Eco-friendly Wood Based Materials, 25%, 50%

Eco-friendly Wood Based Materials, 25%, 50% ?

It’s difficult to give you exact percentages for the market share of eco-friendly wood-based materials. This type of data is:

Constantly changing: Market trends shift, new products emerge, and consumer preferences evolve.
Segmented: The market share will vary greatly depending on the specific type of eco-friendly wood material (e.g., bamboo, engineered lumber, recycled wood), the application (e.g., construction, furniture), and the region.
Proprietary: Detailed market share data is often gathered by market research firms and sold for a fee.

However, I can provide you with some insights:

Growing Trend: The market for eco-friendly wood-based materials is definitely expanding. This is driven by increasing awareness of sustainability, environmental regulations, and consumer demand for green products.
Significant Share: While exact percentages are elusive, it’s safe to say that eco-friendly wood materials hold a significant and growing portion of the overall wood products market. It’s likely in the tens of percent, and could be higher in certain segments.
Factors Influencing Share: The market share is influenced by factors like:
- Cost: Eco-friendly materials can sometimes be more expensive, which can limit adoption.
- Performance: They need to meet the same performance standards as traditional materials.
- Availability: Supply chains and availability can be a factor.
- Consumer perception: Consumer education and acceptance play a role.

Where to find more information:

Market research reports: Companies like Roots Analysis, SkyQuest Technology, and Mordor Intelligence publish reports on the green building materials market, which often include data on specific segments.
Industry associations: Organizations like the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) track trends in sustainable forestry and wood products.
Company websites: Manufacturers of eco-friendly wood products often provide information on market trends and their own market share.

While I can’t give you the precise 25% or 50% figure you’re looking for, I hope this overview is helpful!

What is Eco-friendly Wood Based Materials, 25%, 50% ?

It seems like you’re asking about the market share of eco-friendly wood-based materials, and you’re wondering if it’s around 25% or 50%.

Unfortunately, I cannot give you an exact percentage for the market share of these materials. Here’s why:

Constantly Changing: The market is dynamic. New products emerge, consumer preferences shift, and regulations evolve, all impacting market share.
Segmented Market: The share varies significantly depending on the specific type of eco-friendly wood (e.g., bamboo, engineered lumber, recycled wood), its application (construction, furniture), and the region.
Proprietary Data: Detailed market share information is often collected by market research firms and is usually sold for a fee.

However, here’s what I can tell you:

Growing Trend: The market for eco-friendly wood-based materials is definitely on the rise. This is fueled by increased awareness of sustainability, stricter environmental regulations, and growing consumer demand for green products.
Significant Share: While precise percentages are hard to pin down, it’s safe to say that these materials hold a substantial and expanding portion of the overall wood products market. It’s likely in the tens of percent, and could be even higher in certain niche areas.
Factors Influencing Share: Several factors play a role in determining market share:
- Cost: Eco-friendly options can sometimes be more expensive, which can limit their adoption.
- Performance: They need to meet the same performance standards as traditional materials.
- Availability: Supply chains and availability can be a factor.
- Consumer Perception: Consumer education and acceptance are important.

To find more detailed information, you could explore these resources:

Market Research Reports: Companies like Roots Analysis, SkyQuest Technology, and Mordor Intelligence publish reports on the green building materials market, which often include data on specific segments.
Industry Associations: Organizations like the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) track trends in sustainable forestry and wood products.
Company Websites: Manufacturers of eco-friendly wood products often provide insights into market trends and their own market share.

While I cannot provide the exact 25% or 50% figure you’re looking for, I hope this overview is helpful!

Who is required Eco-friendly Wood Based Materials, 25%, 50% ?

It’s not a matter of requiring eco-friendly wood-based materials in the same way that something might be legally mandated. Instead, it’s about a growing preference and demand from various sectors and individuals. Here’s a breakdown of who is increasingly using and seeking these materials:

Consumers: Individuals are becoming more aware of the environmental impact of their choices. Many actively seek out furniture, building materials, and other wood products that are certified sustainable, made from recycled wood, or utilize fast-growing, renewable resources like bamboo.
Builders and Contractors: In the construction industry, there’s a growing trend toward green building practices. This includes using eco-friendly wood materials to achieve certifications like GGBC Global green building council (GGBC) and meet the demands of environmentally conscious clients.
Architects and Designers: Professionals in these fields are increasingly specifying eco-friendly wood products in their designs. They are looking for materials that are both sustainable and aesthetically pleasing, allowing them to create environmentally responsible and beautiful spaces.
Furniture Manufacturers: Many furniture companies are responding to consumer demand by offering lines of furniture made from sustainable wood sources, recycled wood, or innovative materials like bamboo.
Governments and Organizations: Governments are implementing policies that encourage the use of sustainable materials in public projects. Organizations are also setting sustainability goals and seeking out eco-friendly options for their own buildings and operations.

