of the planet. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5e185aa4d27bcf348400ed82/63ecb3ad94e12d3e5599cf54_CGR%202023%20-%20Report.pdf (2023).
132
Morseletto, P. Targets for a circular economy. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 153; 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104553 (2020).
133
Jahan, I., Zhang, G., Bhuiyan, M. & Navaratnam, S. Circular Economy of Construction and Demolition Wood Waste—A Theoretical Framework Approach. Sustainability 14; 10.3390/su141710478 (2022).
134
Mair, C. & Stern, T. Cascading Utilization of Wood: a Matter of Circular Economy? Current Forestry Reports 3, 281–295; 10.1007/s40725-017-0067-y (2017).
135
Sirkin, T. & Houten, M. ten. The cascade chain: a theory and tool for achieving resource sustainability with applications for product design. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 10(3), 213–276 (1994).
136
Höglmeier, K., Weber-Blaschke, G. & Richter, K. Potentials for cascading of recovered wood from building deconstruction—A case study for south-east Germany. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 117, 304–314; 10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.10.030 (2017).
137
Hua, L. S., Fatriasari, W. & Chen, L. W. Wood cascading: a brief review on principles, impacts and limitations. Global Forest Journal 3, 1–8; 10.32734/gfj.v3i01.19414 (2025).
138
Sathre, R. & Gustavsson, L. Energy and carbon balances of wood cascade chains. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 47, 332–355; 10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.12.008 (2006).
139
Keegan, D., Kretschmer, B., Elbersen, B. & Panoutsou, C. Cascading use: a systematic approach to biomass beyond the energy sector. Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining 7, 193–206; 10.1002/bbb.1351 (2013).
140
Höglmeier, K., Weber‐Blaschke, G. & Richter, K. Evaluation of Wood Cascading. In Sustainability Assessment of Renewables‐Based Products, edited by J. Dewulf, S. de Meester & R. A. F. Alvarenga (Wiley2015), pp. 335–346.
141
Besserer, A., Troilo, S., Girods, P., Rogaume, Y. & Brosse, N. Cascading Recycling of Wood Waste: A Review. Polymers 13; 10.3390/polym13111752 (2021).
142
Dodoo, A., Gustavsson, L. & Sathre, R. Recycling of Lumber. In Handbook of Recycling (Elsevier2014), pp. 151–163.
143
Farjana, S. H., Tokede, O., Tao, Z. & Ashraf, M. Life cycle assessment of end-of-life engineered wood. The Science of the total environment 887; 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.164018 (2023).
144
Ottenhaus, L.-M., Hernández-Aldaz, M., Davies, A. & Cabrero, J. M. Evaluating the disassembly potential of timber buildings: development of calculation tool and proof of concept. Wood Material Science & Engineering, 1–29; 10.1080/17480272.2025.2510562 (2025).
145
Hafner, A., Ott, S. & Winter, S. Recycling and End-of-Life Scenarios for Timber Structures. In Materials and Joints in Timber Structures, edited by S. Aicher, H.-W. Reinhardt & H. Garrecht (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2014), Vol. 9, pp. 89–98.
146
Pittau, F., Lumia, G., Heeren, N., Iannaccone, G. & Habert, G. Retrofit as a carbon sink: The carbon storage potentials of the EU housing stock. Journal of Cleaner Production 214, 365–376; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.304 (2019).
147
Blanchet, P., Perez, C. & Cabral, M. R. Wood Building Construction: Trends and Opportunities in Structural and Envelope Systems. Curr. For. Rep. 10, 21–38; 10.1007/s40725-023-00196-z (2024).
148
Schenk, D. & Amiri, A. Life cycle energy analysis of residential wooden buildings versus concrete and steel buildings: A review. Front. Built Environ. 8; 10.3389/fbuil.2022.975071 (2022).
149
Švajlenka, J. & Kozlovská, M. Houses Based on Wood as an Ecological and Sustainable Housing Alternative—Case Study. Sustainability 10, 1–20; 10.3390/su10051502 (2018).
150
Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL). Klima schützen. Werte schaffen. Ressourcen effizient nutzen. Charta für Holz 2.0 (2021).
151
Hart, J. & Pomponi, F. More Timber in Construction: Unanswered Questions and Future Challenges. Sustainability 12, 3473; 10.3390/su12083473 (2020).
152
Shono, K., Ouml & Jonsson. Global progress towards sustainable forest management: bright spots and challenges. International Forestry Review Vol. 24(1), 85–97 (2022).
