New Zero-Carbon Wooden Building Concepts: A Review of Selected Criteria

Abstract

A Carbon Footprint (CF) is defined as the total emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, and is a specific type of Environmental Footprint that measures human impact on the environment. Carbon dioxide emissions are a major contributor to anthropogenic greenhouse gases driving climate change. Wood, as a renewable and ecological material, has relatively low carbon emissions. The study aimed to review and analyze the criteria influencing the feasibility of constructing modern zero-carbon wooden buildings. The review was conducted in two phases: (i) a literature review and (ii) an assessment of existing buildings. The preliminary research led to (i) narrowing the focus to the years 2020–2024 and (ii) identifying key criteria for analysis: sustainable material sourcing, carbon sequestration, energy efficiency, life cycle assessment (LCA), and innovative construction practices. The study’s findings indicate that all these criteria play a vital role in the design and construction of new zero-carbon wooden buildings. They highlight the significant potential of wood as a renewable material in achieving zero-carbon buildings (ZCBs), positioning it as a compelling alternative to traditional construction materials. However, the research also underscores that despite wood’s numerous potential benefits, its implementation in ZCBs faces several challenges, including social, regulatory, and financial barriers.

1. Introduction

The current climate crisis is the result of human activities over the past two centuries. The Environmental Footprint serves as a tool to measure the pressure humanity places on the environment, comparing the demand for renewable resources with nature’s capacity to regenerate them. This concept encompasses all the negative impacts humans have on the natural world. Key quantitative indicators within this framework include the Ecological Footprint (EF), Carbon Footprint (CF), Water Footprint (WF), and Material Footprint (MF), which are central to understanding the extent of our environmental impact [1,2,3]. The Environmental Footprint also includes issues related to air, water, and soil pollution, as well as losses in biodiversity.

The CF originates from the concept of the EF, which dates back to the 1990s [4]. The CF measures the environmental impact of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from direct or indirect human activities, expressed in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e). It includes emissions from various sources, such as production processes, transportation, energy consumption, food production, and waste generation [5,6,7]. Carbon dioxide emissions are the main component of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, responsible for over two-thirds of these emissions. They, along with methane and nitrous oxide, significantly contribute to climate change [8]. This is confirmed by the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, United Nations body), which emphasizes the need to reduce global net anthropogenic CO₂ emissions by about 45% by 2030 compared to 1990 in order to limit global warming to 1.5 °C [9]. Regulation (EU) 2023/857 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2018/842 on binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions by Member States from 2021 to 2030 resulting from the Paris Agreement and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 sets out the obligations of Member States to achieve the EU’s target of a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 2005. The guidelines in this Regulation are linked to the long-term objective of achieving climate neutrality in the EU by 2050 at the latest and a negative emissions balance thereafter.

In response to the climate crisis, the design and construction processes need to transition from conventional practices to lower-carbon approaches. The objective should be to maximize reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and work towards achieving zero-carbon buildings (ZCBs), including wooden structures. This approach effectively reduces the Environmental Footprint and contributes positively to climate change mitigation [10]. Zero-carbon buildings, including wooden structures, incorporate a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach to tackle CO₂ emissions. Wooden building materials exhibit lower emissions throughout their life cycle and offer substantial potential for carbon sequestration compared to other materials [11,12]. The LCA studies highlight the potential of wooden buildings to reduce anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, particularly by decreasing emissions during the construction phase [12,13,14]. The life cycle is defined as a series of interconnected stages of a product, beginning with the extraction or production of raw materials from natural resources and extending through to its final disposal [15]. When analyzing a product’s life cycle, different scopes can be employed based on the assessment’s goals: Cradle to Gate, Cradle to Grave, and Cradle to Cradle [16].

The construction sector, including both materials and operations, is responsible for over one-third of global CO₂ emissions. Life cycle assessment (LCA) analyses can significantly change this statistic. Reducing the CF of buildings involves developing materials that can sequester CO₂, such as engineered wood, which is a naturally occurring material with significant potential. Using wood in construction can act as a carbon sink, offering a way to offset CO₂ emissions. Choosing the right materials greatly impacts a building’s CF, and wood provides a viable option for carbon compensation. Zero-carbon wooden buildings present numerous environmental benefits in the construction industry. Advances in technology are broadening the possibilities for designing sustainable, carbon-negative wooden structures, which could significantly contribute to climate change mitigation [17,18,19,20,21,22].

New zero-carbon wooden building concepts play a crucial role in the sustainable development of urban areas. Wood, as a renewable material with minimal CF, is a strong contender for constructing sustainable buildings in urban environments, including high-rise structures [20,23,24,25,26]. Innovative construction and computational methods focus on reducing timber usage, minimizing transportation needs, and streamlining multiple stages of the building process, thereby lowering carbon dioxide emissions compared to traditional construction methods. Wooden buildings incorporating these advanced technologies are viewed as a highly competitive and sustainable alternative, providing a natural and efficient approach to design and construction [27]. Additionally, integrating energy-efficient systems and renewable energy sources can further reduce energy consumption and costs for a zero-energy, zero-carbon wooden building [28,29]. Moreover, zero-carbon buildings are intricate technical systems that are also shaped by social factors and influenced by local conditions [17,30,31,32].

A crucial aspect of modern design is using sustainable building certifications (Green Building Rating Systems—GBRS). These systems establish market standards, including those for zero-emission buildings. They aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, decrease energy consumption, and enhance the quality of life for occupants and residents [33]. There are numerous certification systems for sustainable building worldwide; the most commonly used are recognized methods, including Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen (DGNB) [34]. BREEAM acknowledges a range of low- and zero-carbon technologies (LZC), including solar energy, wind, geothermal and hydrothermal sources, hydropower, biomass, waste heat, and energy from waste incineration. A key requirement for the energy performance of new buildings is their reference emissions indicator. Within BREEAM certification, one assessed category is Ene 04 Low Carbon Design, which aims to minimize the building’s energy demand. This involves reducing carbon dioxide emissions and maximizing the use of renewable energy sources. The evaluation criteria are divided into two main areas: passive design strategies and low- or zero-carbon technologies [35]. In LEED certification, references to CO₂ emissions are addressed across several key assessment areas: (i) Integrative Process, Planning, and Assessments, specifically under Carbon Assessment; (ii) Energy and Atmosphere (EA), focusing on Operational Carbon Projection and Decarbonization Plan; (iii) Materials and Resources (MR), which includes Assessing and Reducing Embodied Carbon [36]. The DGNB System is designed to support the creation of high-quality, sustainable buildings that meet environmental, economic, and social goals [37].