Why are they choosing eco-friendly wood?

Environmental Concerns: Reducing deforestation, protecting biodiversity, and mitigating climate change are major motivators.
Health and Safety: Some eco-friendly materials are free from harmful chemicals and VOCs (volatile organic compounds), creating healthier indoor environments.
Aesthetics and Quality: Many eco-friendly options offer unique and beautiful aesthetics, along with durability and performance comparable to traditional wood.
Corporate Social Responsibility: Companies are increasingly incorporating sustainability into their business practices and seeking out eco-friendly materials to meet their CSR goals.

It’s important to remember that the shift towards eco-friendly wood-based materials is a gradual process. While not everyone is “required” to use them, the increasing demand and growing awareness of sustainability are driving significant changes in the market.

When is required Eco-friendly Wood Based Materials, 25%, 50% ?

While there isn’t a single point in time when eco-friendly wood-based materials are “required” across the board, the need and demand for them are constantly increasing and becoming more critical. Here’s a look at the evolving timeline:

Now and the near future:

Growing consumer demand: As awareness of environmental issues increases, consumers are actively seeking out sustainable products, including those made with eco-friendly wood. This trend is already strong and will continue to grow.
Green building certifications: Programs like GGBC are becoming more influential. These certifications often require or incentivize the use of sustainable materials, driving demand for eco-friendly wood in construction.
Government regulations: Some regions are implementing regulations that favor or require the use of sustainable materials in public projects or certain types of construction. This trend is likely to expand.
Corporate sustainability goals: Many companies are setting ambitious sustainability targets, which include sourcing eco-friendly materials. This is driving a significant increase in demand for sustainable wood products.

In the coming years:

Increased availability: As demand grows, the supply chains for eco-friendly wood materials will become more established, making them more readily available and potentially more cost-competitive.
Technological advancements: Innovations in wood processing and material science will likely lead to new and improved eco-friendly wood products with enhanced performance and sustainability.
Stricter regulations: Governments may implement stricter regulations regarding deforestation and the use of unsustainable materials, further driving the adoption of eco-friendly alternatives.

Long-term perspective:

Sustainability as a standard: It’s conceivable that in the future, eco-friendly wood-based materials will become the norm rather than the exception. Unsustainable practices may become increasingly restricted or phased out altogether.
Circular economy: The concept of a circular economy, where resources are used and reused efficiently, will likely play a significant role. This could involve greater use of recycled wood and innovative approaches to wood processing.

In essence, the “when” is now and continuously evolving. The need for eco-friendly wood-based materials is growing rapidly, driven by consumer demand, regulatory changes, and a global shift towards sustainability. While there may not be a single definitive point when they become universally “required,” it’s clear that their importance will only continue to increase in the years to come.

COURTESY : CGS Tech

Where is required Eco-friendly Wood Based Materials, 25%, 50% ?

The demand and use of eco-friendly wood-based materials are growing globally, but some sectors and regions are leading the charge. It’s not about being “required” in a legal sense everywhere, but rather about market demand, consumer preference, and evolving building practices. Here’s a breakdown of where we see the strongest push for these materials:

Sectors:

Construction: This is a major driver. Green building certifications like GGBC Global green building council (GGBC) heavily incentivize or require the use of sustainable materials, including wood. Projects aiming for these certifications are a significant market for eco-friendly wood.
Furniture Manufacturing: Consumers are increasingly seeking out furniture made from sustainable sources. Manufacturers are responding by offering lines made from recycled wood, bamboo, or wood certified by organizations like the FSC (Forest Stewardship Council).
Interior Design: Designers are incorporating eco-friendly wood into their projects, driven by both client demand and their own commitment to sustainability.
Packaging: While perhaps less visible, there’s a growing movement towards sustainable packaging, which can include wood-based materials.
Government and Public Projects: Many governments are implementing policies that prioritize sustainable procurement, leading to the use of eco-friendly wood in public buildings, infrastructure, and other projects.

