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 sequestered carbon can only be achieved by a higher use of

biomass-based material like timber (Monahan and Powell, 2011).
The construction sector forms an important backbone of the Euro­ Although the percentage of residential building permits relying on
pean Union economy, contributing almost 9% of GDP and providing 18 timber as the predominant construction material in Germany actually
million jobs (European Commission, 2021). In 2019, EU citizens have rose from 16.1% in 2016 to 20.4% in 2020 (Statistisches Bundesamt,
invested 5.3% of GDP in housing on average (Eurostat, 2020). Over one 2021a), the share of wooden residential buildings is quite low, especially
million houses are built every year in the EU (Hypostat, 2020). While the in comparison to the Nordic European countries of Finland, Sweden and
construction sector has continuously been growing in most European Norway, where, even in 2009, up to 90% of detached houses where
countries in recent years and, in parallel, the number of private houses made of wood (Schauerte, 2010). Additionally, one can observe vast
built (Hypostat, 2020), this sector also causes substantial negative regional differences, whereby the proportion of wooden residential
environmental concerns. Building construction and operations account building permits in Germany varies from 5.6% up to 33.4%, depending
for the largest share of both final energy use (36%) and energy-related on the state, and even from 0 to over 50% at the district level (Statis­
CO2 emissions (39%) worldwide (GlobalABC, 2019). As a result, the tisches Bundesamt, 2021a). While studies can be found examining the
EU has come to regard the building sector as one of the main targets in prejudice and perceptions regarding wooden residential building and
their aim for a 30% cut in annual primary energy consumption by 2030 how that might affect the people’s likelihood of building or living in a
(European Commission, 2016a). Another environmental issue concern­ house made of wood (e.g., Roos et al., 2010; Gold and Rubik, 2009a;
ing the construction sector is the tremendous amount of construction Lähtinen et al., 2019; Lähtinen et al., 2021; Petruch and Walcher, 2021),
and demolition waste, which represents about one third of total waste there are no studies in the scientific literature that analyze the reasons
produced in the EU (European Commission, 2016b). Buildings made behind the regional differences in the proportion of wooden residential
with cement and bricks contribute significantly to waste, dust and buildings. However, this knowledge is highly relevant since this insight
vegetation pollution (Nan and Jie, 2020). also plays a crucial role for policy makers in enhancing the proportion of
In 2016, the German federal government adopted the Climate Action buildings made of wood in general, thus providing them with opportu­
Plan 2050 to fulfill the demands of the Paris Agreement. Among the nities to pursue in order to increase climate-friendly construction.
main goals and measures is the increased usage of more climate-friendly This paper therefore aims to close the research gap and offer an
resources in construction, one of the latter being timber in particular explanation for the immense regional differences in wooden residential
(BMU, 2016). This aim is in accordance with several studies that building proportions in Germany. Since no empirical studies whatsoever
examine opportunities for facing environmental challenges in con­ exist on this specific research gap, we decided to conduct an exploratory
struction. By expanding the proportion of wood used in construction, approach without any a priori hypothesis. Since Germany’s regions can
particularly that of private homes, one could reduce the GHG emissions be distinguished between the federal, district, and municipal levels, we
significantly (Spear et al., 2019; Monahan and Powell, 2011). An decided upon the district level as an examination unit regarding regional
increased use of wood frames to replace concrete or steel frames in differences because it provided the greatest analysis opportunities.
building construction can reduce net CO2 emission (Mahapatra et al., Additionally, the districts have final jurisdiction over the building per­
2012). Even though a reduction of embodied carbon within buildings mits. We collected the number of building permits (from 2015 to 2019
could be achieved through various measures, an increase in stored and distinguished between wood and non-wood construction material)

* 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.
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. Journal of Cleaner Production 376 (2022) 134328