153
Jhariya, M. K., Banerjee, A., Meena, R. S. & Yadav, D. K. (eds.). Sustainable Agriculture, Forest and Environmental Management (Springer, Singapore, 2019).
154
Bosela, M., Larocque, G. R., Baycheva, T., Valbuena, R. & Lier, M. Criteria and Indicators of Sustainable Forest Management. In Ecological Forest Management Handbook, edited by G. R. Larocque (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2024), pp. 356–385.
155
European Union. Regulation (EU) 2023/ of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 May 2023 on the making available on the Union market and the export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1115/oj/eng (2023).
156
Sing, L., Metzger, M. J., Paterson, J. S. & Ray, D. A review of the effects of forest management intensity on ecosystem services for northern European temperate forests with a focus on the UK. Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research 91, 151–164; 10.1093/forestry/cpx042 (2018).
157
Hill, C. A. S. The Environmental Consequences Concerning the Use of Timber in the Built Environment. Front. Built Environ. 5; 10.3389/fbuil.2019.00129 (2019).
158
Carle, J. & Holmgren, P. Wood from Planted Forests. Forest Products Journal Vol. 58 No. 12, 6–18 (2008).
159
Kim, D. H., Ahn, B. I. & Shim, G. Analyzing the Impact of EU’s Legality Requirements Policies on Sustainable Timber and Sawnwood Trade—Focusing on Tropical Wood Trade. Forests 15; 10.3390/f15111879 (2024).
160
Barrette, J., Achim, A. & Auty, D. Impact of Intensive Forest Management Practices on Wood Quality from Conifers: Literature Review and Reflection on Future Challenges. Current Forestry Reports 9, 101–130; 10.1007/s40725-023-00181-6 (2023).
161
Nasi, R. & Frost, P. G. H. Sustainable Forest Management in the Tropics: Is Everything in Order but the Patient Still Dying? Ecology and Society 14(2) (2009).
162
Gustavsson, L. & Sathre, R. Energy and CO2 analysis of wood substitution in construction. Climatic Change 105, 129–153; 10.1007/s10584-010-9876-8 (2011).
163
Mishra, A. et al. Land use change and carbon emissions of a transformation to timber cities. Nature communications 13; 10.1038/s41467-022-32244-w (2022).
164
Meena, C. et al. Innovation in Green Building Sector for Sustainable Future. Energies 15; 10.3390/en15186631 (2022).
165
Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Forest Strategy 2020: Sustainable Forest Management—An Opportunity and a Challenge for Society. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Publications/ForestStrategy2020. html (2020).
166
Linser, S. & O’Hara, P. (eds.). Guidelines for the Development of a Criteria and Indicator Set for Sustainable Forest Management (United Nations and the FAO, 2019).
167
Pan, Y. et al. The enduring world forest carbon sink. Nature 631, 563–569 (2024).
168
Lazdinis, M., Angelstam, P. & Pülzl, H. Towards sustainable forest management in the European Union through polycentric forest governance and an integrated landscape approach. Landscape Ecology 34, 1737–1749; 10.1007/s10980-019-00864-1 (2019).
169
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. State of the world’s forests. Forests pathways to sustainable development (FAO, Rome, 2018).
170
Jashimuddin, M. & Inoue, M. Community Forestry for Sustainable Forest Management: Experiences from Bangladesh and Policy Recommendations. FORMATH Vol. 11, 133–166 (2012).
171
Andersen, C. E., Rasmussen, F. N., Habert, G. & Birgisdóttir, H. Embodied GHG Emissions of Wooden Buildings—Challenges of Biogenic Carbon Accounting in Current LCA Methods. Frontiers in Built Environment 7; 10.3389/fbuil.2021.729096 (2021).
172
Börjesson, P. & Gustavsson, L. Greenhouse gas balances in building construction: wood versus concrete from life-cycle and forest land-use perspectives. wood versus concrete from life-cycle and forest land-use perspectives. Energy Policy, 575–588 (2000).
173
Werner, F. & Richter, K. Wooden building products in comparative LCA. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 12, 470–479; 10.1065/lca2007.04.317 (2007).
174
Chen, C. X. et al. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Mass Timber and Concrete Residential Buildings: A Case Study in China. Sustainability 14; 10.3390/su14010144 (2022).