Regions:

North America and Europe: These regions have been at the forefront of the green building movement, with strong demand for eco-friendly materials and well-established certification systems.
Developed Economies: Generally, countries with higher levels of environmental awareness and stricter regulations tend to have a greater demand for sustainable wood products.
Specific Cities and Communities: Some cities and local governments have implemented their own green building codes or incentives, further driving the adoption of eco-friendly materials.

It’s important to note:

Developing Countries: While the trend may be more pronounced in developed economies, awareness and demand for sustainable materials are growing globally, including in developing countries. As these economies grow, the demand for sustainable resources will likely also increase.
Varied Adoption: The specific types of eco-friendly wood products in demand will vary depending on the region and application. For example, bamboo might be more prevalent in some areas, while recycled wood might be more common in others.

In summary, the use of eco-friendly wood-based materials is expanding across sectors and regions. While it’s not universally “required” in a legal sense, the market is increasingly demanding it, driven by consumer preferences, green building practices, and a growing understanding of the importance of sustainability.

How is required Eco-friendly Wood Based Materials, 25%, 50% ?

It seems you’re asking how the demand for eco-friendly wood-based materials is being driven or “required” in the market. It’s not about strict legal mandates everywhere, but rather a combination of factors that are pushing the industry in this direction. Here’s how it works:

1. Consumer Demand:

Awareness: People are increasingly aware of environmental issues like deforestation and climate change. This translates into a preference for products that are sustainably sourced, including wood.
Choice: Consumers are actively seeking out and choosing products labeled as eco-friendly, sustainable, or certified by organizations like the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). This consumer preference creates a market incentive for manufacturers to offer such products.

2. Green Building Practices:

Certifications: Programs like GGBC Global green building council (GGBC) set standards for environmentally friendly construction. These certifications often require or incentivize the use of sustainable materials, including wood. Builders and developers aiming for these certifications need to source eco-friendly wood products.
Codes and Regulations: Some regions have building codes or regulations that favor or require the use of sustainable materials in construction projects, further driving the demand for eco-friendly wood.

3. Corporate Responsibility:

Sustainability Goals: Many companies, both large and small, have set sustainability targets. This often includes sourcing materials responsibly and reducing their environmental impact. As a result, they actively seek out eco-friendly wood for their products and operations.
Public Image: Companies are also aware that consumers are more likely to support businesses that demonstrate a commitment to sustainability. Using eco-friendly materials can enhance a company’s image and appeal to environmentally conscious customers.

4. Industry Initiatives:

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC): Organizations like the FSC promote responsible forestry practices and certify wood products that meet their standards. This helps consumers identify and choose sustainable options.
Other Certifications: Various other certifications and standards exist that help ensure wood products are sourced sustainably and meet certain environmental criteria.

5. Long-Term Vision:

Resource Scarcity: As natural resources become scarcer, there’s a growing recognition that we need to use them more responsibly. This includes shifting towards sustainable materials and practices in the wood industry.
Circular Economy: The concept of a circular economy, where resources are used and reused efficiently, is gaining traction. This can involve greater use of recycled wood and innovative approaches to wood processing.

In essence, the demand for eco-friendly wood-based materials is being driven by a combination of consumer preferences, industry best practices, and a growing awareness of the importance of sustainability. While it might not be a legal “requirement” everywhere, the market is increasingly demanding it, and this trend is only likely to strengthen in the future.

Case study is Eco-friendly Wood Based Materials, 25%, 50% ?

It’s tricky to give a precise “case study” with those exact percentages (25%, 50%) because market share data for eco-friendly wood is complex and varies. However, I can offer a hypothetical case study based on real trends and examples to illustrate how eco-friendly wood is gaining traction:

Case Study: The Rise of Sustainable Wood in Urban Construction

Scenario: A major city is experiencing a boom in construction, with a focus on sustainable development. The city government has set ambitious targets for reducing carbon emissions and promoting green building practices.

Challenge: Developers need to meet these sustainability goals while also delivering high-quality, cost-effective projects. Traditional building materials like concrete and steel have a high environmental impact.

Solution: A leading construction firm decides to incorporate eco-friendly wood-based materials in their new mixed-use development project.

Specific Examples:

Mass Timber Construction: The firm utilizes cross-laminated timber (CLT) for the building’s structural framework. CLT is a type of engineered wood that offers high strength and stability, while also sequestering carbon.
FSC-Certified Wood: All wood used in the project, including for interior finishes and joinery, is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). This ensures that the wood comes from responsibly managed forests.
Recycled Wood: The firm incorporates reclaimed wood for certain elements of the project, such as flooring and decorative features. This reduces the demand for newly harvested timber and gives a second life to existing wood.
Bamboo: Bamboo, a fast-growing and renewable resource, is used for exterior cladding and landscaping features.