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

3
C. Mergel et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 376 (2022) 134328

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

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, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.
only two showed no significant correlation whatsoever (old-age de­ Source: own calculation
pendency ratio; proportion with no professional qualification) with the share
of wooden residential building permits, whereas two variables varied in In the next step, we examined the correlation between the assessed
their significance depending on the examined year (mean age; youth variables for detecting multicollinearity as well as their linearity to­
dependency ratio). In contrast, 11 of the 15 variables showed a constant wards the dependent variable because these are both preconditions for a
level of significance across all of the years examined with the dependent multiple linear regression model. We decided for a correlation coeffi­
variable. The share of woodland and the number of municipalities showed cient of .70 or higher between the independent variables to be prob­
the highest positive correlation coefficients, while the unemployment rate lematic in terms of collinearity (Snee, 1983). In this analysis, only the
and population density showed the highest negative correlation co­ proportion with professional qualification variable showed a conspicuously
efficients in relation to the share of wooden residential building permits. 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
Fig. 2. Districts by proportion of wooden residential building permits (in %). construction firms per capita, and the 16 states as a dummy variable. In
Source: Own illustration 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. Journal of Cleaner Production 376 (2022) 134328

that the variables used were suitable as predictors of the regional dif­ the linear regression models, the positive correlation coefficient and
ferences for the share of residential wooden building permits in standardized beta of the variable mean age contradicted the variable
Germany. youth dependency ratio as well as findings in the literature. The constant
In terms of the various states, all of the 16 states but Bremen, negative correlation and the negative beta coefficient in the linear
Hamburg, and Berlin proved to be significant predictors of the propor­ regression models for 2015–2019 as related to the proportion of workers
tion of wooden residential building permits. On the one hand, this result with an academic qualification also contradicted the findings in the
agrees with the literature (Dedrich, 2013) claiming that both federal literature, e.g., Gold and Rubik (2009b) view a higher education as
building legislation and land use and development has had an influence being promising for building with wood. One possible explanation for
on the difference in the number of wooden houses. On the other hand, this contradiction might be a connection to the high negative correlation
the results of the linear regression models are in accordance with an between the proportion of wooden residential building permits and the
evaluation found in the literature (Walberg et al., 2015; DHWR, 2016) unemployment rate, which was confirmed by the linear regression
showing that Lower-Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Rhineland-Palatinate, models. A high unemployment rate can be an indication of the economic
Brandenburg, and North Rhine-Westphalia are the states whose imple­ weakness of a region. These specific regions are generally confronted
mentation of the Musterbauordnung (MBO) is the least favorable to using with a lack of in-migration, especially by younger and more highly
wood in construction, especially in comparison to Baden-Wurttemberg. educated individuals, which leads to a higher average age among the
Apart from Saarland, the states mentioned had the highest negative remaining citizens (Mertens and Haas, 2006). Consequently, the tense
standardized beta coefficients of all states in 2019. Although the results economic situation in a region leads to a disproportionately low
of our analysis offer arguments for the high level of influence by state occurrence of construction as well as expulsion of new building land,
legislation, it cannot be ruled out that there also might be general dif­ especially for single and duplex houses, which generally have higher
ferences in construction material preferences on a micro-perspective, i. proportions of wood as a construction material (Filippi, 2013). In
e., related to different outcomes of path dependencies and building conclusion, both urban areas and economically weak regions have the
traditions between the states (Purkus et al., 2020; Walberg, 2016). same negative effect on the proportion of wooden residential buildings.
The variables used to cover the geographical conditions, namely In terms of construction and building land, we examined the influence
population, area, population density, number of municipalities, and of average building land size, the average building land purchase value,
share of woodland all correlated highly with the proportion of wooden as well as the number of construction firms per capita. Although the
residential building permits. The negative correlation coefficients of significant negative correlation of average building land size is in line