175
Chen, C. X., Pierobon, F. & Ganguly, I. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) Produced in Western Washington: The Role of Logistics and Wood Species Mix. Sustainability 11; 10.3390/su11051278 (2019).
176
Yang, X., Zhang, S. & Wang, K. Quantitative study of life cycle carbon emissions from 7 timber buildings in China. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26, 1721–1734; 10.1007/s11367-021-01960-8 (2021).
177
Balasbaneh, A. T., Bin Marsono, A. K. & Gohari, A. Sustainable materials selection based on flood damage assessment for a building using LCA and LCC. Journal of Cleaner Production 222, 844–855; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.005 (2019).
178
Balasbaneh, A. T. & Bin Marsono, A. K. Proposing of new building scheme and composite towards global warming mitigation for Malaysia. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering 10, 176–184; 10.1080/19397038.2017.1293184 (2017).
179
Balasbaneh, A. T. & Bin Marsono, A. K. Strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from residential sector by proposing new building structures in hot and humid climatic conditions. Building and Environment 124, 357–368; 10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.08.025 (2017).
180
Amiri, A. et al. Embodied emissions of buildings – A forgotten factor in green building certificates. Energy and Buildings 241; 10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.110962 (2021).
181
Wallhagen, M., Glaumann, M. & Malmqvist, T. Basic building life cycle calculations to decrease contribution to climate change – Case study on an office building in Sweden. Building and Environment 46, 1863–1871; 10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.02.003 (2011).
182
Monteiro, H. & Freire, F. Life-cycle assessment of a house with alternative exterior walls: Comparison of three impact assessment methods. Energy and Buildings 47, 572–583; 10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.12.032 (2012).
183
Escamilla, E. Z. et al. Industrial or Traditional Bamboo Construction? Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Bamboo-Based Buildings. Sustainability 10; 10.3390/su10093096 (2018).
184
Bhochhibhoya, S. et al. The Global Warming Potential of Building Materials: An Application of Life Cycle Analysis in Nepal. Mountain Research and Development 37; 10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-15-00043.1 (2017).
185
Jussila, J. et al. Wooden multi-storey construction market development – systematic literature review within a global scope with insights on the Nordic region. Silva Fennica 56; 10.14214/sf.10609 (2022).
186
Balasbaneh, A. T., Marsono, A. K. B. & Khaleghi, S. J. Sustainability choice of different hybrid timber structure for low medium cost single-story residential building: Environmental, economic and social assessment. Journal of Building Engineering 20, 235–247; 10.1016/j.jobe.2018.07.006 (2018).
187
Larasatie, P. et al. What Does the Public Believe about Tall Wood Buildings? An Exploratory Study in the US Pacific Northwest. Journal of Forestry 116, 429–436; 10.1093/jofore/fvy025 (2018).
188
Carias Vega, D. & Page, T. Conditions that Enable Successful Participation of Smallholder Tree Growers in Timber Value Chains. Small-scale Forestry 22, 457–479; 10.1007/s11842-023-09539-x (2023).
189
Roberts, G., Skinner, C. & Ormondroyd, G. A. The environmental and social impacts of modified wood production: effect of timber sourcing. International Wood Products Journal 13, 236–254; 10.1080/20426445.2022.2117923 (2022).
190
Mair-Bauernfeind, C., Boiger, T., Asada, R. & Stern, T. Social consequences of wood-based innovations: a generic analysis of sectoral differences in Austria. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 30, 1281–1305; 10.1007/s11367-024-02361-3 (2025).
191
Starzyk, A., Cortiços, N. D., Duarte, C. C. & Łacek, P. Timber Architecture for Sustainable Futures: A Critical Review of Design and Research Challenges in the Era of Environmental and Social Transition. Buildings 15; 10.3390/buildings15152774 (2025).
192
Lizarazo-Rodriguez, L., Fabris, A. L. & Montag, D. Indigenous peoples as trustees of forests: a bio-socio-cultural approach to international law. International environmental agreements : politics, law and economics 25, 145–170; 10.1007/s10784-024-09654-w (2025).