New concepts and trends in zero-emission construction, including European timber building, are closely aligned with European Union directives. These directives set the framework for future sustainable development, while regulations specific to timber construction are adopted nationally in each member state. The implementation of timber construction varies across EU countries due to differences in climate, history, building traditions, policies, and legal frameworks. The Directorate of the European Commission states that climate change is a reality and a serious problem for Europeans. According to a Europe-wide survey published in 2017, more than 9 out of 10 EU citizens (92%) consider climate change to be a serious problem [38]. One of the earliest directives setting the European Union’s framework for nearly zero-energy buildings is Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and Council, dated 19 May 2010, on the energy performance of buildings (consolidated version). This directive leads member states towards the goal of achieving “nearly zero-energy buildings”, which are characterized by very high energy performance. These buildings require minimal energy to operate, with most of the energy being sourced from renewable resources generated locally [39]. This directive was amended in 2012 with Directive 2012/27/EU on energy efficiency, followed by Directive 2018/844/EU in 2018. In 2024, the Directive (EPBD) (EU/2024/1275) was published, which introduced stricter requirements for the energy performance of new buildings [40,41]. The European Union has progressively tightened regulations on building energy performance to drive towards climate neutrality. In Article 9, the 2010 Directive stated that the Member States shall ensure that by 31 December 2020, all new buildings shall be nearly zero-energy buildings and that after 31 December 2018, all new buildings occupied and owned by public authorities shall be nearly zero-energy buildings. The 2024 Directive (EU/2024/1275) has increased the energy performance requirements for new buildings, mandating that all new buildings owned by public authorities must be zero-emission from 1 January 2028 and all other new buildings from 1 January 2030. These regulations aim to align building energy performance with the European Union’s target of achieving climate neutrality by 2050 [41].

The ZCB technologies are now widely accessible, yet their successful implementation is hindered by a lack of industry knowledge and awareness. Effective deployment of these technologies requires enhancing stakeholders’ understanding of carbon reduction strategies throughout a building’s life cycle [10]. The slow adoption of zero-carbon practices, especially for wooden buildings, is attributed to various barriers, including social, regulatory, financial, and business model issues.

This study focuses on reviewing and analyzing the criteria that influence the feasibility of modern zero-carbon wooden buildings, highlighting the need to address these challenges to advance zero-emission construction.

2. Materials and Methods

The primary objective of this study is to analyze the benchmarks that influence the feasibility of constructing modern wooden buildings with zero carbon dioxide emissions. To achieve this goal, the paper is divided into two main stages: a literature review and building studies, as outlined below.

2.1. Stage 1—Literature Review

This stage involves analyzing the standards for constructing wooden buildings with zero CO₂ emissions. Two main criteria guided the selection of scientific papers for this analysis: (i) thematic scope, focus on zero CO₂ emissions in wooden buildings; (ii) temporal scope, including papers published between 2020 and 2024. The selected time range limits the review to the most recent scientific articles, ensuring that the analysis is focused on the latest developments and current trends in the field. This approach prioritizes up-to-date information, providing insights that reflect the most recent research findings and advancements.

The review of the selected papers, listed in

Table 1. List of papers according to selection criteria.

Example Ref.	Countries of Study	Thematic Scope
		1	2	3	4	5
Abed et al. (2022) [42]	World	x		x		x
Ahmed et al. (2024) [43]	Kirkuk, Iraq			x
Alvarez et al. (2023) [14]	World			x	x
Andersen et al. (2021) [12]	World	x	x	x	x
Andersen et al. (2024) [20]	World			x		x
Arlet (2021) [44]	Europe, Japan, Canada, New Zealand	x	x	x	x	x
Arumägi et al. (2020) [28]	World	x		x		x
Bai et al. (2018) [45]	World			x		x
Barclay et al. (2024) [46]	World					x
Besana et al. (2022) [18]	World			x	x
Blay-Armah et al. (2023) [47]	World			x	x	x
Bøe et al. (2023) [48]	World					x
Bougiatioti et al. (2023) [49]	Greece
Branchi et al. (2023) [1]	World			x
Broda (2020) [50]	World			x
Brogi et al. (2019) [51]	Europe	x		x	x	x
BuHamdan et al. (2021) [52]	World					x
Cabeza et al. (2021) [53]	World			x	x
Calquin et al. (2024) [54]	World					x
Carletti et al. (2024) [24]	World			x	x	x
Chen et al. (2020) [55]	World			x	x
Chen (2023) [56]	World	x		x		x
Ching et al. (2024) [6]	World			x
Churkina et al. (2020) [57]	World				x
Dai et al. (2023) [3]	World			x	x
Defloor et al. (2022) [58]	Belgium	x		x		x
Devarajan et al. (2024) [59]	World				x
Ding et al. (2022) [19]	World			x		x
Dong et al. (2021) [60]	China			x		x
Duan et al. (2022) [61]	World	x
Dzhurko et al. (2024) [62]	Germany		x
Elaouzy et al.(2022) [63]	World			x
Elginoz et al. (2024) [64]	World	x
El-Shorbagy (2020) [22]	World		x	x		x
European Innovation Agenda, European Commission, (2022) [65]	EU			x	x	x
Evans et al. (2022) [66]	World		x
Feder (2023) [7]	World			x
Fereidani et al. (2021) [67]	World			x
Ferreira et al. (2023) [34]	World				x
Furhana Shereen et al. (2023) [68]	World			x
Garzon et al. (2020) [69]	Bulgaria, Turkey, North America	x
Ghobadi et al. (2023) [70]	Australia		x
Giridhar et al. (2022) [71]	World			x
Grinham et al. (2021) [72]	World			x		x
Groll (2023) [8]	World			x
Hamida et al. (2023) [73]	World			x		x
Hanifa et al. (2023) [74]	India		x
He et al. (2024) [75]	World			x		x
Himes et al. (2020) [76]	USA		x
Hoxha et al. (2020) [77]	World				x
Hu (2023) [21]	World			x	x	x
Huang et al. (2024) [78]	China		x
Hurmekoski et al. (2022) [79]	Finland		x
Ibrahim et al. (2023) [80]	World			x
Kazemian et al. (2023) [81]	World		x
Keržič et al. (2021) [82]	World			x
Király et al. (2022) [83]	Hungary		x
Koval et al. (2023) [84]	World					x
Leszczyszyn et al. (2022) [85]	Europe, Chile		x	x		x
Li et al. (2022) [86]	Europe			x
Lin et al. (2023) [13]	World			x	x
Linkevičius et al. (2023) [87]	World			x		x
Lo et al. (2021) [88]	USA	x		x		x
Lou et al. (2024) [17]	World		x	x	x
Lu et al. (2024) [89]	World			x
Meleti et al. (2021) [9]	World			x
Michalak et al. (2024) [90]	World					x
Michálková et al. (2022) [23]	World			x		x
Mirashk-Daghiyan et al. (2022) [91]	Tehran, Iran			x
Motamedi et al. (2023) [92]	World					x
Mulya et al. (2024) [33]	World			x	x	x
Mushtaha et al. (2021) [93]	World			x
Nidhin et al. (2023) [10]	World					x
Ouellet-Plamondon et al. (2023) [94]	Canada, Switzerland, Germany, Belgium, Australia, Sweden, Spain, Austria, Denmark, France, New Zealand, USA, Brazil, Norway		x
Pasternack et al. (2022) [95]	World	x
Pecio (2024) [96]	World					x
Pedreño-Rojas et al. (2024) [97]	World	x
Phillips et al. (2020) [98]	USA			x
Pilli et al. (2022) [99]	World	x		x
Pomponi et al. (2020) [100]	World				x
Porter et al. (2001) [101]	World	x		x		x
Premrov et al. (2023) [102]	World			x		x
Prieur-Richard et al. (2018) [103]	World			x		x
Prins et al. (2023) [104]	World	x
Ridhosari et al. (2020) [5]	World			x
Röck et al. (2020) [105]	World				x
Salata et al. (2024) [106]	World			x
Sandoli et al. (2021) [107]	World					x
Sasaki (2021) [108]	Thajland		x
Schmidt et al. (2023) [109]	World					x
Schneider-Marin et al. (2020) [110]	World			x	x
Schwarzschachner et al. (2024) [111]	Germany, Austria		x
Scouse et al. (2020) [112]	USA	x				x
Sher et al. (2021) [113]	UK, Malaysia		x
de Oliveira et al. (2023) [114]	World			x		x
Stanciu et al. (2024) [115]	World			x
Starzyk et al. (2023) [25]	World			x		x
Tupenaite et al. (2023) [116]	Lithuania		x
Udele et al. (2021) [117]	USA					x
Ürge-Vorsatz et al. (2020) [118]	USA, Canada, China, EU (Germany, Belgium …)	x	x	x	x	x
Veichtlbauer et al. (2022) [119]	World			x
Veloso et al. (2023) [120]	Belo Horizonte, Brazil			x
Veillette et al. (2021) [121]	Quebec, Canada			x
Wang et al. (2021) [51]	World					x
Wang et al. (2024) [122]	World			x		x
Warmling et al. (2022) [123]	World					x
Wilberforce et al. (2023) [124]	(EU), USA, China	x		x	x	x
Yang (2021) [125]	China	x			x
Younis et al. (2022) [126]	World					x
Zawada et al. (2024) [127]	World					x
Zhan et al. (2023) [128]	World	x		x		x
Zhao et al. (2022) [129]	World	x		x		x
Zhao et al. (2015) [130]	World			x		x
Duan et al. (2022) [61]	China		x