population and population density as well as the positive correlation of with the literature (Kaiser and Mantau, 2013), the negative effect of the
area support the assumption that rural areas in particular are associated average purchase values contradicts the findings by Gans (2017) since
with a high percentage of wooden residential buildings (Purkus et al., decreasing land prices, and therefore declining population density,
2020). In highly populated areas with less available building land, would presumably be associated with higher percentages of wooden
mainly multi-family houses are built and wood is not taken into account residential buildings. While the average building land purchase value in
as a construction material. This tendency is due to building regulations, Euro per m2 could not be used in the regression models due to missing
and presumably also due to the negative perceptions of architects, linearity, the average building land size was not identified as being a
building engineers, and stakeholders with regard to wood as a con­ significant predictor for the proportion of wooden residential buildings
struction material for multi–family houses (Roos et al., 2010). Since in any of the regression models. Nor could the number of construction
there is no significant correlation between population and area in our firms per capita be identified as a significant predictor in any of the
data, it can be assumed that as area increases, the likelihood of a district regression models for the regional differences in the percentage of
being rural also increases. This could contribute to the influence of area wooden residential permits.
as a significant predictor. Whereas population and population density The results reported herein should still be considered in the light of
showed no linearity and were therefore not suitable for the linear some limitations. First, the study was highly limited with respect to the
regression models, the variable of area can be understood as being a available data. It can be assumed that there are influencing factors that
constant significant predictor of the percentage of wooden residential could not be covered by our data collection. This is explicitly the case for
building permits. The positive correlation and strong heteroscedasticity variables concerning construction prices as they underlie high fluctua­
between the proportion of wooden residential buildings and the number tion in terms of year and region. Second, eight of the 15 variables
of municipalities can be explained mainly by the fact that densely originally utilized had to be excluded due to collinearity or lacking
populated districts are mostly either districts cities (consisting of only linearity. Therefore the multivariate influence of these variables cannot
one district) or have only a very small number of municipalities. The be estimated by our research, especially in contrast to the correlating
connection between the share of woodland and the number of wooden independent variables. Third, the explanatory force of the linkage be­
residential building permits, which showed the highest correlation and tween the variables used and the share of wooden residential building
had one of the highest standardized beta coefficients in the regression permits is limited, as this study was designed to be exploratory, and the
models, is in line with indications found in the literature (Walberg, interpreted results have to be verified by control variables as well as
2016; Kies et al., 2011; Purkus et al., 2020). It can be assumed that re­ more research.
gions having a substantial amount of available forest economically profit
from using wood as a construction material. Additionally, these regions 6. Conclusion
might benefit from a wood-based building tradition, combined with
more specialized construction firms. In summary, we have identified four key factors as an explanation for
Regarding the demographic structure, the relevant variables of mean the regional differences of wooden residential building permits in Ger­
age, youth dependency ratio, unemployment rate, as well as the pro­ many. We find that there is a substantial influence by the states through
portion of workers with an academic qualification are of specific inter­ the implementation of the Musterbauordnung (MBO) as well as general
est. The positive correlation coefficient for youth dependency ratio, at differences in building regulations influencing the favorability of using
least from 2015 to 2018, is in accordance with the literature (Høibø wood in the construction of residential buildings. The share of woodland
et al., 2015; Toppinen et al., 2018; Petruch and Walcher, 2021) stating positively influences the share of wooden houses, presumably based on
that younger people raise sustainability-related concerns in regard to both a benefit to local industry and a historical building tradition and
construction materials more frequently and prefer wood because they path dependency. Highly urban and dense areas have a negative effect
consider it to be more eco-friendly. While the youth dependency ratio on wooden buildings as they are mostly constrained to multi-family
was heteroscedastically distributed and therefore could not be used in houses, in which wood is not preferred or allowed as a construction