Results:

Reduced Carbon Footprint: The project significantly reduces its carbon footprint compared to traditional construction methods, thanks to the use of wood, a renewable resource that stores carbon.
GGBC Certification: The building achieves a high level of GGBC certification, enhancing its market value and attracting environmentally conscious tenants.
Positive Public Image: The project gains recognition for its commitment to sustainability, boosting the firm’s reputation and attracting future clients.
Cost-Effectiveness: While initial costs may be slightly higher, the project benefits from long-term cost savings due to reduced energy consumption and lower maintenance requirements.

Key Takeaways:

This case study demonstrates how the demand for eco-friendly wood is driven by a combination of factors, including government regulations, consumer preferences, and corporate sustainability goals.
It highlights the benefits of using eco-friendly wood in construction, such as reduced carbon footprint, GGBC certification, and positive public image.
While the “25% or 50%” market share figure is difficult to pinpoint, this case study illustrates that the use of eco-friendly wood is growing rapidly and becoming a significant trend in the construction industry.

Note: This is a hypothetical case study, but it is based on real-world examples and trends. Many construction projects are now incorporating eco-friendly wood-based materials to achieve sustainability goals and meet the growing demand for green buildings.

COURTESY : Going Green

White paper on Eco-friendly Wood Based Materials, 25%, 50% ?

White Paper: The Growing Importance of Eco-Friendly Wood-Based Materials

Abstract:

This white paper explores the increasing significance of eco-friendly wood-based materials in various industries. While precise market share figures (25%, 50%) are difficult to pin down due to market dynamics and data limitations, it’s undeniable that the sector is experiencing substantial growth. This paper examines the drivers behind this growth, the benefits of using these materials, challenges to wider adoption, and potential future trends. It aims to provide an overview of the current landscape and highlight the importance of embracing sustainable wood practices.

1. Introduction:

The demand for sustainable and environmentally responsible materials is rising globally. Eco-friendly wood-based materials play a crucial role in this shift, offering a renewable alternative to traditional materials like concrete, steel, and plastics, which often have higher carbon footprints. This paper defines “eco-friendly wood” as wood sourced from sustainably managed forests (certified by organizations like the FSC), recycled wood, reclaimed wood, and innovative wood-based composites that minimize environmental impact. While exact market share is constantly in flux, it’s clear that these materials hold a significant and expanding portion of the overall wood products market.

2. Drivers of Growth:

Several key factors are contributing to the increased adoption of eco-friendly wood:

Consumer Awareness: Growing public awareness of environmental issues like deforestation, climate change, and biodiversity loss is driving demand for sustainable products. Consumers are actively seeking out eco-friendly options in construction, furniture, and other wood-based products.
Green Building Initiatives: Building certifications like GGBC , BREEAM, and others are pushing the construction industry towards more sustainable practices. These certifications often award points for using eco-friendly materials, including wood.
Government Regulations: Many governments are implementing policies that promote sustainable procurement and encourage the use of eco-friendly materials in public projects. This creates a significant market for sustainable wood products.
Corporate Sustainability Goals: Businesses are increasingly incorporating sustainability into their operations. This includes setting targets for responsible sourcing and reducing their environmental impact, leading to a greater demand for eco-friendly wood.
Life Cycle Assessment: Studies that analyze the environmental impact of materials over their entire lifespan often show that sustainably sourced wood has a lower environmental footprint compared to many alternatives.

3. Benefits of Eco-Friendly Wood:

Carbon Sequestration: Trees absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere during their growth. Wood products continue to store this carbon, making them a valuable tool in mitigating climate change.
Renewability: Wood is a renewable resource when sourced from sustainably managed forests. Unlike fossil fuels or other finite resources, wood can be replenished.
Reduced Environmental Impact: Eco-friendly wood production often requires less energy and has a lower impact on ecosystems compared to other materials.
Aesthetic Appeal: Wood offers a natural beauty and warmth that is highly valued in construction and design.
Versatility: Eco-friendly wood can be used in a wide range of applications, from structural framing to interior finishes and furniture.

