Journal of Cleaner Production 376 (2022) 134328
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Cleaner Production
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro
Wood or not? An analysis of regional differences in wooden residential
building permits in Germany
Christian Mergel *, Klaus Menrad , Thomas Decker
Weihenstephan-Triesdorf University of Applied Sciences, Am Essigberg 3, 94315, Straubing, Germany
1. Introduction
The construction sector forms an important backbone of the Euro­
pean Union economy, contributing almost 9% of GDP and providing 18
million jobs (European Commission, 2021). In 2019, EU citizens have
invested 5.3% of GDP in housing on average (Eurostat, 2020). Over one
million houses are built every year in the EU (Hypostat, 2020). While the
construction sector has continuously been growing in most European
countries in recent years and, in parallel, the number of private houses
built (Hypostat, 2020), this sector also causes substantial negative
environmental concerns. Building construction and operations account
for the largest share of both final energy use (36%) and energy-related
CO2 emissions (39%) worldwide (GlobalABC, 2019). As a result, the
EU has come to regard the building sector as one of the main targets in
their aim for a 30% cut in annual primary energy consumption by 2030
(European Commission, 2016a). Another environmental issue concern­
ing the construction sector is the tremendous amount of construction
and demolition waste, which represents about one third of total waste
produced in the EU (European Commission, 2016b). Buildings made
with cement and bricks contribute significantly to waste, dust and
vegetation pollution (Nan and Jie, 2020).
In 2016, the German federal government adopted the Climate Action
Plan 2050 to fulfill the demands of the Paris Agreement. Among the
main goals and measures is the increased usage of more climate-friendly
resources in construction, one of the latter being timber in particular
(BMU, 2016). This aim is in accordance with several studies that
examine opportunities for facing environmental challenges in con­
struction. By expanding the proportion of wood used in construction,
particularly that of private homes, one could reduce the GHG emissions
significantly (Spear et al., 2019; Monahan and Powell, 2011). An
increased use of wood frames to replace concrete or steel frames in
building construction can reduce net CO2 emission (Mahapatra et al.,
2012). Even though a reduction of embodied carbon within buildings
could be achieved through various measures, an increase in stored
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: christian.mergel@hswt.de (C. Mergel), klaus.menrad@hswt.de (K. Menrad), thomas.decker@hswt.de (T. Decker).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134328
Received 8 June 2022; Received in revised form 1 September 2022; Accepted 20 September 2022
Available online 24 September 2022
0959-6526/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
sequestered carbon can only be achieved by a higher use of
biomass-based material like timber (Monahan and Powell, 2011).
Although the percentage of residential building permits relying on
timber as the predominant construction material in Germany actually
rose from 16.1% in 2016 to 20.4% in 2020 (Statistisches Bundesamt,
2021a), the share of wooden residential buildings is quite low, especially
in comparison to the Nordic European countries of Finland, Sweden and
Norway, where, even in 2009, up to 90% of detached houses where
made of wood (Schauerte, 2010). Additionally, one can observe vast
regional differences, whereby the proportion of wooden residential
building permits in Germany varies from 5.6% up to 33.4%, depending
on the state, and even from 0 to over 50% at the district level (Statis­
tisches Bundesamt, 2021a). While studies can be found examining the
prejudice and perceptions regarding wooden residential building and
how that might affect the people’s likelihood of building or living in a
house made of wood (e.g., Roos et al., 2010; Gold and Rubik, 2009a;
Lähtinen et al., 2019; Lähtinen et al., 2021; Petruch and Walcher, 2021),
there are no studies in the scientific literature that analyze the reasons
behind the regional differences in the proportion of wooden residential
buildings. However, this knowledge is highly relevant since this insight
also plays a crucial role for policy makers in enhancing the proportion of
buildings made of wood in general, thus providing them with opportu­
nities to pursue in order to increase climate-friendly construction.
This paper therefore aims to close the research gap and offer an
explanation for the immense regional differences in wooden residential
building proportions in Germany. Since no empirical studies whatsoever
exist on this specific research gap, we decided to conduct an exploratory
approach without any a priori hypothesis. Since Germany’s regions can
be distinguished between the federal, district, and municipal levels, we
decided upon the district level as an examination unit regarding regional
differences because it provided the greatest analysis opportunities.
Additionally, the districts have final jurisdiction over the building per­
mits. We collected the number of building permits (from 2015 to 2019
and distinguished between wood and non-wood construction material)
C. Mergel et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 376 (2022) 134328

for every of the 401 German districts from the 14 state offices for sta­
tistics as that data is not publicly accessible. We also accessed a variety
of other variables the reviewed literature suggests as being possibly
influential on the share of wooden residential building permits. We
conducted a descriptive, a bivariate, and a series of multiple linear
regression models, with the proportion of wooden residential building
permits being the dependent variable. The research question, therefore,
is as follows:
“Which factors influence the regional differences in the share of
wooden residential building permits in Germany?”
This paper is structured in the following manner: The first part of
section 2 aims to depict the past deployment of wood in German resi­
dential constructions sector, and the second part reviews the literature
which offers insights into factors influencing the regional differences in
Fig. 1. Residential building permits and proportion of wood for West Germany
wooden residential building shares. Section 3 describes the methods
1980–1990 and Germany 1991–2020.
used to analyze the data sample. Section 4 outlines the findings obtained Source: Own illustration (Statistisches Bundesamt, 1982–2021)
during the course of this study. Section 5 presents the discussion of the
results. The article closes with a conclusion.
2016; Mahapatra et al., 2012).