7
C. Mergel et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 376 (2022) 134328

material. Economically weak regions have a negative effect on the share European Commission, 2016b. EU Construction & Demolition Waste Management
Protocol. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/eu-construction-and-demolition-wa
of wooden residential buildings as they already have a high percentage
ste-protocol-0_en.
of unoccupied and insufficiently used residential buildings and thus do European Commission, 2021. Construction. Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship
not promote building new family houses, where wood as a building and SMEs. https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/construction_en.
material has the highest relevance. Eurostat, 2020. Housing in Europe — statistics visualised. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat
/cache/digpub/housing/.
The results of this study suggests two main areas of activities to in­ Filippi, M., 2013. Marketingaspekte der Holzverwendung im Bauwesen. In: Weimar, H.,
crease the proportion of wood as a more climate-friendly building ma­ Jochem, D. (Eds.), Holzverwendung im Bauwesen: Eine Marktstudie im Rahmen der
terial in the residential construction sector: First, the proportion of wood "Charta für Holz. Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut. https://doi.org/10.3220/
REP_9_2013 (Thünen Report, 9).
in multi-family houses must be clearly increased, as it is mainly Fox, J., 2020. Regression Diagnostics: an Introduction, second ed. SAGE (Quantitative
responsible for the fact that especially large, densely populated cities applications in the social sciences, 79).
and districts have a very low proportion of wooden houses. This can be Gans, P., 2017. Struktur der deutschen Immobilienmärke. In: Rottke, N., Voigtländer, M.
(Eds.), Immobilienwirtschaftslehre - Ökonomie. Springer Gabler.
achieved mainly through state or municipal actions, for example by Global alliance for buildings and construction (GlobalABC), international energy agency
giving preference to wood construction in public works or by making it and the united nations environment programme. 2019 global status report for
easier to receive building permits for wooden multi-family houses. buildings and construction: Towards a zero-emission, efficient and resilient buildings
and construction sector, 2019.
Second, if the German federal government wants to increase the usage of Gold, S., Rubik, F., 2009a. Consumer attitudes towards timber as a construction material
climate-friendly resources in the building sector in order to implement and towards timber frame houses – selected findings of a representative survey
the Paris Agreement, a renewed adaption of the building regulations (e. among the German population. J. Clean. Prod. 17 (2), 303–309. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.07.001.
g. by making the wood-related aspects of the MBO mandatory) would be
Gold, S., Rubik, F., 2009b. Consumer affinity to wooden framehouses: a typology of
an option. This study alleviates the lack of research in the field of German consumers. Int. J. Environ. Sustain Dev. 8 (1), 78–93.
climate-friendly construction and contributes to a better understanding Høibø, O., Hansen, E., Nybakk, E., 2015. Building material preferences with a focus on
of regional differences in the proportion of wooden residential building wood in urban housing: durability and environmental impacts. Can. J. For. Res. 45
(11), 1617–1627. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2015-0123.
permits in Germany. This is particularly relevant, since no empirical Holzbau, Urbaner, 2013. Holzbau im hochverdichteten Stadtraum. Internationale
studies whatsoever exist on this specific research topic. The findings of Bauausstellung Hamburg. Mai 2013. https://epub.sub.uni-hamburg.de/epub/vollte
this study thus also offer the possibility of further research, we suggest xte/2013/25860/pdf/130612_Urbaner_Holzbau_web.pdf.
Hypostat, 2020. A Review of Europe’s Mortgage and Housing Markets. European
be taken into account. This should especially be the case for the influ­ Mortgage Federation. https://hypo.org/app/uploads/sites/3/2020/11/HYPOSTAT-
ence of both state legislation and the economic situation of a given re­ 2020-FINAL.pdf.
gion. Furthermore, an additional time series analysis containing a higher James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., 2017. An Introduction to Statistical
Learning: with Applications in R, 7th printing edition. Springer.
number of years could trace an effect over time by the examined vari­ Jochem, D., 2013. Wettbewerb und preisliche Relationen von Baustoffen und
ables in future research. 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).