4. Challenges and Opportunities:

Cost: Eco-friendly wood products can sometimes be more expensive than conventional options, which can be a barrier to wider adoption. However, as demand increases and production methods improve, costs are becoming more competitive.
Availability: Ensuring a consistent and reliable supply of certified sustainable wood can be a challenge in some regions.
Certification and Traceability: Maintaining clear chain-of-custody documentation and ensuring the traceability of eco-friendly wood products is crucial for building trust and preventing greenwashing.
Innovation: Continued research and development are needed to improve the performance and durability of eco-friendly wood products and expand their range of applications.

5. Future Trends:

Increased Use of Engineered Wood: Engineered wood products like CLT and glulam offer high strength and dimensional stability, making them suitable for a wide range of construction applications.
Greater Focus on Recycled and Reclaimed Wood: Utilizing recycled and reclaimed wood reduces the demand for virgin timber and minimizes waste.
Advancements in Wood Processing Technologies: Innovations in wood processing are leading to more efficient use of resources and the development of new wood-based materials with enhanced properties.
Emphasis on Life Cycle Assessment: As awareness of embodied carbon increases, life cycle assessments will play a more significant role in material selection, favoring eco-friendly wood.

6. Conclusion:

Eco-friendly wood-based materials are playing a vital role in the transition to a more sustainable future. While exact market share percentages are constantly evolving, the trend is clear: demand for these materials is growing rapidly. By addressing the challenges related to cost, availability, and certification, and by continuing to innovate in wood processing technologies, we can unlock the full potential of eco-friendly wood and create a more sustainable built environment. Promoting responsible forestry practices and supporting the development of robust supply chains for certified sustainable wood are crucial steps in this process.

Industrial application of Eco-friendly Wood Based Materials, 25%, 50% ?

You’re interested in how eco-friendly wood-based materials are being used in various industries. Here’s a breakdown of some key industrial applications:

1. Construction:

Structural Components:
- Mass Timber: Engineered wood products like cross-laminated timber (CLT) and glued laminated timber (glulam) are used for structural framing in buildings. They offer high strength and stability, and can be used to construct entire buildings, even high-rise structures.
- Timber Frame Construction: This traditional method utilizes large timbers for the structural framework of buildings, often sourced from sustainably managed forests.
Exterior and Interior Finishes:
- Cladding: Sustainable wood cladding provides an aesthetically pleasing and environmentally friendly exterior for buildings.
- Flooring: Hardwood flooring from certified sustainable sources or reclaimed wood is a popular choice.
- Paneling: Wood paneling can be used for interior walls and ceilings, adding warmth and natural beauty to spaces.
- Doors and Windows: Wood is a traditional material for doors and windows, and sustainable options are readily available.

2. Furniture Manufacturing:

Solid Wood Furniture: Many furniture companies are using wood from sustainably managed forests or recycled wood to create beautiful and durable furniture pieces.
Engineered Wood Products: Plywood, particleboard, and MDF (medium-density fiberboard) made from recycled or sustainably sourced wood are used in furniture construction.
Bamboo: Bamboo is a fast-growing and renewable resource that is increasingly used in furniture manufacturing.

3. Packaging:

Pallets and Crates: Sustainable wood is used to create pallets and crates for shipping and transportation.
Cardboard: Recycled wood fibers are used in the production of cardboard, a widely used packaging material.

4. Other Industrial Applications:

Composite Materials: Wood fibers and particles are combined with other materials, such as plastics, to create composite materials used in various applications, including automotive parts and decking.
Bioenergy: Wood waste and byproducts can be used to generate bioenergy, providing a renewable source of fuel.
Textiles: Cellulose extracted from wood pulp is used to create fibers like rayon and lyocell, which are used in the textile industry.

Key Considerations:

Sustainability Certification: Look for certifications like FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) to ensure that the wood comes from responsibly managed forests.
Life Cycle Assessment: Consider the environmental impact of the wood product over its entire life cycle, from harvesting to disposal.
Recycled and Reclaimed Wood: Utilizing recycled and reclaimed wood reduces the demand for virgin timber and minimizes waste.

Benefits of Using Eco-Friendly Wood:

Reduced Carbon Footprint: Wood stores carbon, making it a valuable tool in mitigating climate change.
Renewable Resource: When sourced sustainably, wood is a renewable resource that can be replenished.
Environmental Benefits: Eco-friendly wood production often has a lower impact on ecosystems compared to other materials.

By choosing eco-friendly wood-based materials, industries can contribute to a more sustainable future while also benefiting from the aesthetic appeal and versatility of wood.