2. Review of the literature

2.2. Indications in the literature

2.1. Development of wooden residential buildings in Germany

In order to empirically answer the research question of this study, we
reviewed the literature for possible influencing factors that might
Looking at the history of construction material usage with respect to
explain the regional differences in the share of wooden residential
residential buildings, wood represents the oldest construct material for
building permits in Germany. We decided to summarize these influ­
buildings on a large scale (Stark and Wicht, 1998). Until the industrial
encing factors into four categories (states, geographical conditions, de­
revolution in the 19th century, wood has been the central construction
mographic structure, and construction and building land).
material in most European countries given its admittedly variable but
overall steady availability and easy accessibility (Ruebesam, 1990). The
2.2.1. States
19th century had an enormous impact on the downfall of wood as a
Even though the total average market share for residential building
construction material. On the one hand, the industrial revolution
predominantly made of timber was at an all-time high in 2020 of 20.4%
resulted in the higher usability of steel in construction and, additionally,
in Germany, the proportion varied between 5.6% and 33.4% at the state
enhanced the democratization of knowledge, especially regarding
level. Of all 16 states, the highest shares was found in southern Ger­
technical fundamentals (Urbaner Holzbau, 2013). On the other hand,
many, with Baden-Württemberg (33.4%), Bavaria (25.2%), Rhineland-
large city fires resulted in the discouragement and prohibition of
Palatinate (24.1%), and Hesse (24.0%). Saarland (17.0%) can be
wooden frames in multi-story buildings in several European countries
regarded as the only exception to this finding. Looking at northern and
(Mahapatra et al., 2012).
eastern Germany, the percentages were rather low in comparison. In
Within about 50 years, Germany’s share of wood in construction
eastern Germany, Thuringia (22.5%) had the highest percentage, fol­
diminished from about 80% in 1850 to 30% in 1900 (Liβner and Rug,
lowed by Saxony (19.7%), Brandenburg (16.8%), Saxony-Anhalt
2000). The first half of the 20th century amplified this development due
(13.6%), and Berlin (12.3%). From the northern part of Germany,
to ongoing industrialization and the two world wars which Germany and
Schleswig-Holstein (18.5%) and Mecklenburg-West Pomerania (17.8%)
most of Europe suffered from. In the years following 1945, Germany
had the highest shares, followed by North Rhine-Westphalia (12.8%)
underwent a long-term construction boom starting in the 1950s and
and Lower-Saxony (10.9%). The two smallest states, Hamburg (7.5%)
reaching its peak in 1975 (Einem, 2016). The 1960s and early 1970s
and Bremen (5.6%), had the lowest proportion of residential buildings
marked an important turning point in terms of housing and the building
made of wood (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2021a). Due to Germany’s
environment in three ways: 1) The number of newly built wooden res­
federalist legislation, the states have the right to decide on regulations
idential buildings was at a low-point in Germany (Urbaner Holzbau,
related to building, public housing, and land use and development,
2013). 2) Structural changes in the areas of work and production had
which results in regional differences among the states. With the imple­
repercussions on households as well as family structures and sizes,
mentation of model building regulation in 2002 (Musterbauordnung
resulting in more demand for space per individual (Schäfers, 2010). 3)
MBO), the federal building regulations laws were intended to be stan­
Due to changing values and societal events (e.g., the 1968 student up­
dardized and simplified within Germany (Dedrich, 2013). Furthermore,
rising and the oil and energy crisis in the 1970s), the awareness arose
the MBO extended the usage of timber in construction, allowing wooden
that previous technical progress in construction came at the disadvan­
residential buildings up to five floors and 13 m. While the MBO itself is
tage of the environment, so more climate-friendly strategies had to be
not mandatory, most of the states adopted the MBO but did not fully
considered (Dangel, 2016). As a consequence, an increased interest in
harmonize regulations related to the use of wood in residential build­
solar construction, bioclimatic housing, and the usage of clay and
ings. According to the German Timber Council (Deutscher Holzwirt­
especially wood was observed (Drexler and El-khouli, 2012). The pro­
schaftsrat - DHWR), Baden-Württemberg’s implementation has been the
portion of wooden homes then rose significantly, especially after
most favorable to wood use in construction. In contrast, the states of
German reunification in 1990 (see Fig. 1). Both the arrival of more
Lower-Saxony, Saarland, Hesse, Rhineland-Palatinate, Brandenburg,
specialized wood construction firms and technical innovations in the
and North Rhine-Westphalia have had the most restricted building
timber construction sector enabled advancements related to costs, ma­
regulations, thus presenting the most barriers to wood use in construc­
terials savings, fire prevention, and soundproofing (Krötsch, 2018;
tion (Walberg et al., 2015).
Drexler and El-khouli, 2012). In addition, changes in governmental and
federal building regulations led to more opportunities for the wood
construction sector, thus resulting in more building permits (Dangel,