, allowed us to analyze benchmarks determining the feasibility of constructing wooden buildings with zero CO₂ emissions. The benchmarks that have been taken into consideration are as follows:

• Sustainable Material Sourcing:
  • ensuring that wood is sourced from sustainably managed forests that practice responsible harvesting;
  • local sourcing—minimizing transportation emissions.
• Carbon Sequestration:
  • leveraging the natural carbon sequestration properties of wood, which stores carbon dioxide absorbed during the tree’s growth;
  • innovative wood products that offer structural strength and carbon storage benefits.
• Energy Efficiency:
  • implementing passive design strategies to reduce energy consumption;
  • integrating renewable energy sources;
  • using energy-efficient lighting, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems.
• Life Cycle Assessment:
  • a comprehensive LCA to evaluate the building’s CF from material extraction through to demolition or recycling;
  • designing for disassembly and recycling to ensure materials can be reused, reducing future CO₂ emissions.
• Construction Practices:
  • utilizing low-carbon construction methods and technologies to minimize emissions during the building phase;
  • the review employed the following academic search engines: Scopus, Google Scholar, and ResearchGate, using the following keywords:
  • sustainable practices and material sourcing;
  • energy efficiency and renewable energy;
  • building life cycle assessment and environmental impact;
  • innovative modular and prefabricated wood constructions;
  • carbon sequestration in wood architecture.

2.2. Stage 2—Building Review

This stage involves studying modern wooden buildings to evaluate whether the benchmarks identified in Stage 1 are applicable in practice. The selection of buildings for this analysis was based on (i) thematic scope: wooden buildings designed to achieve zero CO₂ emissions; (ii) temporal scope: buildings constructed between 2020 and 2024.

Out of a review of 98 near-zero and zero-emission buildings, 10 exemplary cases were chosen (

Table 2. List of wooden buildings according to selection criteria.

Project (Authors)	City, Country (Date)	Thematic Scope
		1	2	3	4	5
Lea Bridge Library Pavilion (Studio Weave) [131]	London, UK (2021)	x	x	x	x	x
Orueta Etxea (Emiliano López Mónica Rivera Arquitectos) [132]	Bilbao, Spain (2021)	x	x	x	x	x
Spruce House and studio (ao-ft) [133]	London, UK (2021)	x	x	x	x	-
Cooperative housing (Urban Power) [134]	Stavnsholt, Denamrk (2021)	x	x	x	-	-
The black and white building (Waugh Thistleton Architects) [135]	London, UK (2022)	x	x	x	x	-
Workstack (dRMM) [136]	London, UK (2023)	x	x	x	x	-
EÑE House (Estudio Albar) [137]	Madrid, Spain (2023)	x	x	x	x	x
New Temple Complex (James Gorst Architects) [138]	Hampshire, UK (2023)	x	x	x	x	x
Durley Chine Environmental Hub (Footprint Architects) [139]	Bournemouth, UK (2024)	x	x	x	x	-
Humber Cultural Hub (Diamond Schmitt) [140]	Ontario, Canada (2024)	x	x	x	-	-

). These examples include both residential and public utility buildings with various functions located in Europe and North America. The comparison criteria include the operational energy index, measured in kgCO₂e/m²/year, and the embodied energy associated with material acquisition and construction, also measured in kgCO₂e/m².

The analysis of the selected buildings, listed in Table 2, enabled an assessment of whether the criteria identified in the literature review align with real-world construction practices.

The results from both stages are then synthesized to discuss the connections between the literature review and the building studies concerning zero carbon dioxide emissions in modern wooden buildings.

3. Results

3.1. Stage 1: Literature Review

3.1.1. Sustainable Material Sourcing

Sustainable material sourcing is essential for minimizing the environmental impact of construction projects, especially when using wood. By sourcing wood from sustainably managed forests, we ensure responsible harvesting practices that maintain forest ecosystems and promote long-term ecological health. Certification schemes such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) offer credible assurances of these sustainable practices. Furthermore, prioritizing local sourcing helps reduce transportation emissions by reducing the distance that materials must travel, thereby decreasing the overall CF of construction activities. Collectively, these strategies foster a more sustainable approach to building, supporting both environmental protection and resource efficiency.

The embodied energy of building materials can represent between 10% and 30% of the total energy demand, depending on several factors. These include the building’s anticipated lifespan and the energy required for heating or cooling, which is influenced by the local climate [61].

In net-zero carbon wooden buildings, the focus extends beyond just using wooden construction materials to incorporating various bio-based and wood-derived materials. These include structural components (such as beams, glued laminated panels like cross-laminated timber (CLT), glued laminated timber (Glulam), laminated veneer lumber (LVL), dowel-laminated timber (DLT), bamboo, and more), insulation materials (such as wood wool, cork, hemp, compressed straw, animal wool, and others), and finishing materials (including boards, plywood, OSB, MDF, HDF, LDF, woodblock flooring, wooden paving, thatch, etc.). Additionally, composite materials containing wood chips, sawdust, ash from burned wood, charcoal, and cut straw are also available, though they are beyond the scope of this discussion [97]. These materials are increasingly valued for their reduced CF, enhanced circularity, and growing societal acceptance of natural materials.

It is crucial to recognize that the CF of a building material includes stages A1 through A4 of the LCA as defined by EN 15978 [141] and EN 15804 [142] standards. These stages cover the extraction of raw materials, their transportation to the manufacturing facility, the processing of finished building components, and the final transportation to the construction site. Local sourcing of materials and minimizing transportation are key strategies for reducing a building’s CF. Additionally, the type of materials and the logistics of producing mass timber elements play a significant role in minimizing this footprint. This is particularly important because transporting building materials to the site is often energy-intensive and typically involves diesel-powered trucks [143].

The origin of wooden and wood-based materials is critical due to the significant trade-offs inherent in forest management [104]. While using wood in buildings can lower their CF, it may impact other aspects of the environmental footprint of the construction project (ibid). Key factors include the “seven thematic elements of sustainable forest management” [144], which assess forest health and resources, such as forest existence (area, timber, and carbon stocks), forest condition (health and vitality), and the services provided (biodiversity support, timber and resource production, soil and water protection, and socio-economic benefits like livelihoods, employment, energy, recreation, and cultural value). It is essential to recognize the evolving definitions and indicators of sustainable forest management at various levels—from global to local forest management units—ranging from the continuous supply of wood to preserving biodiversity, ecosystems, and the full spectrum of ecosystem services [104].