193
Bredenoord, J. Sustainable Housing and Building Materials for Low-income Households. Journal of Architectural Engineering Technology 05; 10.4172/2168-9717.1000158 (2015).
194
Nguyen, M. T. Does Affordable Housing Detrimentally Affect Property Values? A Review of the Literature. Journal of Planning Literature 20, 15–26; 10.1177/0885412205277069 (2005).
195
Gan, X. et al. How affordable housing becomes more sustainable? A stakeholder study. Journal of Cleaner Production 162, 427–437; 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.048 (2017).
196
Kim, S. Prefabricated and Modularized Residential Construction: A Review of Present Status, Opportunities, and Future Challenges. Buildings 15; 10.3390/buildings15162889 (2025).
197
Li, J., Andersen, L. V. & Hudert, M. M. The Potential Contribution of Modular Volumetric Timber Buildings to Circular Construction: A State-of-the-Art Review Based on Literature and 60 Case Studies. Sustainability 15; 10.3390/su152316203 (2023).
198
Nyrud, A. Q. & Bringslimark, T. Is interior wood use psychologically beneficial? A review of psychological responses toward wood. Wood and Fiber Science, 202–218 (2010).
199
Schieweck, A. Very volatile organic compounds (VVOC) as emissions from wooden materials and in indoor air of new prefabricated wooden houses. Building and Environment 190; 10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107537 (2021).
200
Fromme, H. et al. Very volatile and volatile organic compounds (VVOCs/VOCs) and endotoxins in the indoor air of German schools and apartments (LUPE10). Atmospheric Environment 351; 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2025.121178 (2025).
201
Ikei, H., Song, C. & Miyazaki, Y. Physiological effects of wood on humans: a review. Journal of Wood Science 63, 1–23; 10.1007/s10086-016-1597-9 (2017).
202
Ulrich, R. S. Aesthetic and Affective Response to Natural Environment. In Behavior and the Natural Environment, edited by I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1983), pp. 85–125.
203
Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. Cambridge university press (1989).
204
Sakuragawa, S., Miyazaki, Y., Kaneko, T. & Makita, T. Influence of wood wall panels on physiological and psychological responses. Journal of Wood Science 51, 136–140; 10.1007/s10086-004-0643-1 (2005).
205
Cohen, D. H., Kozak, R. A., Meitner, M. J. & Rice, J. Appearance wood products and psychological well-being. Wood and Fiber Science V. 38(4), 644–659 (2006).
206
Demattè, M. L. et al. New insights into the psychological dimension of wood–human interaction. European Journal of Wood and Wood Products 76, 1093–1100; 10.1007/s00107-018-1315-y (2018).
207
Nakamura, M. & Kondo, T. Quantification of visual inducement of knots by eye-tracking. Journal of Wood Science 54, 22–27; 10.1007/s10086-007-0910-z (2008).
208
Sakuragawa, S., Kaneko, T. & Miyazaki, Y. Effects of contact with wood on blood pressure and subjective evaluation. Journal of Wood Science 54, 107–113; 10.1007/s10086-007-0915-7 (2008).
209
Kelz, C., Grote, V. & Moser, M. Interior wood use in classrooms reduces pupils’ stress levels. Proceedings of the 9th Biennial Conference on Environmental Psychology, 26–28 (2011).
210
Tsunetsugu, Y., Miyazaki, Y. & Sato, H. Physiological effects in humans induced by the visual stimulation of room interiors with different wood quantities. Journal of Wood Science 53, 11–16; 10.1007/s10086-006-0812-5 (2007).
211
Leszczyszyn, E. et al. The Future of Wood Construction: Opportunities and Barriers Based on Surveys in Europe and Chile. Sustainability 14; 10.3390/su14074358 (2022).
212
Harju, C. The perceived quality of wooden building materials – A systematic literature review and future research agenda. Int J Consumer Studies 46, 29–55; 10.1111/ijcs.12764 (2022).
213
Häkkänen, L., Ilgın, H. E. & Karjalainen, M. Cottage Culture in Finland: Development and Perspectives. Encyclopedia 2, 705–716; 10.3390/encyclopedia2020049 (2022).
214
Viholainen, N., Kylkilahti, E., Autio, M. & Toppinen, A. A home made of wood: Consumer experiences of wooden building materials. Int J Consumer Studies 44, 542–551; 10.1111/ijcs.12586 (2020).
215