2
C. Mergel et al.
2.2.2. Geographical conditions
About 90% of Germany’s area can be described as rural. It can be
characterized by agricultural and forestry land use, small and medium-
sized economic structures, and a low population density (DHWR, 2016).
While Germany’s average population density lies around 233 in­
habitants per km2, the states vary strongly in this respect. Whereas
Berlin (4112), Hamburg (2453), Bremen (1621), and North
Rhine-Westphalia (525) have the highest population densities, the
lowest can be found in Saxony-Anhalt (107), Brandenburg (85), and
Mecklenburg-West Pomerania (69) (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2021b).
Although few studies exist related to the usage of construction material
in combination with area, population, and population density, rural
areas and districts in particular stand out given their high number of
wooden residential buildings (Purkus et al., 2020). Considering the
differences in building structures and sizes in different areas, there is an
indication that population density does seem to play a certain role.
Although buildings comprising one or two dwellings (single-family and
duplex houses) were made of wood in 23.1% of cases, only 4.4 percent of
multi-family houses in Germany were built using wooden frames (Sta­
tistisches Bundesamt, 2021a). This could also contribute to the low pro­
portion of wooden houses in densely populated areas like Hamburg,
Bremen, Berlin, and parts of North Rhine-Westphalia, as well as the high
shares of wooden residential buildings in more rural and less densely
populated districts.
Both the states and their districts also differ strongly given the
presence of forested land, hence the accessibility of wood as construc­
tion material at a short distance. The higher share of woodland areas in
southern Germany can be taken as an indication to the above-average
figures for wooden residential buildings in this part of the country
(Walberg, 2016). Especially the four southern federated states Baden-­
Württemberg, Bavaria, Rhine-Palatinate and Hesse, having the highest
proportion of wooden residential buildings, also have the highest per­
centage of forestland. In comparison to the southern part of Germany,
especially the northern and eastern German states have rather low
shares of forested land (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2021c). In addition,
studies also showed that most of Germany’s timber industry is located in
western Germany although eastern German wood production started to
emerge after the reunification (Kies et al., 2011). The high number of
wooden residential buildings in several areas and districts with a high
share of forest and a substantial timber industry could be the outcome of
certain path dependencies and building traditions (Purkus et al., 2020)
that certainly influence industry professionals’ preferences for one
building material or another (Walberg, 2016).
2.2.3. Demographic structure
Germany’s social and demographic structure is heterogeneous in
many ways. On a regional level, there are vast differences between
states, regions, and districts in regard to the labor market situation, wage
gap, regional prices, and unemployment, as well as age, gender, edu­
cation, and structure of population. This heterogeneous structure re­
flects home builders as well, which are diverse with regard to age
distribution, gender, education, occupation, marital status, and eco­
nomic background (Filippi, 2013). Although no studies exist which
examine the influences of demographic structures on the proportion of
wooden residential buildings, some research was found concerning
perceptions of wood in construction with respect to sociodemographics
and the likelihood that individuals will build with timber. This situation
may be an indication of the influences of demographics on the share of
wood in construction of private building. Age, education, and income in
particular all seem to have an impact on the perception of wood in
construction. Høibø et al. (2015) showed that the best target group for
wood-based urban housing in particular are younger people because
they tend to have strong environmental values and perceive wood to be
an eco-friendly material. This goes in accordance with findings of Top­
pinen et al. (2018), which found that younger people raise
sustainability-related concerns in regard to construction in general. A
3
Journal of Cleaner Production 376 (2022) 134328
study by Petruch and Walcher (2021) concerning young millennials
(20–29-year-olds) in Austria showed that timber construction is gener­
ally perceived positively. 27% of the sample group would choose wood
when building a house, which would be a slight improvement on the
current proportion of timber buildings in Austria. Moresová et al. (2019)
identified age, income, historical events in the given region, and the
promotion of wooden houses as the main reasons for the perception of
wooden houses in the Slovak Republic. In a study by Gold and Rubik
(2009b) based on findings from a representative survey among the
German population about people’s attitudes towards social issues, the
environment, wood, forestry, timber as a construction material, and
wooden frame houses, the authors conducted a cluster analysis defining
eight consumer types with regard to their disposition toward choosing
timber as a predominant construction material for newly constructed
houses in Germany. The findings by Gold and Rubik (2009b) suggested
that four of the eight consumer types can be regarded as promising
target groups for wooden frame houses. The consumers assigned to the
four promising types all had rather high education levels, three of the
four types also had a higher income, and age was not identified as a
supporting factor for a higher share of wood in construction.
2.2.4. Construction and building land
The average price for building land steadily increased in Germany
since the first data collection period in 1992 (Statistisches Bundesamt,
2021d), even though the number of residential buildings constructed
decreased after 1999 (see Fig. 1). Building land prices usually depend on
local conditions, especially in the relationship between supply and de­
mand on a regional level. More rural regions with a lower population
density are more likely to have more building area at their disposal than
urban regions. This is indicated by decreasing building land prices with a
declining population density in many German districts (Gans, 2017).
This situation is relevant here because private residential buildings are
often concentrated in agglomeration areas. These areas are confronted
by a rapid growth rate of multi-family dwellings, in which case the share
of timber is very low (Kaiser and Mantau, 2013). Additionally, 40% of
the newly built multi-family dwellings were built on pre-existing
building land, whereas the proportion for single-family and duplex
houses only measures around 20%. Whereas the use of pre-existing
building land is a common practice in urban areas, city states, and
economically underdeveloped regions, this policy is much rarer in pre­
dominantly rural regions (Filippi, 2013). Although building land prices
presumably have an impact on the share of newly built wooden resi­
dential buildings, there is surprisingly little evidence for the effect of
price differences on specific construction materials. Even though the
price index of timber exhibits a conspicuous fluctuation in comparison
to ferroconcrete and bricks (Weimar and Jochem, 2013), a statistical
analysis by Jochem (2013) found no correlation between price variances
in carpentry, as well as timber construction and the share of wooden
buildings. This indicates that the price of timber for construction either
has little influence, or there are more crucial factors on the buying de­
cision of home builders (Jochem, 2013).
3. Data and method
For the purpose of this paper and research question two kinds of data
acquisition strategies were necessary.
(1) The number of building permits per district, as well as other
relevant variables, are registered by the German federal and state
statistics departments, so they are publicly accessible (Statisti­
sche Ämter des Bundes und Länder, 2021). However, no
distinction is made in this context between construction mate­
rials. Due to the federal building regulations, the materials used
are only recorded by the districts and then transmitted to the
states and, in most cases, they are only accessible on demand. We
therefore contacted all 14 German state offices for statistics
C. Mergel et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 376 (2022) 134328

(Hamburg and Berlin do not have their own) and requested the
data on building permits per district by construction material for
the last five years (2015–2019). The German statistical offices
record building permits according to the “predominantly used
building material”, which refers at least to the load-bearing
construct: In this context most of the offices classify between
eight different materials (steel, ferroconcrete, brick, sand-lime
brick, autoclaved aerated concrete, pumice, wood, other).
Although a substantial proportion of mineral material is used in
wooden houses, and also the proportion of wood in wooden
houses can vary greatly (e.g. timber frame construction vs. log
house), this is not recorded by the statistical authorities of Ger­
many. Therefore, we cannot consider this issue in our empirical
analysis. Although the data from the state offices for statistics
varied in their data specificity we were able to successfully gather
the number of building permits per district, as distinguished be­
tween wood as a primary construction material and non-wood
construction material for all 401 German districts during the
period 2015–2019, which we computed for the proportion.
(2) Regarding the independent variables, only publicly accessible
data from the Statistische Ämter des Bundes und Länder (federal and
state statistical offices) was utilized. Given that no comparable
data analysis has been made on the dependence of wood pro­
portion of building permits at district level, the selection of var­
iables used was, on the one hand, strongly connected to the
factors the reviewed literature suggested as being influential
factors and, on the other hand, was dependent and restricted by
the availability of existing data. Table 1 shows the variables used,
sorted according to the possible influence factors, i.e., states,
geographical conditions, demographic structure, and construc­
tion and building land. Since the variable states is a categorical
variable and therefore not suitable for regression analysis, it was
transformed to multiple dummy variables, which means each
federal state of Germany is handled as a separate variable
(dichotomous; 1 = true or 0 = not true). For the category of
geographical conditions, we used the population of a district, its
area in km2, the computed population density (inhabitants per
km2), and the number of a district municipalities, as well as the
percentage of woodland (or forest). In terms of demographic
structure, we followed the indications in the literature regarding
age as being influential and used the average age, the old-age
dependency ratio, and the youth dependency ratio. Regarding
education, we computed the proportion of laborers with no pro­
fessional qualification, with a professional qualification, and with
an academic qualification since these represented the only data
available with respect to education. We also added the unem­
ployment rate because this statistic can provide an indication of
the economic situation in a district. For the category of con­
struction and building land, we also followed the literature in using
the average building land size and the average building land
purchase value (€ per m2). We also added the number of con­
struction firms per capita as this statistic can be regarded as
indicative of a broader selection of specialized wood construction
firms.
In order to conduct our analysis, the specifically collected data from
the 14 state offices for statistics and the publicly accessible data from the
Statistische Ämter des Bundes und Länder were assembled into a dataset in
which the variables were allocated to specific districts. We used the SPSS
26 (IBM Corp.) statistical software for our analysis. The equation of
following the multiple linear regression models is as follows:
y = b1 x1 + +bi xi + +bk xk + a
̂
with ̂
y - value on the criterion variable to be predicted
b- regression weight of specific predictor
x- measured value on specific predictor
a - regression constant
4. Results
The analysis part of this paper is divided into two sections: The first
section comprises a descriptive analysis of the dependent and indepen­
dent variables as well as a visualization of the proportion of wooden
residential buildings in Germany. In the second section we approached
our research by a bivariate analysis as basis for the following multi­
variate analysis, in which we utilized a multiple linear regression model
for the period from 2015 to 2019.