Despite numerous international agreements aimed at promoting sustainable forest management, no unified system exists to guarantee the sustainable origin of timber. Various certification systems address this issue, with two of the most prominent global systems being the FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) and PEFC (Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification). These certifications cover both specific areas of sustainably managed forests and the timber products derived from them. By the end of Q1 2024, the PEFC certified 295 million hectares of forest across 42 countries and six continents, with approximately 62 million hectares also holding FSC certification [145]. Conversely, FSC certifications cover 160 million hectares in 2024, down from over 210 million hectares in 2021 [146].

A key difference between these systems is that the PEFC is tailored to national regulations, reflecting local environmental and socio-cultural conditions, with implementation and monitoring typically overseen by government agencies. In contrast, the FSC is managed by an independent organization. While the PEFC’s approach varies by country, the FSC is often seen as more effective due to its rigorous standards, emphasis on procedural rights for non-commercial entities, Indigenous rights, and natural ecosystem protection [69]. A review covering 31 studies and 6 million hectares of certified forests (about 1.5% of the global area) found that the FSC has a more positive impact on ecosystem protection than the PEFC, including preventing deforestation in tropical regions [147].

The review also identified trade-offs between indicators for flora, fauna, and ecosystem services, such as dense forests being beneficial for flora and carbon sequestration versus forest clearings that enhance plant diversity. It also highlighted some limitations of the FSC system, including its focus on ecological connectivity, mainly for species with minimal habitat requirements (one hectare) and inconsistencies in national biodiversity protection indicators. Despite these environmental advantages recognized by forest managers, other certification systems, including the PEFC, are often selected for market access and other economic benefits [148].

3.1.2. Carbon Sequestration

Carbon sequestration in wooden construction reduces greenhouse gas emissions [66]. As a natural building material, wood effectively stores carbon throughout its lifespan [111], making wooden buildings valuable long-term carbon sinks crucial for combating climate change [81]. During photosynthesis, trees absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide, which is then stored as organic carbon within their complex tissue [62]. Utilizing wood in construction reduces emissions associated with producing energy-intensive materials like concrete and steel [74]. Furthermore, wood’s renewability and carbon sequestration capabilities make it an environmentally friendly choice for sustainable building practices [116]. This contributes to lowering the global CF of the construction industry. The wood used in construction often comes from sustainably managed forests, which ensures a continuous cycle of carbon absorption and storage [108]. Compared to other building materials, wood has a lower CO₂ emission balance [149]. Additionally, wooden buildings not only store carbon but also offer improved energy efficiency due to their insulating properties [79]. The carbon sequestration in wood remains effective as long as the material is protected from decay and combustion [83]. Therefore, proper maintenance and protection of wooden structures are essential.

Innovative technologies like cross-laminated timber (CLT) and Glued Laminated Timber (Glulam) enable the use of wood in high-rise construction. CLT is an advanced engineered wood product composed of multiple layers of lumber arranged in alternating directions and bonded with adhesive. This construction method enhances its structural stability and load-bearing capacity, making CLT an ideal material for a range of applications, from residential buildings to high-rise towers. Glulam is another wood product that involves layering timber and bonding these layers with high-strength adhesives to form large, versatile structural components. Glulam provides remarkable strength and flexibility, allowing it to be used in diverse structural elements like beams, columns, arches, and bridges. One of CLT and Glulam’s key environmental benefits is its ability to sequester carbon. By trapping the carbon captured by trees during their growth within the timber, CLT and Glulam effectively store this greenhouse gas throughout the lifetime of the building, helping to offset the carbon emissions typically associated with traditional construction materials such as concrete and steel [61].

The LCA demonstrates that wooden buildings have a lower environmental impact than those constructed from traditional materials [94]. Incorporating wood into construction projects supports sustainability goals and can stimulate local forestry economies, increasing demand for timber and expanding forested areas. Wood also positively impacts biodiversity and ecosystem stability [113]. Additionally, wood allows for creating energy-efficient structures and offers greater adaptability compared to concrete or steel buildings, extending their lifespan and enhancing carbon storage [76]. By contributing to “negative emissions”, wood helps meet the targets of the Paris Agreement aimed at addressing climate change and limiting global warming [78].

Furthermore, promoting and educating the public about wooden construction can raise awareness of its carbon sequestration benefits. Supporting policies for wooden construction can accelerate the shift towards sustainable building practices and foster the development of healthier, more sustainable living spaces. Effective carbon sequestration in wood requires comprehensive management throughout its entire lifecycle, from harvesting and processing to recycling [70]. Continued research and development in this field are essential to further enhance the efficiency of carbon sequestration in wooden construction.

3.1.3. Energy Efficiency

Wood is a highly effective natural insulator, offering superior thermal performance compared to traditional building materials like concrete and steel. This insulating capability allows wooden structures to maintain stable indoor temperatures with less dependence on artificial heating and cooling systems, thereby reducing energy consumption. The cellular structure of wood naturally traps air, forming a barrier that minimizes heat transfer between a building’s interior and exterior. This property is particularly beneficial in regions with extreme temperatures, where efficient climate control is essential. Additionally, the energy efficiency of wooden buildings can be further optimized through passive design strategies, such as careful sun orientation, natural ventilation, and the incorporation of shading elements [93]. These approaches work together with wood’s inherent properties to significantly enhance a building’s overall energy efficiency.

While wood is highly resistant to heat, it is susceptible to damage from direct sunlight and high humidity [71,82]. To maximize the durability of wooden structures, natural shading through trees or closely spaced neighboring buildings can be employed to protect the wood [63]. Additionally, natural-origin protective materials such as clay, natural waxes, vegetable seed oils, or natural oil paints offer an alternative to synthetic wood preservatives [50,115]. The choice of paint color should be adapted to the local climate; light colors are recommended in warm, dry climates to prevent overheating, while dark colors are preferable in moderate and cold climates to absorb solar energy and reduce heating costs. Furthermore, highly reflective roofs can significantly enhance energy efficiency [67]. It is, however, essential to balance energy efficiency measures with thoughtful design solutions [89,91]. Research by Salata et al. demonstrates that using genetic algorithms to identify optimal building designs for various European climate zones can effectively reduce energy consumption for heating and cooling [106].

When other structures or fences are positioned close to the sun-facing side of a building, ensuring adequate ventilation and allowing sufficient direct sunlight during daylight hours is crucial. This prevents excessive soil moisture accumulation, which could otherwise lead to premature decay or fungal damage, a subject that warrants further detailed research [49].

Building design should also take the prevailing climate into account, adjusting the percentage of glazing and window orientation accordingly. For instance, in temperate and subpolar climates, north-facing windows and small windows that provide standardized air conditioning are not recommended. In contrast, in subtropical and tropical climates, north-facing windows can improve indoor climate and humidity levels. Optimizing window orientation, U-value, and proportions can lead to energy savings of up to 25% [43]. Occupant behavior is another critical factor, with studies indicating that careful consideration can reduce a building’s energy consumption by up to 40% or even 80% [121].

Households can partially or fully meet their energy needs through renewable energy sources [119]. However, it should be noted that the production of these sources is not entirely zero-emission, with exceptions for lightweight systems made from recycled materials, though these practices are not yet widespread [68].