CRediT authorship contribution statement Kaiser, C., Mantau, U., 2013. Regionale schwerpunkte der Holzverwendung. In:
Weimar, H., Jochem, D. (Eds.), Holzverwendung im Bauwesen: Eine Marktstudie im
Christian Mergel: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal anal­ Rahmen der "Charta für Holz. Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut. https://doi.org/
10.3220/REP_9_2013 (Thünen Report, 9).
ysis, Writing – original draft. Klaus Menrad: Supervision, Resources, Kies, U., Klein, D., Schulte, A., 2011. Cluster Wald und Holz Deutschland:
Writing – review & editing. Thomas Decker: Project administration, Makroökonomische Bedeutung, regionale Zentren und Strukturwandel der
Data curation, Writing – review & editing. Beschäftigung in Holz-basierten Wirtschaftszweigen. In: Conference: Cluster in
Mitteldeutschland, 25.-26. Nov 2010. IWH – Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung Halle,
IWH Sonderheft.
Declaration of competing interest 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).
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Lähtinen, K., Harju, C., Toppinen, A., 2019. Consumers’ perception on the properties of
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence wood affecting their willingness to live in and prejudices against houses made of
the work reported in this paper. 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.,
Data availability 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.
Data will be made available on request. Lißner, K., Rug, W., 2000. Holzbausanierung: Grundlagen und Praxis der sicheren
Ausführung. Springer.
References 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.
Statistische Ämter des Bundes und Länder, 2021. Regionalbanken Deutschland.
Mertens, A., Haas, A., 2006. Regionale Arbeitslosigkeit und Arbeitsplatzwechsel in
https://www.regionalstatistik.de/genesis/online/.
Deutschland: Eine Analyse auf Kreisebene. Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaften 26,
Bundesministerium für Umwelt, 2016. Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit (BMU).
147–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10037-006-0002-3.
Klimaschutzplan 2050: Klimaschutzpolitische Grundsätze und Ziele der
Monahan, J., Powell, J.C., 2011. An embodied carbon and energy analysis of modern
Bundesregierung. https://www.bmuv.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Kl
methods of construction in housing: a case study using a life cycle assessment
imaschutz/klimaschutzplan_2050_bf.pdf.
framework. Energy Build. 43, 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Dangel, U., 2016. Wendepunkt im Holzbau: Neue Wirtschaftsformen. Birkhäuser.
enbuild.2010.09.005.
https://doi.org/10.1515/978303560859.
Moresová, M., Sedliačiková, M., Štefko, J., Benčiková, D., 2019. Perception of wooden
Dedrich, L., 2013. Baurechtliche Hemmnisse und Ansatzpunkte zur Überwindung. In:
houses in the Slovak Republik. Acata Facultatis Xylologiae Zvolen 61 (2), 121–135.
Weimar, H., Jochem, D. (Eds.), Holzverwendung im Bauwesen: Eine Marktstudie im
Nan, C., Jie, Z., 2020. Estimation of environmental damages of cement building and
Rahmen der "Charta für Holz. Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut. https://doi.org/
environmental benefits of prefabricated building: a case study based on a residential
10.3220/REP_9_2013 (Thünen Report, 9).
Project in henan province, China. NEPT 19, 721–728. https://doi.org/10.46488/
Deutscher Holzwirtschaftsrat e. V. (DHWR), 2016. Roadmap Holzwirtschaft 2025.
NEPT.2020.v19i02.027, 02.
Beitrag der Holzwirtschaft zu einer biobasierten Wirtschaft. https://www.dhwr.de/d
Petruch, M., Walcher, D., 2021. Timber for future? Attitudes towards timber construction
ocs/dhwr_roadmap_holzwirtschaft_2025_web.pdf.
by young millennials in Austria – Marketing implications from a representative
Drexler, H., El-khouli, S., 2012. Nachhaltige Wohnkonzepte: Entwurfsmethoden und
study. J. Clean. Prod. 294 (5882) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126324.
Prozesse. Institut für internationale Architektur-Dokumentation. https://doi.org/
Purkus, A., Lüdtke, J., Jochem, D., Rüter, S., Weimar, H., 2020. Entwicklung der
10.11129/detail.9783955531201.
Rahmenbedingungen für das Bauen mit Holz in Deutschland: Eine
Einem, E. (Ed.), 2016. Wohnen: Markt in Schieflage - Politik in Not. Springer VS.
Innovationssystemanalyse im Kontext der Evaluation der Charta für Holz2.0. Johann
European Commission, 2016a. The European Construction Sector. A Global Partner. htt
Heinrich von Thünen-Institut. https://doi.org/10.3220/REP1591254742000
ps://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/european-construction-sector-global-partner-
(Thühnen Report, 78).
0_en.