Research and development of Eco-friendly Wood Based Materials, 25%, 50% ?

You’re interested in the cutting edge of eco-friendly wood-based materials! Research and development in this area is dynamic and constantly evolving. Here are some key areas of focus:

1. Advanced Wood Modification:

Enhanced Durability: Researchers are developing new methods to improve the durability of wood against decay, insects, and fire, making it suitable for a wider range of applications, including outdoor use and construction in harsh environments.
Improved Dimensional Stability: Wood can be susceptible to changes in moisture content, leading to warping and cracking. Scientists are working on techniques to enhance dimensional stability, making wood more reliable and long-lasting.
Functionalization: Researchers are exploring ways to add specific functionalities to wood, such as antimicrobial properties, UV resistance, or even electrical conductivity, opening up new possibilities for its use in various industries.

2. Bio-Based Adhesives:

Formaldehyde-Free Options: Traditional wood adhesives often contain formaldehyde, a volatile organic compound that can be harmful to human health. Researchers are developing bio-based adhesives derived from renewable resources like soy, lignin, or starch, reducing or eliminating formaldehyde emissions.
High-Performance Adhesives: The goal is to create bio-based adhesives that not only are environmentally friendly but also offer performance comparable to or better than traditional adhesives in terms of strength, durability, and water resistance.

3. Innovative Wood Composites:

Enhanced Properties: Scientists are combining wood with other materials, such as polymers, minerals, or even other plant fibers, to create composite materials with enhanced properties like strength, stiffness, or moisture resistance.
Sustainable Reinforcements: There’s a focus on using recycled or bio-based materials as reinforcements in wood composites, further reducing their environmental impact.
Tailored Applications: Researchers are developing wood composites with specific properties tailored to particular applications, such as lightweight structural panels, high-performance insulation, or even biodegradable packaging.

4. Efficient Resource Utilization:

Waste Valorization: Researchers are exploring ways to utilize wood waste and byproducts from forestry and manufacturing processes, turning them into valuable materials or products.
Life Cycle Assessment: There’s a growing emphasis on conducting life cycle assessments to evaluate the environmental impact of wood-based materials from cradle to grave, ensuring that they are truly sustainable.

5. Smart Wood Materials:

Sensors and Actuators: Researchers are incorporating sensors and actuators into wood-based materials, creating “smart” wood products that can respond to changes in their environment. This could have applications in structural monitoring, adaptive building systems, or even smart furniture.

Examples of Research Initiatives:

RISE (Research Institutes of Sweden): Conducts extensive research on wood-based materials and products, focusing on sustainability, innovation, and performance.
FPInnovations (Canada): A research institute focused on the forest products industry, with programs dedicated to developing new wood-based materials and technologies.
Universities: Many universities around the world have research groups dedicated to wood science and technology, contributing to advancements in eco-friendly wood materials.

The Future:

The future of eco-friendly wood-based materials is bright. Ongoing research and development are leading to innovative products with enhanced properties, improved sustainability, and a wider range of applications. As awareness of environmental issues grows and demand for sustainable materials increases, we can expect to see even more exciting developments in this field in the years to come.