A Net-Zero-Energy Building (NZEB) is defined as a structure that produces more energy than it consumes on average over a year. This is achieved by relying exclusively on renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, and geothermal energy while avoiding fossil fuels in construction [150]. The energy independence and local renewable energy generation of such buildings make them reliable in the event of natural disasters or heightened threats. For example, during military conflicts, where large energy complexes are often targeted, a house with these features would serve as a dependable refuge. This is exemplified by the situation in Ukraine in 2024, where significant installations of individual heating systems and innovative methods of utilizing solar and wind energy are being developed [151].

One of the most effective ways to reduce electricity consumption for lighting is to maximize the use of natural sunlight and store it for later use. This principle is reflected in the architectural design by incorporating windows in all rooms, utilizing sunlight amplifiers (light lenses), and integrating secondary light sources, such as strategically placed window openings in interior walls or glazed doors in corridors and bathrooms. Lenses and fiber optic transmission of sunlight can reduce the energy needed for daytime lighting by 57% [80].

Thermal batteries, typically installed on the south-facing side of the roof, harness solar energy to heat water or air, transferring this heat to the building’s interior and meeting heating requirements. The implementation of passive cooling systems has been shown to significantly reduce energy consumption while enhancing occupant comfort [86,98,120].

3.1.4. Life Cycle Assessment

Earlier efforts to mitigate the environmental impact of construction have concentrated on reducing primary energy consumption by enhancing building energy efficiency and incorporating renewable energy sources. These initiatives have culminated in the successful development of technologies for passive and nearly zero-energy buildings, delivering significant results [59,152,153]. Nevertheless, there is a growing focus on previously neglected stages of the construction process. This includes the extraction of raw materials, their processing and conversion into final products, transportation, the construction phase, ongoing maintenance, and the potential for demolition and reuse or disposal conditions [105,154]. In recent years, there has been a dramatic surge in research addressing greenhouse gas emissions within the framework of the LCA. The focus of these studies has largely been on two areas: theoretical exploration and the analysis of specific buildings. This growing body of research and the accompanying academic discourse have elevated the importance of these issues in legislative contexts, leading to a more effective dissemination of this knowledge within the professional community.

Case studies have demonstrated that wooden buildings can significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions compared to equivalent structures made from mineral materials. Studies indicate that the estimated total environmental impact of wooden buildings may be as much as about 50% of the value for buildings constructed using traditional technology (cement blocks and concrete), and this result is repeatable in both new and older studies [55,110,155,156]. This value decreases when buildings are low-energy, then embodied energy becomes important. Depending on the construction systems, different construction materials determine the share of embodied energy from 35% to 57%—minimum values accepted for wood; this result is also repeatable in both new and older studies [157,158]. It should be noted that the results of LCA studies for different materials may vary significantly due to differences in the methodologies used, assumptions made, building types, and technologies used [53,154].

The researchers’ results are even divergent if the analyses are conducted under significantly different impact conditions. Therefore, it is important to clearly define the conditions of the analysis conducted and, in particular, the expected durability of the building. Wooden buildings, in comparison to traditional technology buildings, may have the disadvantage of having to import wood, while concrete production can be located near the construction site. Much also depends on the assumed service life of a wooden building, considering that concrete allows for long durability of the building. The geographical location and resources of the region have a very significant influence on the right choice of building materials. Despite the significant increase in the number of publications, the indication of the comparison of LCA for buildings made of different materials is still narrowly presented in the scientific literature, while at the same time, it is a broad issue enabling numerous new publications in this field.

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a crucial tool for evaluating carbon dioxide emissions in construction, playing a key role in promoting sustainable design. It stands out by analyzing the entire life cycle of a building, encompassing (i) preparation for construction, (ii) the construction phase, (iii) operational use, and (iv) the end-of-life phase. This comprehensive approach ensures a thorough assessment of the environmental impact from the initial planning through to the building’s eventual disposal [159,160].

The environmental impact of a building is fundamentally shaped by its design. At the outset of a project, architects are tasked with choosing building materials. This decision is particularly complex due to the extended lifespan of buildings and the ongoing need for maintenance and replacements, which are influenced by evolving consumption patterns and changing user needs [152]. Architects can make environmentally conscious decisions by accessing information about the CF of various products. While comprehensive data are not yet available for all products, the range of products with such information is steadily expanding [105]. Current information on CF does not yet account for carbon dioxide emissions over the entire lifespan of a product. To effectively optimize material choices, a comprehensive LCA is essential. It is crucial to note the complexity of this process—each project is typically unique and bespoke, necessitating a separate LCA for every individual building [152]. Since researchers primarily develop computational models, they often lack the practical adaptability needed for rapid and user-friendly applications [53].

It is crucial to recognize that utilizing wood and other natural materials, such as straw or hemp, plays a significant role in reducing CO₂ emissions. These materials contribute to carbon sequestration by capturing and storing carbon dioxide during their growth and maintaining it throughout their lifecycle. This process effectively removes CO₂ from the atmosphere, mitigating the impact of greenhouse gases [100,158,161,162]. This concept was explored in detail in Section 3.1.2. The fundamental advantage of using these materials in construction is their ability to act as carbon sinks, thus storing carbon within the building fabric. This characteristic underscores the potential of these materials to offset the carbon emissions associated with traditional construction methods. As indicated earlier, the result depends on the adopted calculation method; depending on the method, the difference at the level of the entire building between the final results was as much as 29%. The reference research by Hoxha et al. found that for multi-family massive wooden residential buildings, the impact of the building is approximately 20.7 kg-CO₂e/m²/yr, which is 75% lower than the values for buildings constructed using traditional technology and approximately 50% lower than for buildings constructed using traditional low-energy technology. In his study, the author also warns that depending on the method adopted, the environmental impacts of building components present significant discrepancies, even up to 200% [77].

However, accurately evaluating the CF of biological products through LCA presents substantial challenges. One major difficulty lies in accounting for the highly variable growth rates of different plant species. These growth periods can vary widely based on environmental conditions, which complicates the assessment of carbon sequestration over the lifecycle of the materials. Furthermore, the LCA of biological products is often inconsistent due to variations in research methodologies and the complexities of different assessment models. As a result, achieving a reliable and uniform evaluation of the environmental benefits of using natural materials in construction remains a challenging task. The ongoing need for more refined and standardized assessment methods is essential to enhance the accuracy of LCA and fully understand the environmental impact of these materials [57,100,163].

The production of wooden components involves considerable energy consumption, primarily due to the drying and processing stages [158,164]. For wooden buildings, the carbon dioxide emissions associated with the pre-construction phase generally account for less than 10% of the total emissions throughout the building’s lifecycle. The most notable difference in carbon emissions between wooden structures and those built with other materials is observed in the emissions related to the materials themselves. In traditional construction methods, the carbon emissions from materials can constitute more than 50% of the total lifecycle emissions [125].

The CF associated with the construction of a building is predominantly influenced by the chosen structural system, architectural design, and construction technology. Research by Yang et al. [125] reveals that for various types of wooden buildings, carbon dioxide emissions during the operational phase typically account for an average of 87.7% of the total lifecycle emissions. If a wooden building achieves the same thermal performance as structures made from other materials, the carbon emissions during the operational phase would be comparable, negating significant differences in emissions at this stage.