Table 2
Table 1 Average mean and measures of dispersion for 2015–2019.
Independent variables sorted by category.
Variables Mean Std. Min. Max.
Factor Item dev.

States Dummy variables (16 German states) Wooden residential building permits 17.87 9.88 2.60 44.92
Geographical Population (absolute number of inhabitants) (in %)
conditions Area (in km2)
Population (absolute) 206322 241754 34272 3604534
Population density (inhabitants per km2)
Area (in km2) 889.56 724.7 35.7 5495.6
Number of municipalities (absolute)
Population density (inhab. per km2) 534.11 703.28 36.04 4716.1
Share of woodland (in %)
Number of municipalities (absolute) 26.92 32.04 1 234
Demographic structure Mean age (absolute)
Share of woodland (in %) 28.04 14.84 0.41 63.37
Old-age dependency ratio a
Mean age (absolute) 44.91 1.94 40.32 50.32
Youth dependency ratio b
Old-age dependency ratio 37.21 5.77 23.8 57.12
Unemployment rate (in %)
Youth dependency ratio 30.62 2.42 22.44 38.34
Proportion of laborers with no professional qualification
Unemployment rate (in %) 5.34 2.41 1.36 13.88
(in %)
Laborer, no professional 12.93 3.65 4.96 25.12
Proportion of laborers with professional qualification (in
qualification (in %)
%)
Laborer with professional 72.64 8.03 39.34 85.45
Proportion of laborers with academic qualification (in %)
qualification (in %)
Construction Average building land size (in m2)
Laborer with academic qualification 14.43 6.94 6.35 46.81
Average building land purchase value (€ per m2)
(in %)
Number of construction firms per capita
Average building land size (in m2) 1468.9 5731.4 576.05 5792.32
a Average building land purchase 144.07 192.3 11.5 2362.98
Ratio between the number of persons aged 65 and over (age when they are
generally economically inactive) per 100 people of working age (ages 15–64). value (€/m2)
b Number of construction firms (per .00101 .00047 .00022 .00277
Number of youth population (0–14) per 100 people of working age (ages
capita)
15–64).
Source: own illustration; Source: own illustration

4
C. Mergel et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 376 (2022) 134328

4.1. Description of the sample Table 3

Correlation coefficients for 2015–2019 with the share of wooden residential
Table 2 shows the computed average mean and measures of disper­ building permits.
sion of the dependent and independent variables used for the years Variables 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015
2015–2019. The dependent variable percentage of wooden residential Population − .194** − .180** − .176** − .180** − .185**
building permits had a mean of 17.87% for the relevant 5-year period, Area .178** .208** .205** .159** .204**
with a standard deviation of 9.88 and a range of 42.32. Population density − .462** − .469** − .487** − .437** − .470**
Fig. 2 shows a map of Germany with the 401 districts. The respective Number of .492** .500** .506** .468** .503**
municipalities
districts are colored according to the share of permits for wooden resi­
Share of woodland .573** .522** .551** .554** .551**
dential buildings. The darker the color, the higher the proportion of Mean age .138** .129** .114* .090 .056
wooden residential building permits. The highest shares are found in the Old-age dependency .071 .071 .052 .054 .034
southwestern part of Germany, in the State of Baden-Württemberg. ratio
Furthermore, there appear clusters of districts having higher proportions Youth dependency .078 .179** .187** .237** .285**
ratio
in the middle part of Germany, while the northern and eastern parts of Unemployment rate − .562** − .516** − .571** − .502** − .530**
Germany have rather low figures for wood building permits. Very low Proportion with no − .077 − .022 − .009 .087 .078
figures can be found mostly in urban districts, which show generally low professional
percentages of wooden residential building permits. qualification
Proportion with .295** .327** .310** .280** .287**
professional
qualification
4.2. Influencing factors of the regional differences in the share of wooden
Proportion with − .305** − .367** − .353** − .370** − .376**
residential building permits academic
qualification
In our bivariate analysis, we computed the correlation between the Average building land − .272** − .151** − .219** − .144** − .169**
size
wooden residential building permits for 2015–2019 and the indepen­
Average building land − .212** − .232** − .189** − .207** − .227**
dent variables for that given year. We used the Pearson correlation co­ purchase value
efficient for all calculations, except for the variable number of Number of .199** .214** .235** .190** .234**
municipalities, where we used Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. construction firms
The results of this analysis are shown in Table 3. per capita

In summary, it can be stated that, of all 15 independent variables,
only two showed no significant correlation whatsoever (old-age de­
pendency ratio; proportion with no professional qualification) with the share
of wooden residential building permits, whereas two variables varied in
their significance depending on the examined year (mean age; youth
dependency ratio). In contrast, 11 of the 15 variables showed a constant
level of significance across all of the years examined with the dependent
variable. The share of woodland and the number of municipalities showed
the highest positive correlation coefficients, while the unemployment rate
and population density showed the highest negative correlation co­
efficients in relation to the share of wooden residential building permits.
Fig. 2. Districts by proportion of wooden residential building permits (in %).
Source: Own illustration
**p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.
Source: own calculation
In the next step, we examined the correlation between the assessed
variables for detecting multicollinearity as well as their linearity to­
wards the dependent variable because these are both preconditions for a
multiple linear regression model. We decided for a correlation coeffi­
cient of .70 or higher between the independent variables to be prob­
lematic in terms of collinearity (Snee, 1983). In this analysis, only the
proportion with professional qualification variable showed a conspicuously
high correlation (between 0.72 and 0.91) with respect to four other
variables (population density; mean age; proportion with academic qualifi­
cation; average building land purchase value). We therefore decided to
exclude the variable proportion with professional qualification this vari­
able in our regression model. Another issue turned out to be the high
correlation coefficient between mean age and the old-age dependency ratio
(0.96). To avoid multicollinearity, we decided to use only the variable
mean age and leave out the variable old-age dependency ratio, as other­
wise an overfitting problem could occur. After excluding these two
variables, our other variables had no collinearity problems. We then
checked the remaining independent variables for linearity towards the
dependent variable by computing scatter plots as this is a requirement
for linear regression models (Fox, 2020). The variables of area; share of
woodland; mean age; unemployment rate; proportion with academic quali­
fication; number of construction firms and average building land size
demonstrated a conclusive level of linearity. On the other hand, the
variables of population; population density; number of municipalities; youth
dependency ratio; average building land purchase value were distributed
either exponentially or strongly heteroscedastically, which made them
unusable for a linear regression model. For this reason, we excluded the
just mentioned variables as well. In summary we excluded eight out of
the 15 metrical variables collinearity, or a lack of linearity.
We then conducted a multiple linear regression analysis for every
year (2015–2019) in order to predict the wooden residential building
permits based on area; share of woodland; mean age; unemployment rate;
proportion with academic qualification; average building land size; number of
construction firms per capita, and the 16 states as a dummy variable. In
terms of the states, we used Baden-Wuerttemberg as a reference category