Gustavsson, L. et al. The Role of Wood Material for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 11, 1097–1127; 10.1007/s11027-006-9035-8 (2006).
216
European Commission. A sustainable bioeconomy for Europe. Strengthening the connection between economy, society and the environment: updated bioeconomy strategy. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/edace3e3-e189-11e8-b690-01aa75ed71a1/language-en (2018).
217
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Conference of the Parties (COP). Accessed on 04/12/2025. Available at https://unfccc.int/process/bodies/supreme-bodies/conference-of-the-parties-cop (2025).
218
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Paris Agreement (2015).
219
United Nations. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda (2015).
220
European Commission. Subject: The nationally determined contribution of the European Union and its Member States. Accessed on 04/12/2025. Available at https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/2025-11/DK-2025-11-05%20EU%20NDC.pdf (2025).
221
European Commission. The European Green Deal. COM(2019) 640 Final. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0640 (2019).
222
European Commission. Circular Economy Action Plan. For a cleaner and more competitive Europe. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/45cc30f6-cd57-11ea-adf7-01aa75ed71a1/language-en (2020).
223
European Commission. Renovation Wave:. Doubling the renovation rate to cut emissions, boost recovery and reduce energy poverty. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_1835 (2020).
224
European Commission. Construction Products Regulation. Accessed on 12/11/2025. Available at https://single-market-economy.ec.europa.eu/sectors/construction/construction-products-regulation-cpr_en (2013).
225
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2025. Accessed on 12/11/2025. Available at https://doi.org/10.4060/cd6709en (2025).
226
Jung, J. Economic Transformation and Sustainable Development through Multilateral Free Trade Agreements. Sustainability 13; 10.3390/su13052519 (2021).
227
European Commission & MERCOSUR. EU-Mercosur agreement. Accessed on 12/11/2025. Available at https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/mercosur/eu-mercosur-agreement/documents_en (2024).
228
Arima, E., Barreto, P., Taheripour, F. & Aguiar, A. Dynamic Amazonia: The EU–Mercosur Trade Agreement and Deforestation. Land 10; 10.3390/land10111243 (2021).
229
European Commission & Government of Canada. EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/canada/eu-canada-agreement_en (2017).
230
Himes, A. & Busby, G. Wood buildings as a climate solution. Developments in the Built Environment 4; 10.1016/j.dibe.2020.100030 (2020).
231
European Parliament. Rücktritt der USA von dem Übereinkommen von Paris und Austritt aus der WHO. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2025/767230/EPRS_ATA(2025)767230_DE.pdf (2025).
232
Bigerna, S. & Micheli, S. Global costs of US withdrawal: Quantifying the impact on Paris Agreement cooperation. Journal of environmental management 392; 10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.126733 (2025).
233
Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft. Internationale Projekte zur nachhaltigen Waldbewirtschaftung. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://www.bmleh.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Broschueren/internationale-projekte-waldbewirtschaftung.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=7 (2024).
234
Sotirov, M., Pokorny, B., Kleinschmit, D. & Kanowski, P. International Forest Governance and Policy: Institutional Architecture and Pathways of Influence in Global Sustainability. Sustainability 12; 10.3390/su12177010 (2020).
235
Arts, B., Brockhaus, M., Giessen, L. & McDermott, C. L. The performance of global forest governance: Three contrasting perspectives. Forest Policy and Economics 161; 10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103165 (2024).
236
United Nations. Convention on Biological Diversity. No L 309/6. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:21993A1213(01) (1992).
237
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. REDD+. Accessed on 17/11/2025. Available at https://unfccc.int/topics/land-use/workstreams/reddplus (2007).
238