In the final stage of the LCA, which follows the building’s operational phase, wooden components can be either repurposed for energy production, such as generating heat or electricity, or reused in new construction projects [165]. The reuse of building components is especially important given that recovery rates across all material types are still relatively low, hovering around 50%. This rate is considered unsatisfactory because reclaimed materials are mostly repurposed for energy recovery or for use in lower-quality applications. To enhance the chances of reusing wooden components, designers can adopt strategies such as reversible connections and components specifically designed for reuse [165]. In practice, even high-quality wood is typically discarded at the end of a building’s life. Once wood components are used, they are immediately classified as wood waste to avoid the time-consuming and costly testing of treatments applied to them. This happens despite the fact that, theoretically, these treatments should not harm the environment or living organisms. As a result, wood is often regarded less favorably compared to other materials and is primarily used only as a raw material for energy production [165,166,167]. In addition to evaluating the impact of preservatives, wood should be assessed for its structural suitability, potential insect and fungal infestations, and the presence of metal fasteners. While these factors are significant, they are generally less critical than the issue of preservatives. Additionally, careful consideration is needed for the process of deconstruction to maximize the recovery of high-quality wood.

3.1.5. Innovative Construction Practices

The future of construction innovation may significantly advance the field of wooden and zero-energy building design. Educating not only younger generations but also seasoned engineers, architects, and builders who adhere to outdated standards is crucial for popularizing new technologies [118]. Availability of models for low or zero CF properties is essential [45]. Emerging projects may focus not only on energy efficiency and reduced energy demand but also on buildings that produce energy, store it in batteries, and return it to the local energy grid (energy-plus buildings exceed net-zero energy buildings by generating more energy than they consume) (report “Advances Toward a Net-Zero Global Building Sector”, in “The Annual Review of Environment and Resources” [118]). These innovations might also support local ecosystems, for instance, by incorporating mushroom or algae cultivation within the buildings.

This article synthesizes current knowledge and practical achievements in wooden architecture, particularly focusing on the design, construction, and evaluation of new wooden buildings with zero CO₂ emissions (net-zero-energy buildings—nZEB, with the term nearly-zero also appearing in the literature) [28]. Discussions in the literature on low-energy wooden construction (such as Cost and Energy Reduction of a New nZEB Wooden Building) cover aspects of minimizing construction and operational costs [28]. Transforming the construction sector to achieve net-zero-energy consumption is vital for climate neutrality, given that construction accounts for about 36% of final energy demand and 39% of greenhouse gas emissions related to technological processes [57]. Meeting new international energy standards involves exploring new technologies [65]. Large-scale actions necessitate a systemic approach and integration of models within local urban policies [103]. Ongoing research and development (R&D) includes laboratory testing of material strength and connection details [44]. Wood’s properties are harnessed for carbon sequestration through innovative products like CLT and Glulam, which enhance structural strength and carbon storage benefits. Zero-emission wooden buildings also involve complex engineering calculations of energy efficiency and production, beginning with material procurement. Further assessments include building usage, project modifications, potential dismantling, or relocation. Comprehensive LCA is used to evaluate the total CF of buildings. The end of a building’s life cycle involves demolition, disposal, or recycling of materials and may include design modifications. These innovations are described in the previous chapters. Moreover, new processes may affect design software, assembly, construction logistics, and usage methods [124].

Innovation in construction is a systematic process within firms and organizations, transitioning from an innovative idea through development to implementation and potential commercialization [88]. Innovations can be categorized into technological–programming, material–production, process–organizational, service–economic, and social branches. The literature offers various interpretations of innovation, which extends beyond scientific discovery to include the transformation of knowledge into commercial products, processes, and services [101]. Innovations are essential for maintaining global market competitiveness and driving economic and technological progress.

Construction is a significant sector with a broad spatial impact and considerable influence on environmental pollution. Addressing the climate crisis and environmental changes is a major focus of new construction practices [58]. Measuring innovation outcomes involves evaluating diverse aspects: companies’ strategies for generating new ideas and knowledge, customer needs, market conditions, learning and knowledge sharing, and employee engagement and creativity [88]. These factors significantly affect the performance of construction companies. The concept of social capital, referring to the pool of knowledge and the communication networks among employees engaged in innovation, plays a crucial role [168].

In the field of management, there are studies on performance indicators for organizational and national innovation. However, to apply these to the construction industry, the specific characteristics of the sector must be taken into account. Innovation indicators depend on growth and inhibition factors, and measuring progress remains challenging. Lo and Kam [88] explored the conditions required for precisely assessing innovation progress in design. It emphasizes that these indicators are essential for advancing design and construction firms. However, many organizations in this sector lack a comprehensive framework for measuring innovation outcomes. To better characterize a specific resource, such as an organization, it is crucial to define key performance indicators for innovation. These indicators help manage and foster the creation of new solutions. The article presents findings from a literature review and expert consultations to develop performance metrics for innovation within the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry.

Organizations could gain a competitive edge through ongoing management while fostering future innovations [51]. However, conventional building preferences can delay innovation. Conventional building practices are often preferred because they adhere to rigid procedures and administrative regulations that rely heavily on paper documentation [88]. Consequently, end-users frequently choose conventional building designs over innovative ones. Due to time and cost constraints, investors, designers, and contractors typically follow standard building codes to ensure compliance and secure construction permits. As a result, performance-based approaches are not given priority, as highlighted in some papers [88].

3.2. Stage 2: Building Review

This section delves into contemporary examples of sustainable wooden architecture, highlighting innovative approaches to reducing carbon emissions at both the construction and operational stages. Exploring a range of projects across Europe and North America showcases how architects and designers are leveraging renewable materials, advanced construction techniques, and collaborative design processes to create structures that are both environmentally responsible and adaptable to future needs. These case studies illustrate the potential of wooden architecture to not only meet but exceed sustainability goals, setting new standards for the industry.

From a review of 98 near-zero and zero-emission buildings, 10 examples were chosen. The timeframe spans from 2020 to 2024. These examples encompass both residential and public utility buildings with various functions across Europe and North America. The comparison criteria include the operational energy indicator, measured in kgCO₂e/m²/year, and the embodied energy involved in material procurement and construction, also measured in kgCO₂e/m². These parameters were chosen because of their versatility in estimating the carbon footprint of buildings in relation to 1 m² of building. Upfront carbon emissions, as well as operational energy, are components of the LCA which allows a proper comparison of the carbon footprint of buildings.

Table 3. List of example wooden buildings.

Project (Author)	Building Type	Location	Year	Area	Operational Energy [kgCO2e/m2/y]	Upfront Carbon Emissions (A1–A5) [kgCO2e/m2]	Criteria *
Lea Bridge Library Pavilion (Studio Weave) [131]	Public building (library)	London, UK	2021	250 m2	9.69	147	1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Orueta Etxea (Emiliano López Mónica Rivera Arquitectos) [132]	Residential	Bilbao, Spain	2021	308 m2	3.83	-	1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Spruce house and studio (ao-ft) [133]	Residential	London, UK	2021	132 m2	-	336	1, 2, 3, 4
Cooperative housing (Urban Power) [134]	Residential	Stavnsholt, Denamrk	2021	3100 m2	8.70	-	1, 2, 3
The black and white building (Waugh Thistleton Architects) [135]	Commercial, office	London, UK	2022	4480 m2	9.11	329	1, 2, 3, 4
Workstack (dRMM) [136]	Commercial	London, UK	2023	1583 m2	48.41	271	1, 2, 3, 4
EÑE House (Estudio Albar) [137]	Residential	Madrid, Spain	2023	250 m2	14.50	-	1, 2, 3, 4, 5
New Temple Complex (James Gorst Architects) [138]	Public building	Hampshire, UK	2023	585 m2	42.60	407	1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Durley Chine Environmental Hub (Footprint Architects) [139]	Public building	Bournemouth, UK	2024	887 m2	15.73	210	1, 2, 3, 4
Humber Cultural Hub (Diamond Schmitt) [140]	Public building	Ontario, Canada	2024	23,244 m2	6.63	-	1, 2, 3

* Criteria: 1—Sustainable sourcing of materials; 2—Carbon sequestration; 3—Energy efficiency; 4—Life cycle assessment; 5—Innovative construction practices.

presents a summary of selected buildings constructed entirely from wooden structures, as detailed in the following paragraphs.