8
C. Mergel et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 376 (2022) 134328

Roos, A., Woxblom, L., McCluskey, D., 2010. The influence of architects and structural Statistisches Bundesamt Destatis, 2021b. Bundesländer mit Hauptstädten nach Fläche
engineers on timber in construction – perceptions and roles. Silva Fenn. 44 (5), und Bevölkerung. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Laender-Regionen/Regiona
871–884. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.126. les/Gemeindeverzeichnis/Administrativ/02-bundeslaender.html.
Ruebesam, H., 1990. Die Entwicklungslinien ausgewählter Baustoffe in ihrer Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis), 2021c. Bodenfläche nach Art der tatsächlichen
gesellschaftlichen sowie technik- und wissenschaftshistorischen Determinationen in Nutzung - fachserie 3 Reihe 5.1 - 2016, 2020. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/
synoptisch-chronologischer Darstellung für den Zeitraum 1750 bis 1990. Branchen-Unternehmen/Landwirtschaft-Forstwirtschaft-Fischerei/Flaechennutzun
Bauakademie der DDR. g/Publikationen/Downloads-Flaechennutzung/bodenflaechennutzun
Schäfers, B., 2010. Architektursoziologie. In: Kneer, G., Schroer, M. (Eds.), Handbuch g-2030510207004.html.
Spezielle Soziologien, first ed. VS-Verlag, pp. 51–66. Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis), 2021d. Preise. Kaufwerte für Bauland. 4. Vierteljahr
Schauerte, T., 2010. Wooden house construction in Scandinavia – a model for Europe. In: 2020. Fachserie 17 Reihe 5. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Wirtschaft/Pre
16th Internationales Holzbau-Forum 10. https://www.forum-holzbau.com/pdf/ih ise/Baupreise-Immobilienpreisindex/Publikationen/Downloads-Bau-und-Imm
f10_schauerte.pdf. obilienpreisindex/kaufwerte-bauland-j-2170500207004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
Snee, R.D., 1983. Regression diagnostics: identifying influential data and sources of .
collinearity. J. Qual. Technol. 15, 149–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Toppinen, A., Röhr, A., Pätäri, S., Lähtinen, K., Toivonen, R., 2018. The future of wooden
00224065.1983.11978865. multistory construction in the forest bioeconomy – a Delphi study from Finland and
Spear, M., Hill, C., Norton, A., Price, C., 2019. Wood in construction in the UK: an Sweden. J. Flood Eng. (JFE) 31, 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2017.05.001.
analysis of carbon abatement potential. https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-conten Walberg, D., 2016. Solid and timber construction in residential buildings. Mauerwerk 20
t/uploads/2019/07/Wood-in-Construction-in-the-UK-An-Analysis-of-Carbon-Abate (1), 16–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/dama.201600685.
ment-Potential-BioComposites-Centre.pdf. Walberg, D., Brosius, O., Schulze, T., Cramer, A., 2015. Massiv- und Holzbau bei
Stark, J., Wicht, B., 1998. Geschichte der Baustoffe. Bauverlag. Wohngebäuden: Vergleich von massiven Bauweisen mit Holzfertigbauten aus
Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis), 2021a. Bauen und Wohnen: Baugenehmigungen von kostenseitiger, bautechnischer und nachhaltiger Sicht. Arbeitsgemeinschaft für
Wohn- und Nichtwohngebäuden nach überwiegend verwendetem Baustoff. Lange Zeitgemäßes Bauen. Bauforschungsbericht, 68).
Reihen z. T. ab, 1980. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Branchen-Unternehme Weimar, H., Jochem, D. (Eds.), 2013. Holzverwendung im Bauwesen: Eine Marktstudie
n/Bauen/Publikationen/Downloads-Bautaetigkeit/baugenehmigungen-bausto im Rahmen der "Charta für Holz. Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut. https://doi.
ff-pdf-5311107.pdf?__blob=publicationFile. org/10.3220/REP_9_2013 (Thünen Report, 9).