European Commission. EU FLEGT Action Plan. Council Regulation (EC) No 2173/2005. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32005R2173 (2003).
239
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Ministerial Katowice Declaration on Forests for the Climate. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://www.iri.edu.ar/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/a2019MedAmbDocONUcop24Declaración-de-Katowice-Bosques-por-el-Clima.pdf (2018).
240
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://ukcop26.org/glasgow-leaders-declaration-on-forests-and-land-use/ (2021).
241
United Nations. United Nations Strategic Plan for Forests 2017–2030. Accessed on 17/11/2025. Available at https://www.un.org/esa/forests/documents/un-strategic-plan-for-forests-2030/index.html (2017).
242
European Commission. EU Forest Strategy for 2030. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2021) 572 Final. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/forest-strategy_en (2021).
243
Lier, M. et al. The New EU Forest Strategy for 2030: A New Understanding of Sustainable Forest Management? Forests 13; 10.3390/f13020245 (2022).
244
Siry, J. P., Cubbage, F. W. & Ahmed, M. R. Sustainable forest management: global trends and opportunities. Forest Policy and Economics 7, 551–561; 10.1016/j.forpol.2003.09.003 (2005).
245
Forest Stewardship Council. Was ist FSC? Accessed on 18/11/2025. Available at https://www.fsc-deutschland.de/was-ist-fsc/ (2025).
246
Damette, O. & Delacote, P. Unsustainable timber harvesting, deforestation and the role of certification. Ecological Economics 70, 1211–1219; 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.01.025 (2011).
247
Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification. PEFC – your partner for the EUDR. Accessed on 18/11/2025. Available at https://pefc.org/ (2025).
248
Prestemon, J. P. The impacts of the Lacey Act Amendment of 2008 on U.S. hardwood lumber and hardwood plywood imports. Forest Policy and Economics 50, 31–44; 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.10.002 (2015).
249
United States of America. Lacey Act. 18 U.S.C. 42 (2008).
250
Parliament of Australia. Illegal Logging Prohibition Act. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/aus158000.pdf (2012).
251
European Commission. European Timber Regulation. Accessed on 05/12/2025. Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2010/995/oj/eng (2013).
252
European Commission. Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 on deforestation-free products. Accessed on 17/11/2025. Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32023R1115&qid=1687867231461 (2023).
253
Bundesministerium für Landwirtschaft, Ernährung und Heimat. EU-weit einheitliche Regelung für entwaldungsfreie Lieferketten. Accessed on 18/11/2025. Available at https://www.bmleh.de/DE/themen/wald/waelder-weltweit/entwaldungsfreie-Lieferketten-eu-vo.html (2025).
254
Lundmark, R. Leakage Effects from Restrictions in Timber Supply: An Application to Sweden. Forests (2025).
255
Soimakallio, S., Kalliokoski, T., Lehtonen, A. & Salminen, O. On the trade-offs and synergies between forest carbon sequestration and substitution. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 26; 10.1007/s11027-021-09942-9 (2021).
256
Börner, J., Schulz, D., Wunder, S. & Pfaff, A. The Effectiveness of Forest Conservation Policies and Programs. Annual Review of Resource Economics 12, 45–64 (2020).
257
Wiegand, E. & Ramage, M. The impact of policy instruments on the first generation of Tall Wood Buildings. Building Research & Information 50, 254–275; 10.1080/09613218.2021.1905501 (2022).
258
Government of Sweden. Sweden´s National Forest Program. Accessed on 21/11/2025. Available at https://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/en/about-us/national-forest-program/ (2018).
259
Ministry of Environment of Finland. Wood Building Programme. Accessed on 22/11/2025. Available at https://ym.fi/en/wood-building (2016).
260
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland. The National Forest Strategy 2035. Accessed on 22/11/2025. Available at https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/bacd6d9b-5c55-4fb5-bb37-a1a6a78da265/content (2023).
261