Studio Weave’s Lea Bridge Library Pavilion extends the existing library, connecting it with a garden to create a multifunctional space. The construction uses LVL (Laminated Veneer Lumber) beams, partially anchored into the existing structure, reducing the number of necessary support columns. The wood used was reclaimed from trees felled or damaged in London, resulting in a diverse range of species, including European spruce, chestnut, poplar, sycamore, and European oak [131].

Orueta Etxea is a single-family house project by Spanish studio Emiliano López Mónica Rivera Arquitectos. It is an important example of a comprehensive approach to design based on the principles of sustainability and a closed-loop economy. The designers used only local materials with low CO₂ emissions. The house was built to passive building standards and has been Passivhaus Classic certified. Larch was used as structural and finishing timber [132].

The Spruce House and Studio, designed by ao-ft, is a project that reflects a commitment to renewable materials and sustainable construction techniques. This addition to an existing neighborhood features a main structure made of prefabricated CLT panels, chosen for their environmental benefits and aesthetic appeal as an exposed interior finish. The design minimizes the use of steel and incorporates prefabrication to enhance precision and reduce waste. Additionally, the building and its connections are designed for easy disassembly, facilitating future reuse. The timber used includes Siberian larch, spruce, and birch [133].

Urban Power’s Cooperative Housing project in Denmark is a residential development created in collaboration with future residents and local authorities to optimize the design of shared spaces. The project includes communal kitchens, dining areas, laundry rooms, guest rooms, and storage, allowing for smaller individual homes and reducing the overall CF. The construction uses local wood, with prefabricated CLT elements ensuring both affordability and energy efficiency [134].

The black and white building by Waugh Thistleton Architects is a workspace with an elastic approach to design. The layout of the building was designed to increase the proportion of shared spaces and to allow the space to be easily rearranged in the future. At the time of completion, the building was the tallest timber building in London, reaching 17.8 m. The entire structure, floors, partitions, and curtain walls were made from timber. Species such as pine and beech were used [135].

Workstack, a project by dRMM, is designed to provide affordable workspaces for small businesses in the Charlton Riverside industrial zone in Greenwich. The building offers a consolidated alternative to scattered workshops typically housed in metal sheds. By bringing multiple businesses under one roof, the design reduces space usage and improves energy efficiency, cutting heating and cooling costs. The structure is made from prefabricated CLT panels, using locally sourced spruce and birch wood [136].

EÑE House, designed by Estudio Albar, is a project that, from the outset, aimed for near-zero energy consumption and minimal environmental impact. The house was designed according to the Passivhaus certification standard. The building is largely made of prefabricated pine timber. An unusual design solution is the use of cork wood as the façade cladding [137].

The New Temple Complex, designed by James Gorst Architects, serves as a multi-functional space for a spiritual organization. The complex includes a temple, chapel, library, community hall, kitchen, and foyer, designed to be shared by multiple religions, thus reducing the need for separate buildings and minimizing the CF. The structure is built with European spruce, and the exterior cladding is made from Siberian larch. Interior woodwork, cladding, and furniture are crafted from locally sourced ash [138].

Footprint Architects’ Durley Chine Environmental Hub is a building dedicated to promoting environmental stewardship through workshops and training on waste segregation and reuse. The construction uses reclaimed wood, with beams sourced from a decommissioned pier and breakwaters at a local naval base. Insulation is made from shredded newspapers, with all materials sourced locally, emphasizing reclaimed content. The timber frame construction uses a mix of reclaimed woods, including basralocus, ekki, opepe, and accoya, originally used in marine structures [139].

The Humber Cultural Hub, designed by Diamond Schmitt, is a multi-purpose building on the Lakeshore Humber College campus. The design adheres to industry standards such as the Toronto Green Standard, Zero Carbon Building—Design Standard, and LEED Platinum certification. During the planning stage, the project team considered the building’s operations, maintenance requirements, and lifecycle costs. The structure is built with CLT panels, and the exterior cladding uses high-performance panels to ensure energy efficiency. The building was awarded the 2023 World Federation of Colleges and Polytechnics (WFCP) Construction Award for its innovative construction practices and commitment to sustainability [140].

These examples illustrate varied approaches to designing wooden buildings, focusing on reducing carbon emissions during construction and subsequent operation. Designers achieve this by reducing the demand for new spaces through shared usage, utilizing reclaimed and locally sourced materials, employing prefabrication to minimize construction waste, and planning for easy disassembly to facilitate future reuse. Residential buildings tend to have the highest embedded CF due to their dense, multi-functional spaces, while buildings with open floor plans achieve lower values.

4. Discussion

New concepts for wooden buildings with zero CO₂ emissions are increasingly popular in response to growing demands for sustainability and combating global warming [72,122,130,169]. This trend is driven by advancements in material manufacturing technologies [17,170]. Among the most prominent solutions in this field are Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) and Glued Laminated Timber (GLT) technologies [56,171].

CLT is a modern construction material made from layers of wood glued in a crosswise arrangement, which provides exceptional strength and stability. The cross-laminated configuration enhances the material’s load-bearing capacity and rigidity, making it suitable for structural applications in high-rise buildings [46,126,172]. CLT naturally resists fire, as the outer wood layers carbonize, creating a protective barrier that slows further burning [48,173]. Additionally, its excellent insulating properties contribute to the energy efficiency of buildings. CLT is a renewable material that sequesters CO₂, thereby reducing the CF of buildings [60,174]. The production of CLT generates less waste compared to traditional building materials. Examples include the Dalston Works Compact Residential Complex in Hackney, London—referred to as “The World’s Largest CLT Building” (Design: Waugh Thistleton Architects, 2017)—and the Puukuokka Complex in Jyväskylä [90] (Design: OOPEAA, 2011).

GLT is another innovative material consisting of wood layers glued together longitudinally. This allows for the creation of large, open spaces without numerous supports, offering greater design flexibility. GLT’s flexibility enables the design of arches, curves, and other complex forms and provides high fire resistance. Notable examples include the Wood Innovation Design Centre in Prince George (Design: Michael Green Architecture, 2014) and the “Perspective” Office Building in Bordeaux [90] (Design: Laisné Roussel, 2018).