5
C. Mergel et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 376 (2022) 134328

due to it being one of the biggest states (regarding number of districts Table 5
and population) and having the highest percentage of wooden residen­ Standardized beta coefficients for 2015–2019.
tial building permits. Starting with 2019 as the first regression model, a Model 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015
significant regression equation was found (F (22, 373) = 30.438, p <
Beta
0.000), with an adjusted R2 of 0.621. There was no sign of autocorre­
lation (Durbin-Watson 1.803) or multi collinearity (Variance Inflation Area .198*** .215*** .234*** .165** .166**
Share of .231*** .180*** .184*** .211*** .215***
Factors <5) (James et al., 2017). In terms of assessing the goodness of fit woodland
of the regression model, the analysis showed a Gaussian distribution of Mean age .229*** .159** .205*** .206*** .149**
the standardized residues, the linearity assumption was not violated and Unemployment − .191*** − .161** − .228*** − .111* − .196***
the distribution of the residuals did not depend on the predictors. Also rate
Laborers − .175*** − .276*** − .192*** − .212*** − .242***
no outliers could be detected. As Table 4 shows, the independent vari­
academic
ables of area, share of woodland, mean age, unemployment rate and aca­ qualification
demic qualification were significant predictors of the proportion of Average − .047 .024 − .005 .023 .027
wooden residential building permits in 2019. The average building land building land
size as well as number of construction firms could not be seen as significant size
Number of − .117 − .092 − .088 − .001 .008
predictors. Regarding the states, all states but those of Hamburg, Berlin, construction
and Bremen (hence the three states only consisting of a major city) were firms
significant predictors of the proportion of wooden residential building Schleswig- − .204*** − .211*** − .182*** − .230*** − .166***
permits in 2019 given Baden-Wuerttemberg as a reference category. Holstein
Hamburg .058 .042 .057 .062 .048
Next, we calculated 4 multiple linear regressions for the years − − − − −
Lower-Saxony − .482*** − .458*** − .470*** − .503*** − .473***
2015–2018 by using both the dependent and independent variables for Bremen − .050 − .059 − .084* − .097** − .066
the given year. All of the models were significant, but they varied NRW − .410*** − .398*** − .368*** − .432*** − .384***
slightly in their adjusted R2 (2018 = .555; 2017 = .614; 2016 = .600; Hesse − .128*** − .104* − .110*** − .106* − .125***
2015 = .605). As Table 5 shows, the variables of area; share of woodland; Rhineland- − .260*** − .229*** − .241*** − .264*** − .207***
Palatinate
mean age; unemployment rate as well as the proportion of laborers with Bavaria − .254*** − .271*** − .269*** − .343*** − .296***
academic qualification turned out to be significant predictors through all Saarland − .131*** − .136*** − .097** − .119** − .121**
of the regression models. Neither the number of construction firms nor Berlin − .042 − .028 − .044 − 0.58 − .042
the average building land size were found to be predictive in any of the Brandenburg − .345*** − .338*** − .323*** − .447*** − .358***
Mecklenburg .196*** .206*** .212*** .201*** .159***
five years. Regarding the states, only Bremen varied in being a signifi­ − − − − −
Saxony − .197*** − .185*** − .195*** − .273*** − .178***
cant predictor. Otherwise, the state predictors were constant in their Saxony-Anhalt − .295*** − .309*** − .323*** − .397*** − .304***
significance and did not differ from 2019. Thuringia − .231*** − .221*** − .248*** − .327*** − .294***

***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.

5. Discussion Source: own calculations

The aim of this study was to find key factors for regional differences
the proportion of wooden residential building permits throughout the
in wooden residential building permits in Germany. Except from the old-
period from 2015 to 2019. Both the significant correlations and the
age dependency ratio and the proportion of laborers with no profes­
strong explanation of variance of the linear regression models indicate
sional qualification, all of the variables were correlated significantly to

Table 4
Linear regression model of the proportion of wooden residential building permits in 2019.
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients T 95% CI for B

B SE Beta LL UL

(Constant) − 33.659* 15.054 − 2.236 − 63.26 − 4.06

Area 4.773*** 1.378 .198 3.463 2.06 7.48
Share of woodland .176*** .032 .231 5.537 .113 .238
Mean age 1.289*** .324 .229 3.985 .653 1.925
Unemployment rate − 1.035*** .322 − .191 − 3.218 − 1.667 − .403
Laborers academic qual. − .269*** .074 − .175 − 3.637 − .414 − .123
Average building land size − .001 .001 − .047 − 1.290 − .002 .000
Number of construction firms − 2720.82 1372.21 − .117 − 1.983 − 5419 − 22.57
Schleswig-Holstein − 12.911*** 2.641 − .204 − 4.890 − 18.86 − 7.72
Hamburg − 12.957 7.234 − .058 − 1.791 − 27.18 1.27
Lower-Saxony − 17.159*** 1.795 − .482 − 9.559 − 20.69 − 13.63
Bremen − 8.005 5.519 − .050 − 1.450 − 18.86 2.85
NRW − 13.599*** 1.776 − .410 − 7.656 − 17.10 − 10.10
Hesse − 5.855*** 1.882 − .128 − 3.111 − 9.56 − 2.16
Rhineland-Palatinate − 10.237*** 1.749 − .260 − 5.853 − 13.68 − 6.80
Bavaria − 6.701*** 1.487 − .254 − 4.506 − 9.63 − 3.78
Saarland − 12.134*** 3.227 − .131 − 3.760 − 18.48 − 5.79
Berlin − 9.519 7.369 − .042 − 1.292 − 24.01 4.97
Brandenburg − 18.686*** 2.974 − .345 − 6.283 − 24.53 − 12.84
Mecklenburg − 18.154*** 3.754 − .196 − 4.836 − 25.54 − 10.77
Saxony − 12.503*** 3.241 − .197 − 3.858 − 18.88 − 6.13
Saxony-Anhalt − 18.043*** 3.077 − .295 − 5.863 − 24.09 − 11.99
Thuringia − 11.157*** 2.441 − .231 − 4.570 − 15.96 − 6.36