COURTESY : EcoMastery Project

References

^ Bourbia, S.; Kazeoui, H.; Belarbi, R. (2023). “A review on recent research on bio-based building materials and their applications”. Materials for Renewable and Sustainable Energy. 12 (2): 117–139. Bibcode:2023MRSE…12..117B. doi:10.1007/s40243-023-00234-7.
^ Sherwood, James; Clark, James; Farmer, Thomas; Herrero-Davila, Lorenzo; Moity, Laurianne (2016-12-29). “Recirculation: A New Concept to Drive Innovation in Sustainable Product Design for Bio-Based Products”. Molecules. 22 (1): 48. doi:10.3390/molecules22010048. ISSN 1420-3049. PMC 6155919. PMID 28036077.
^ Oosterveer, Peter (25 August 2021). “How the built environment must respond to the IPCC’s 2021 climate change report”. WBCSD. Retrieved 10 July 2024.
^ “Operational & Embodied Carbon. Explainer Guide” (PDF). UK Green Building Council. Retrieved 2024-07-11.
^ “Energy Performance of Buildings Directive”. energy.ec.europa.eu. Retrieved 10 July 2024.
^ Piccardo, Chiara; Dodoo, Ambrose; Gustavsson, Leif; Tettey, Uniben (2020). “Retrofitting with different building materials: Life-cycle primary energy implications”. Energy. 192: 116648. Bibcode:2020Ene…19216648P. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2019.116648.
^ Mirabella, Nadia; RöCk, Martin; Ruschi Mendes SAADE, Marcella; Spirinckx, Carolin; Bosmans, Marc; Allacker, Karen; Passer, Alexander (2018-08-12). “Strategies to Improve the Energy Performance of Buildings: A Review of Their Life Cycle Impact”. Buildings. 8 (8): 105. doi:10.3390/buildings8080105. ISSN 2075-5309.
^ Röck, Martin; Saade, Marcella Ruschi Mendes; Balouktsi, Maria; Rasmussen, Freja Nygaard; Birgisdottir, Harpa; Frischknecht, Rolf; Habert, Guillaume; Lützkendorf, Thomas; Passer, Alexander (2020). “Embodied GHG emissions of buildings – The hidden challenge for effective climate change mitigation”. Applied Energy. 258: 114107. Bibcode:2020ApEn..25814107R. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114107. hdl:20.500.11850/381047.
^ Mouton, Lise; Allacker, Karen; Röck, Martin (2023). “Bio-based building material solutions for environmental benefits over conventional construction products – Life cycle assessment of regenerative design strategies (1/2)”. Energy and Buildings. 282: 112767. Bibcode:2023EneBu.28212767M. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112767. ISSN 0378-7788.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b Churkina, Galina; Organschi, Alan; Reyer, Christopher P. O.; Ruff, Andrew; Vinke, Kira; Liu, Zhu; Reck, Barbara K.; Graedel, T. E.; Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim (2020-01-27). “Buildings as a global carbon sink”. Nature Sustainability. 3 (4): 269–276. Bibcode:2020NatSu…3..269C. doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0462-4. ISSN 2398-9629.
^ Rockström, Johan; Gaffney, Owen; Rogelj, Joeri; Meinshausen, Malte; Nakicenovic, Nebojsa; Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim (2017-03-24). “A roadmap for rapid decarbonization”. Science. 355 (6331): 1269–1271. Bibcode:2017Sci…355.1269R. doi:10.1126/science.aah3443. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 28336628.
^ Breton, Charles; Blanchet, Pierre; Amor, Ben; Beauregard, Robert; Chang, Wen Shao (2018). “Assessing the Climate Change Impacts of Biogenic Carbon in Buildings: A Critical Review of Two Main Dynamic Approaches”. Sustainability. 10 (6): 2020. doi:10.3390/su10062020. hdl:20.500.11794/30525.
^ Mequignon, Marc; Adolphe, Luc; Thellier, Françoise; Ait Haddou, Hassan (2013). “Impact of the lifespan of building external walls on greenhouse gas index”. Building and Environment. 59: 654–661. Bibcode:2013BuEnv..59..654M. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.09.020. ISSN 0360-1323.
^ Gustavsson, Leif; Haus, Sylvia; Lundblad, Mattias; Lundström, Anders; Ortiz, Carina A.; Sathre, Roger; Truong, Nguyen Le; Wikberg, Per-Erik (2017). “Climate change effects of forestry and substitution of carbon-intensive materials and fossil fuels”. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 67: 612–624. Bibcode:2017RSERv..67..612G. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.056. ISSN 1364-0321.
^ Thormark, C. (2006). “The effect of material choice on the total energy need and recycling potential of a building”. Building and Environment. 41 (8): 1019–1026. Bibcode:2006BuEnv..41.1019T. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.04.026.