Both CLT and GLT are advanced, sustainable building materials that offer significant environmental, economic, and design benefits [175]. Their unique properties make them suitable for various types of construction. The choice between CLT and GLT depends on specific project requirements such as strength, flexibility, assembly speed, and aesthetics [92]. Integrating these materials with Building Information Modeling (BIM) provides numerous advantages over traditional methods, including enhancements in design, execution, performance, analysis, process monitoring, and facility management [127]. Combining BIM with intelligent systems and wooden technologies like CLT and GLT is considered a forward-thinking approach. Thanks to modern CNC machines, the high degree of prefabrication achievable with CLT and GLT allows for rapid and precise assembly on-site. This automation reduces labor costs and project timelines, making construction faster and more cost-effective. The monolithic nature of these materials minimizes additional construction work, thus lowering overall investment costs. Additionally, reduced material use and improved energy efficiency contribute to decreased operational costs [52,54,87,123,176].

Hybrid wooden constructions, which combine wood with materials such as steel and concrete, offer an intriguing solution by merging the benefits of various materials while minimizing their drawbacks [42]. This approach can enhance building strength and enable more complex designs. The growing popularity of hybrid wooden and steel structures offers advantages in terms of zero-emission and material efficiency. Combining wood with steel, which has high recycling potential, helps reduce CO₂ emissions in the construction process [47,75]. This hybrid approach provides an alternative when purely wooden structures are impractical due to factors such as legal or fire safety considerations that vary internationally [84,96].

The recycling efficiency of wooden materials used in CLT or GLT constructions remains a subject for further research and discussion. The adhesives used in the manufacturing process can limit the potential for complete recycling of wood after its use [64,177]. Efforts should focus on minimizing obstacles in the recycling process of glued wood materials. Overcoming this issue could enhance the sustainability of glued wood as a low-emission material. Modern wooden buildings worldwide demonstrate how innovative concepts can be practically applied [42]. One notable example is the HoHo Vienna Tower (Design: RLP Rüdiger Lainer + Partner, 2016), one of the tallest wooden buildings globally, combining wood and concrete in a hybrid construction. This 24-story building exemplifies sustainable design, focusing on energy efficiency and renewable energy use [102]. Sustainable design and execution are crucial components of zero-emission wooden buildings [178]. Passive design strategies, which use natural energy sources such as sunlight and ventilation to reduce energy consumption, are recommended for these structures. Buildings designed with passive principles are more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly [114]. The integration of renewable energy sources such as solar panels, wind turbines, and geothermal systems can help buildings achieve a zero-energy balance. Incorporating these technologies into wooden structures further reduces their environmental impact [95,107,172]. Modular and prefabricated construction techniques enable faster and more efficient execution, reducing material waste and transportation emissions. Prefabricated modules produced under controlled conditions ensure higher quality and precision [164,179].

Despite these benefits, zero-emission wooden construction faces several challenges that must be addressed to fully realize its potential. Regulatory barriers, discussed in the certification chapter, are a significant issue. Many countries need to update their building codes to support the broad use of modern wooden technologies. New standards and financial incentives could accelerate the adoption of sustainable building practices [99,180]. Technical challenges related to wood in contemporary construction also need to be addressed. While wood offers many advantages, it requires specific fire protection and measures against moisture and pests [109,117,181,182]. Investment in research and development is crucial to overcoming these barriers. Market acceptance is another critical factor in promoting wood as a modern and durable material [129,183]. Education and promotion of the benefits of wooden construction are key to shifting perceptions and increasing the acceptance of wood as a standard building material [73,128,158]. Modern zero-emission wooden buildings provide practical solutions for sustainable urban development. With innovative materials and technologies, sustainable design, and global examples, wood has the potential to become a key material in the future of construction [112].

5. Conclusions

The article provides a comprehensive review and analysis of the criteria essential for the feasibility of contemporary zero-carbon wooden buildings (ZCBs), which constituted its primary research aim. The study is augmented by an examination of selected wooden buildings, focusing on how these criteria are integrated to minimize the CF.

The findings reveal that all defined criteria—sustainable material sourcing, carbon sequestration, energy efficiency, LCA, and innovative construction practices—are crucial in designing and constructing new zero-carbon wooden buildings. These results underscore the significant potential of wood as a renewable material for ZCBs and suggest it could be a compelling alternative to traditional construction materials. However, the findings also highlight the complexity and multifaceted nature of effectively incorporating wood to achieve this objective.

The study shows that optimal outcomes are achieved by addressing all five criteria, though ranking their importance is challenging. The LCA stands out as the most measurable criterion for evaluating the ecological benefits of buildings comprehensively. Nonetheless, each criterion emphasizes different aspects that should not be considered in isolation. Based on these criteria, the study identifies the following key recommendations:

• Sustainable Material Sourcing: Sustainable sourcing is foundational for zero-carbon wooden buildings. This involves using wood from responsibly managed forests, as certified by organizations like the FSC or PEFC. Local wood sourcing reduces transportation-related emissions, which is crucial for minimizing the building’s CF. Additionally, the use of bio-based and composite materials, such as Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) or other advanced wooden products, enhances carbon sequestration;
• Carbon Sequestration: Maximizing wood’s role as both a structural and finishing material is vital due to its ecological benefits. Wood not only helps in reducing CO₂ emissions but also serves as a long-term carbon sink;
• Energy Efficiency: Implementing passive design strategies, including natural ventilation, effective insulation, and optimal building orientation, significantly lower energy demand. Incorporating renewable energy sources, such as solar panels and geothermal systems, meets the building’s energy needs and, combined with energy-efficient heating and ventilation systems, further reduces CO₂ emissions;
• LCA: Conducting a thorough ecological assessment throughout all stages of a building’s life (from construction to demolition) is essential to understanding its total carbon footprint. Designing for disassembly and material recycling further minimizes future CO₂ emissions;
• Innovative Construction Practices: Employing low-carbon construction technologies, such as prefabrication and modular construction, reduces waste and construction time. These innovative methods help minimize emissions during the construction phase, which is critical for achieving zero CO₂ emissions.

The literature review revealed a significant gap and delay in bridging advanced scientific research with practical professional knowledge. This underscores the urgent need to enhance research efforts and increase the dissemination of publications. Such measures are crucial for the broader implementation of advanced solutions and application models and for the effective development of climate and energy policies.

The study also finds that despite the potential benefits of using wood, several barriers impede its implementation in ZCBs, including social, regulatory, and financial challenges. A significant issue is the low level of knowledge among construction industry stakeholders regarding ZCB design and construction. Overcoming this requires enhancing awareness and education on sustainable building practices. Technological challenges persist as well, such as the increased energy embedded and the CF associated with more processed wood products. Furthermore, the recycling rate of wood in construction remains lower compared to materials like steel.

The analysis highlights several research gaps that need addressing, including the following:

• Use of Bio-Based Materials: Further research on bio-based materials like bamboo and wooden composites, which could be used in wooden construction and offer carbon sequestration benefits;
• Long-Term Carbon Sequestration Effects: Investigation into the long-term effects of carbon sequestration in wooden buildings, including their impact on the LCA and end-of-life scenarios such as recycling or disposal;
• Energy Efficiency in Various Climates: Studies to understand how different climatic conditions influence energy demand and design strategies for wooden buildings;
• Social and Regulatory Barriers: Identifying and addressing social and regulatory barriers to adopting ZCBs, which will aid in developing effective strategies to promote sustainable construction;
• Stakeholder Knowledge and Awareness: Assessing the knowledge and awareness levels among construction industry stakeholders about zero-carbon buildings and determining effective educational and training methods;
• Cost–Benefit Analysis: Evaluating the costs and benefits associated with constructing and operating ZCBs to better understand their economic feasibility compared to traditional construction methods.

Addressing these research gaps can advance the development and implementation of zero-carbon wooden buildings, supporting sustainable development within the construction sector.