***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.

R2 = .642; Adjusted R2 = .621.
Source: own calculation

6
C. Mergel et al.
that the variables used were suitable as predictors of the regional dif­
ferences for the share of residential wooden building permits in
Germany.
In terms of the various states, all of the 16 states but Bremen,
Hamburg, and Berlin proved to be significant predictors of the propor­
tion of wooden residential building permits. On the one hand, this result
agrees with the literature (Dedrich, 2013) claiming that both federal
building legislation and land use and development has had an influence
on the difference in the number of wooden houses. On the other hand,
the results of the linear regression models are in accordance with an
evaluation found in the literature (Walberg et al., 2015; DHWR, 2016)
showing that Lower-Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Rhineland-Palatinate,
Brandenburg, and North Rhine-Westphalia are the states whose imple­
mentation of the Musterbauordnung (MBO) is the least favorable to using
wood in construction, especially in comparison to Baden-Wurttemberg.
Apart from Saarland, the states mentioned had the highest negative
standardized beta coefficients of all states in 2019. Although the results
of our analysis offer arguments for the high level of influence by state
legislation, it cannot be ruled out that there also might be general dif­
ferences in construction material preferences on a micro-perspective, i.
e., related to different outcomes of path dependencies and building
traditions between the states (Purkus et al., 2020; Walberg, 2016).
The variables used to cover the geographical conditions, namely
population, area, population density, number of municipalities, and
share of woodland all correlated highly with the proportion of wooden
residential building permits. The negative correlation coefficients of
population and population density as well as the positive correlation of
area support the assumption that rural areas in particular are associated
with a high percentage of wooden residential buildings (Purkus et al.,
2020). In highly populated areas with less available building land,
mainly multi-family houses are built and wood is not taken into account
as a construction material. This tendency is due to building regulations,
and presumably also due to the negative perceptions of architects,
building engineers, and stakeholders with regard to wood as a con­
struction material for multi–family houses (Roos et al., 2010). Since
there is no significant correlation between population and area in our
data, it can be assumed that as area increases, the likelihood of a district
being rural also increases. This could contribute to the influence of area
as a significant predictor. Whereas population and population density
showed no linearity and were therefore not suitable for the linear
regression models, the variable of area can be understood as being a
constant significant predictor of the percentage of wooden residential
building permits. The positive correlation and strong heteroscedasticity
between the proportion of wooden residential buildings and the number
of municipalities can be explained mainly by the fact that densely
populated districts are mostly either districts cities (consisting of only
one district) or have only a very small number of municipalities. The
connection between the share of woodland and the number of wooden
residential building permits, which showed the highest correlation and
had one of the highest standardized beta coefficients in the regression
models, is in line with indications found in the literature (Walberg,
2016; Kies et al., 2011; Purkus et al., 2020). It can be assumed that re­
gions having a substantial amount of available forest economically profit
from using wood as a construction material. Additionally, these regions
might benefit from a wood-based building tradition, combined with
more specialized construction firms.
Regarding the demographic structure, the relevant variables of mean
age, youth dependency ratio, unemployment rate, as well as the pro­
portion of workers with an academic qualification are of specific inter­
est. The positive correlation coefficient for youth dependency ratio, at
least from 2015 to 2018, is in accordance with the literature (Høibø
et al., 2015; Toppinen et al., 2018; Petruch and Walcher, 2021) stating
that younger people raise sustainability-related concerns in regard to
construction materials more frequently and prefer wood because they
consider it to be more eco-friendly. While the youth dependency ratio
was heteroscedastically distributed and therefore could not be used in
7
Journal of Cleaner Production 376 (2022) 134328
the linear regression models, the positive correlation coefficient and
standardized beta of the variable mean age contradicted the variable
youth dependency ratio as well as findings in the literature. The constant
negative correlation and the negative beta coefficient in the linear
regression models for 2015–2019 as related to the proportion of workers
with an academic qualification also contradicted the findings in the
literature, e.g., Gold and Rubik (2009b) view a higher education as
being promising for building with wood. One possible explanation for
this contradiction might be a connection to the high negative correlation
between the proportion of wooden residential building permits and the
unemployment rate, which was confirmed by the linear regression
models. A high unemployment rate can be an indication of the economic
weakness of a region. These specific regions are generally confronted
with a lack of in-migration, especially by younger and more highly
educated individuals, which leads to a higher average age among the
remaining citizens (Mertens and Haas, 2006). Consequently, the tense
economic situation in a region leads to a disproportionately low
occurrence of construction as well as expulsion of new building land,
especially for single and duplex houses, which generally have higher
proportions of wood as a construction material (Filippi, 2013). In
conclusion, both urban areas and economically weak regions have the
same negative effect on the proportion of wooden residential buildings.
In terms of construction and building land, we examined the influence
of average building land size, the average building land purchase value,
as well as the number of construction firms per capita. Although the
significant negative correlation of average building land size is in line
with the literature (Kaiser and Mantau, 2013), the negative effect of the
average purchase values contradicts the findings by Gans (2017) since
decreasing land prices, and therefore declining population density,
would presumably be associated with higher percentages of wooden
residential buildings. While the average building land purchase value in
Euro per m2 could not be used in the regression models due to missing
linearity, the average building land size was not identified as being a
significant predictor for the proportion of wooden residential buildings
in any of the regression models. Nor could the number of construction
firms per capita be identified as a significant predictor in any of the
regression models for the regional differences in the percentage of
wooden residential permits.
The results reported herein should still be considered in the light of
some limitations. First, the study was highly limited with respect to the
available data. It can be assumed that there are influencing factors that