Natural Resources Canada. Tall Wood Building Demonstration Initiative. Accessed on 22/11/2025. Available at https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2021/rncan-nrcan/Fo52-6-2021-eng.pdf (2013).
262
Government of Canada. Green Construction through Wood (GCWood) Program. Accessed on 22/11/2025. Available at https://natural-resources.canada.ca/funding-partnerships/green-construction-through-wood-gcwood-program (2017).
263
Government of British Columbia. Wood First Act. Accessed on 22/11/2025. Available at https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/forestry/supporting-innovation/bio-economy/wood-first-initiative (2009).
264
Government of Japan. Act on Promoting the Distribution and Use of Legally Harvested Wood and Wood Products. Act No. 48. Accessed on 22/11/2025. Available at https://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/en/laws/view/3336/en (2016).
265
Purkus et al. Entwicklung der Rahmenbedingungen für das Bauen mit Holz in Deutschland: Eine Innovationssystemanalyse im Kontext der Evaluation der Charta für Holz 2.0. Thühnen Report 78 (2020).
266
Bundesministerium für Landwirtschaft, Ernährung und Heimat. Holzbauinitiative. Accessed on 22/11/2025. Available at https://www.bmleh.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Broschueren/holzbauinitiative.html (2022).
267
Scholle, K. Anteil der genehmigten Wohngebäude in Holzbauweise an allen genehmigten Wohngebäuden in Deutschland in den Jahren 2004 bis 2024. Statista (2025).
268
Araujo, V. de et al. Timber Construction Regulations in Brazil: A Perspective from Its National Industry of Timber Houses. Buildings 13; 10.3390/buildings13092136 (2023).
269
International Organization for Standardization. About ISO. Accessed on 02/12/2025. Available at https://www.iso.org/about (2025).
270
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 21887:2007. Accessed on 25/11/2025. Available at https://www.iso.org/standard/40502.html (2007).
271
International Organization for Standardization. ISO 16598:2015. Accessed on 25/11/2025. Available at https://www.iso.org/standard/57243.html (2015).
272
European Commission. About the EN Eurocodes. Accessed on 25/11/2025. Available at https://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en-eurocodes/about-en-eurocodes (2021).
273
European Commission. Eurocode 5: Design of timber structures. Accessed on 25/11/2025. Available at https://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/EN-Eurocodes/eurocode-5-design-timber-structures (2004).
274
Gravit, M., Serdjuks, D., Bardin, A., Prusakov, V. & Buka-Vaivade, K. Fire design methods for structures with timber framework. Magazine of Civil Engineering, 92–106 (2019).
275
International Code Council. 2024 International Building Code. Accessed on 25/11/2025. Available at https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/IBC2024V2.0/preface (2024).

Executive summary

1 Introduction

2 Description and history

2.1 Trees and wood species

2.2 Engineered wood products and areas of application

2.3 Material properties of wood in comparison to other building materials

2.4 Historical development of wood utilisation

3 Economic perspective

3.1 Current market situation of the wood construction sector

3.2 Development of wood prices

3.3 Are wood houses a cost-efficient solution?

3.4 Emerging innovations in wood-based building solutions

3.4.1 Prefabrication of wood houses

3.4.2 Building information modelling

3.4.3 Multi-storey wood buildings

4 Ecological perspective

4.1 Carbon storage and sequestration potential of wood

4.2 Circular material flows and End-of-Life strategies

4.3 Energy efficiency

4.4 Sustainable forest management

4.5 Life cycle assessments of wood buildings

5 Social perspective

5.1 Regional value creation and social equity

5.2 Influence of wood as a building material on human health

5.2.1 Influence on physical health

5.2.2 Influence on mental health

5.3 Social acceptance and perception of wood buildings

6 Political and legal perspective

6.1 International political influences on the wood building market

6.1.1 International climate governance

6.1.2 International forest governance and timber trade regulations

6.2 National wood encouragement policies

6.3 Legal and regulatory framework of building codes

References

Your feedback on this article