could not be covered by our data collection. This is explicitly the case for
variables concerning construction prices as they underlie high fluctua­
tion in terms of year and region. Second, eight of the 15 variables
originally utilized had to be excluded due to collinearity or lacking
linearity. Therefore the multivariate influence of these variables cannot
be estimated by our research, especially in contrast to the correlating
independent variables. Third, the explanatory force of the linkage be­
tween the variables used and the share of wooden residential building
permits is limited, as this study was designed to be exploratory, and the
interpreted results have to be verified by control variables as well as
more research.
6. Conclusion
In summary, we have identified four key factors as an explanation for
the regional differences of wooden residential building permits in Ger­
many. We find that there is a substantial influence by the states through
the implementation of the Musterbauordnung (MBO) as well as general
differences in building regulations influencing the favorability of using
wood in the construction of residential buildings. The share of woodland
positively influences the share of wooden houses, presumably based on
both a benefit to local industry and a historical building tradition and
path dependency. Highly urban and dense areas have a negative effect
on wooden buildings as they are mostly constrained to multi-family
houses, in which wood is not preferred or allowed as a construction
C. Mergel et al.
material. Economically weak regions have a negative effect on the share
of wooden residential buildings as they already have a high percentage
of unoccupied and insufficiently used residential buildings and thus do
not promote building new family houses, where wood as a building
material has the highest relevance.
The results of this study suggests two main areas of activities to in­
crease the proportion of wood as a more climate-friendly building ma­
terial in the residential construction sector: First, the proportion of wood
in multi-family houses must be clearly increased, as it is mainly
responsible for the fact that especially large, densely populated cities
and districts have a very low proportion of wooden houses. This can be
achieved mainly through state or municipal actions, for example by
giving preference to wood construction in public works or by making it
easier to receive building permits for wooden multi-family houses.
Second, if the German federal government wants to increase the usage of
climate-friendly resources in the building sector in order to implement
the Paris Agreement, a renewed adaption of the building regulations (e.
g. by making the wood-related aspects of the MBO mandatory) would be
an option. This study alleviates the lack of research in the field of
climate-friendly construction and contributes to a better understanding
of regional differences in the proportion of wooden residential building
permits in Germany. This is particularly relevant, since no empirical
studies whatsoever exist on this specific research topic. The findings of
this study thus also offer the possibility of further research, we suggest
be taken into account. This should especially be the case for the influ­
ence of both state legislation and the economic situation of a given re­
gion. Furthermore, an additional time series analysis containing a higher
number of years could trace an effect over time by the examined vari­
ables in future research.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Christian Mergel: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal anal­
ysis, Writing – original draft. Klaus Menrad: Supervision, Resources,
Writing – review & editing. Thomas Decker: Project administration,
Data curation, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
Statistische Ämter des Bundes und Länder, 2021. Regionalbanken Deutschland.
https://www.regionalstatistik.de/genesis/online/.
Bundesministerium für Umwelt, 2016. Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit (BMU).
Klimaschutzplan 2050: Klimaschutzpolitische Grundsätze und Ziele der
Bundesregierung. https://www.bmuv.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Kl
imaschutz/klimaschutzplan_2050_bf.pdf.
Dangel, U., 2016. Wendepunkt im Holzbau: Neue Wirtschaftsformen. Birkhäuser.
https://doi.org/10.1515/978303560859.
Dedrich, L., 2013. Baurechtliche Hemmnisse und Ansatzpunkte zur Überwindung. In:
Weimar, H., Jochem, D. (Eds.), Holzverwendung im Bauwesen: Eine Marktstudie im
Rahmen der "Charta für Holz. Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut. https://doi.org/
10.3220/REP_9_2013 (Thünen Report, 9).
Deutscher Holzwirtschaftsrat e. V. (DHWR), 2016. Roadmap Holzwirtschaft 2025.
Beitrag der Holzwirtschaft zu einer biobasierten Wirtschaft. https://www.dhwr.de/d
ocs/dhwr_roadmap_holzwirtschaft_2025_web.pdf.
Drexler, H., El-khouli, S., 2012. Nachhaltige Wohnkonzepte: Entwurfsmethoden und
Prozesse. Institut für internationale Architektur-Dokumentation. https://doi.org/
10.11129/detail.9783955531201.
Einem, E. (Ed.), 2016. Wohnen: Markt in Schieflage - Politik in Not. Springer VS.
European Commission, 2016a. The European Construction Sector. A Global Partner. htt
ps://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/european-construction-sector-global-partner-
0_en.
8
Journal of Cleaner Production 376 (2022) 134328
European Commission, 2016b. EU Construction & Demolition Waste Management
Protocol. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/eu-construction-and-demolition-wa
ste-protocol-0_en.
European Commission, 2021. Construction. Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship
and SMEs. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/construction_en.
Eurostat, 2020. Housing in Europe — statistics visualised. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat
/cache/digpub/housing/.
Filippi, M., 2013. Marketingaspekte der Holzverwendung im Bauwesen. In: Weimar, H.,
Jochem, D. (Eds.), Holzverwendung im Bauwesen: Eine Marktstudie im Rahmen der
"Charta für Holz. Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut. https://doi.org/10.3220/
REP_9_2013 (Thünen Report, 9).
Fox, J., 2020. Regression Diagnostics: an Introduction, second ed. SAGE (Quantitative
applications in the social sciences, 79).
Gans, P., 2017. Struktur der deutschen Immobilienmärke. In: Rottke, N., Voigtländer, M.
(Eds.), Immobilienwirtschaftslehre - Ökonomie. Springer Gabler.
Global alliance for buildings and construction (GlobalABC), international energy agency
and the united nations environment programme. 2019 global status report for
buildings and construction: Towards a zero-emission, efficient and resilient buildings
and construction sector, 2019.
Gold, S., Rubik, F., 2009a. Consumer attitudes towards timber as a construction material
and towards timber frame houses – selected findings of a representative survey
among the German population. J. Clean. Prod. 17 (2), 303–309. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.07.001.
Gold, S., Rubik, F., 2009b. Consumer affinity to wooden framehouses: a typology of
German consumers. Int. J. Environ. Sustain Dev. 8 (1), 78–93.
Høibø, O., Hansen, E., Nybakk, E., 2015. Building material preferences with a focus on
wood in urban housing: durability and environmental impacts. Can. J. For. Res. 45
(11), 1617–1627. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2015-0123.
Holzbau, Urbaner, 2013. Holzbau im hochverdichteten Stadtraum. Internationale
Bauausstellung Hamburg. Mai 2013. https://epub.sub.uni-hamburg.de/epub/vollte
xte/2013/25860/pdf/130612_Urbaner_Holzbau_web.pdf.
Hypostat, 2020. A Review of Europe’s Mortgage and Housing Markets. European
Mortgage Federation. https://hypo.org/app/uploads/sites/3/2020/11/HYPOSTAT-
2020-FINAL.pdf.
James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., 2017. An Introduction to Statistical
Learning: with Applications in R, 7th printing edition. Springer.
Jochem, D., 2013. Wettbewerb und preisliche Relationen von Baustoffen und
Bauleistungen. In: Weimar, H., Jochem, D. (Eds.), Holzverwendung im Bauwesen:
Eine Marktstudie im Rahmen der "Charta für Holz. Johann Heinrich von Thünen-
Institut. https://doi.org/10.3220/REP_9_2013 (Thünen Report, 9).
Kaiser, C., Mantau, U., 2013. Regionale schwerpunkte der Holzverwendung. In:
Weimar, H., Jochem, D. (Eds.), Holzverwendung im Bauwesen: Eine Marktstudie im
Rahmen der "Charta für Holz. Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut. https://doi.org/
10.3220/REP_9_2013 (Thünen Report, 9).
Kies, U., Klein, D., Schulte, A., 2011. Cluster Wald und Holz Deutschland:
Makroökonomische Bedeutung, regionale Zentren und Strukturwandel der
Beschäftigung in Holz-basierten Wirtschaftszweigen. In: Conference: Cluster in
Mitteldeutschland, 25.-26. Nov 2010. IWH – Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung Halle,
IWH Sonderheft.
Krötsch, S., 2018. Holz - nachhaltiger Baustoff mit Zukunft. In: first ed.von Hauff, M.,
Nguyen, T. (Eds.), Fortschritte in der Nachhaltigkeitsforschung, pp. 157–175 Nomos
(Nachhaltige Entwicklung, Band 7).
Lähtinen, K., Harju, C., Toppinen, A., 2019. Consumers’ perception on the properties of
wood affecting their willingness to live in and prejudices against houses made of
timber. Wood Mater. Sci. Eng. 14 (1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17480272.2019.1615548.
Lähtinen, K., Häyrinen, L., Roos, A., Toppinen, A., Cabezas, F., Thorsen, B., Hujala, T.,
Nyrud, A., Hoen, H., 2021. Consumer housing values and prejudices against living in
wooden homes in the Nordic region. Silva Fenn. 55 (2) https://doi.org/10.14214/
sf.10503.
Lißner, K., Rug, W., 2000. Holzbausanierung: Grundlagen und Praxis der sicheren
Ausführung. Springer.
Mahapatra, K., Gustavsson, L., Hemström, K., 2012. Multi-storey wood-frame buildings
in Germany, Sweden and the UK. Construct. Innovat. 12 (1), 62–85. https://doi.org/
10.1108/14714171211197508.
Mertens, A., Haas, A., 2006. Regionale Arbeitslosigkeit und Arbeitsplatzwechsel in
Deutschland: Eine Analyse auf Kreisebene. Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaften 26,
147–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10037-006-0002-3.
Monahan, J., Powell, J.C., 2011. An embodied carbon and energy analysis of modern
methods of construction in housing: a case study using a life cycle assessment
framework. Energy Build. 43, 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2010.09.005.
Moresová, M., Sedliačiková, M., Štefko, J., Benčiková, D., 2019. Perception of wooden
houses in the Slovak Republik. Acata Facultatis Xylologiae Zvolen 61 (2), 121–135.
Nan, C., Jie, Z., 2020. Estimation of environmental damages of cement building and
environmental benefits of prefabricated building: a case study based on a residential
Project in henan province, China. NEPT 19, 721–728. https://doi.org/10.46488/
NEPT.2020.v19i02.027, 02.
Petruch, M., Walcher, D., 2021. Timber for future? Attitudes towards timber construction
by young millennials in Austria – Marketing implications from a representative
study. J. Clean. Prod. 294 (5882) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126324.
Purkus, A., Lüdtke, J., Jochem, D., Rüter, S., Weimar, H., 2020. Entwicklung der
Rahmenbedingungen für das Bauen mit Holz in Deutschland: Eine
Innovationssystemanalyse im Kontext der Evaluation der Charta für Holz2.0. Johann
Heinrich von Thünen-Institut. https://doi.org/10.3220/REP1591254742000
(Thühnen Report, 78).
C. Mergel et al.
Roos, A., Woxblom, L., McCluskey, D., 2010. The influence of architects and structural
engineers on timber in construction – perceptions and roles. Silva Fenn. 44 (5),
871–884. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.126.
Ruebesam, H., 1990. Die Entwicklungslinien ausgewählter Baustoffe in ihrer
gesellschaftlichen sowie technik- und wissenschaftshistorischen Determinationen in
synoptisch-chronologischer Darstellung für den Zeitraum 1750 bis 1990.
Bauakademie der DDR.
Schäfers, B., 2010. Architektursoziologie. In: Kneer, G., Schroer, M. (Eds.), Handbuch
Spezielle Soziologien, first ed. VS-Verlag, pp. 51–66.
Schauerte, T., 2010. Wooden house construction in Scandinavia – a model for Europe. In:
16th Internationales Holzbau-Forum 10. https://www.forum-holzbau.com/pdf/ih
f10_schauerte.pdf.
Snee, R.D., 1983. Regression diagnostics: identifying influential data and sources of
collinearity. J. Qual. Technol. 15, 149–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00224065.1983.11978865.
Spear, M., Hill, C., Norton, A., Price, C., 2019. Wood in construction in the UK: an
analysis of carbon abatement potential. https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-conten
t/uploads/2019/07/Wood-in-Construction-in-the-UK-An-Analysis-of-Carbon-Abate
ment-Potential-BioComposites-Centre.pdf.
Stark, J., Wicht, B., 1998. Geschichte der Baustoffe. Bauverlag.
Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis), 2021a. Bauen und Wohnen: Baugenehmigungen von
Wohn- und Nichtwohngebäuden nach überwiegend verwendetem Baustoff. Lange
Reihen z. T. ab, 1980. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Branchen-Unternehme
n/Bauen/Publikationen/Downloads-Bautaetigkeit/baugenehmigungen-bausto
ff-pdf-5311107.pdf?__blob=publicationFile.
Journal of Cleaner Production 376 (2022) 134328
Statistisches Bundesamt Destatis, 2021b. Bundesländer mit Hauptstädten nach Fläche
und Bevölkerung. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Laender-Regionen/Regiona
les/Gemeindeverzeichnis/Administrativ/02-bundeslaender.html.
Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis), 2021c. Bodenfläche nach Art der tatsächlichen
Nutzung - fachserie 3 Reihe 5.1 - 2016, 2020. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/
Branchen-Unternehmen/Landwirtschaft-Forstwirtschaft-Fischerei/Flaechennutzun
g/Publikationen/Downloads-Flaechennutzung/bodenflaechennutzun
g-2030510207004.html.
Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis), 2021d. Preise. Kaufwerte für Bauland. 4. Vierteljahr
2020. Fachserie 17 Reihe 5. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Wirtschaft/Pre
ise/Baupreise-Immobilienpreisindex/Publikationen/Downloads-Bau-und-Imm
obilienpreisindex/kaufwerte-bauland-j-2170500207004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
.
Toppinen, A., Röhr, A., Pätäri, S., Lähtinen, K., Toivonen, R., 2018. The future of wooden
multistory construction in the forest bioeconomy – a Delphi study from Finland and
Sweden. J. Flood Eng. (JFE) 31, 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2017.05.001.
Walberg, D., 2016. Solid and timber construction in residential buildings. Mauerwerk 20
(1), 16–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/dama.201600685.
Walberg, D., Brosius, O., Schulze, T., Cramer, A., 2015. Massiv- und Holzbau bei
Wohngebäuden: Vergleich von massiven Bauweisen mit Holzfertigbauten aus
kostenseitiger, bautechnischer und nachhaltiger Sicht. Arbeitsgemeinschaft für
Zeitgemäßes Bauen. Bauforschungsbericht, 68).
Weimar, H., Jochem, D. (Eds.), 2013. Holzverwendung im Bauwesen: Eine Marktstudie
im Rahmen der "Charta für Holz. Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut. https://doi.
org/10.3220/REP_9_2013 (Thünen Report, 9).