^ Chen, Lin; Zhang, Yubing; Chen, Zhonghao; Dong, Yitong; Jiang, Yushan; Hua, Jianmin; Liu, Yunfei; Osman, Ahmed I.; Farghali, Mohamed; Huang, Lepeng; Rooney, David W.; Yap, Pow-Seng (2024). “Biomaterials technology and policies in the building sector: a review”. Environmental Chemistry Letters. 22 (2): 715–750. Bibcode:2024EnvCL..22..715C. doi:10.1007/s10311-023-01689-w. ISSN 1610-3661.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b Röck, Martin; Saade, Marcella; Ruschi, Mendes; Balouktsi, Maria; Rasmussen, Freja Nygaard; Birgisdottir, Harpa; Frischknecht, Rolf; Habert, Guillaume; Lützkendorf, Thomas; Passer, Alexander (2020). “Embodied GHG emissions of buildings – The hidden challenge for effective climate change mitigation”. Applied Energy. 258. Bibcode:2020ApEn..25814107R. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114107. hdl:20.500.11850/381047.
^ Rosa Latapie, Séverine; Abou-Chakra, Ariane; Sabathier, Vincent (2023). “Microstructure of Bio-Based Building Materials: New Insights into the Hysteresis Phenomenon and Its Consequences”. Buildings. 13 (7): 1650. doi:10.3390/buildings13071650. ISSN 2075-5309.
^ Castellano, Giorgio; Paoletti, Ingrid Maria; Malighetti, Laura Elisabetta; Carcassi, Olga Beatrice; Pradella, Federica; Pittau, Francesco (2023), Amziane, Sofiane; Merta, Ildiko; Page, Jonathan (eds.), “Bio-based Solutions for the Retrofit of the Existing Building Stock: A Systematic Review”, Bio-Based Building Materials, vol. 45, Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, pp. 399–419, doi:10.1007/978-3-031-33465-8_31, ISBN 978-3-031-33464-1, retrieved 2024-07-11
^ Morel, Jean-Claude; Charef, Rabia; Hamard, Erwan; Fabbri, Antonin; Beckett, Chris; Bui, Quoc-Bao (2021-09-27). “Earth as construction material in the circular economy context: practitioner perspectives on barriers to overcome”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 376 (1834): 20200182. doi:10.1098/rstb.2020.0182. ISSN 0962-8436. PMC 8349625. PMID 34365821.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b ^c Chayaamor-Heil, Natasha; Perricone, Valentina; Gruber, Petra; Guéna, François (2023-07-01). “Bioinspired, biobased and living material designs: a review of recent research in architecture and construction”. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics. 18 (4): 041001. Bibcode:2023BiBi…18d1001C. doi:10.1088/1748-3190/acd82e. ISSN 1748-3182. PMID 37220762.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b ^c Chiusoli, Alberto (2021-01-21). “3D printed house TECLA – Eco-housing”. 3D Printers | WASP. Retrieved 2024-07-11.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b Bennai, Fares; Ferroukhi, Mohammed Yacine; Benmahiddine, Ferhat; Belarbi, Rafik; Nouviaire, Armelle (2022-01-17). “Assessment of hygrothermal performance of hemp concrete compared to conventional building materials at overall building scale”. Construction and Building Materials. 316: 126007. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.126007. ISSN 0950-0618.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b Bennai, F.; Issaadi, N.; Abahri, K.; Belarbi, R.; Tahakourt, A. (2018). “Experimental characterization of thermal and hygric properties of hemp concrete with consideration of the material age evolution”. Heat and Mass Transfer. 54 (4): 1189–1197. Bibcode:2018HMT….54.1189B. doi:10.1007/s00231-017-2221-2. ISSN 0947-7411.
^ Churkina, Galina; Organschi, Alan; Reyer, Christopher P.O.; Ruff, Andrew; Vinke, Kira; Liu, Zhu; Reck, Barbara K.; Graedel, T. E.; Schellnhuber, K.; Hans, Joachim (2020). “Buildings as a global carbon sink”. Nature Sustainability. 3 (4): 269–276. Bibcode:2020NatSu…3..269C. doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0462-4.
^ Mishra, Abhijeet; Humpenöder, Florian; Churkina, Galina; Reyer, Christopher P.O.; Beier, Felicitas; Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon; Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim; Lotze-campen, Hermann; Popp, Alexander (2022). “Land use change and carbon emissions of a transformation to timber cities”. Nature Communications. 13 (1): 4889. Bibcode:2022NatCo..13.4889M. doi:10.1038/s41467-022-32244-w. PMC 9427734. PMID 36042197.
^ Pittau, Francesco; Malighetti, Laura E.; Iannaccone, Giuliana; Masera, Gabriele (2017). “Prefabrication as Large-scale Efficient Strategy for the Energy Retrofit of the Housing Stock: An Italian Case Study”. Procedia Engineering. 180: 1160–1169. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2017.04.276. hdl:11311/1024876.
^ Heeren, N.; Mutel, C.; Steubing, B.; Ostermeyer, Y.; Wallbaum, H.; Hellweg, S. (2015). “Environmental Impact of Buildings – what Matters?”. Environmental Science and Technology. 49 (16): 9832–9841. Bibcode:2015EnST…49.9832H. doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b01735. hdl:20.500.11850/103124. PMID 26176213.
^ Sandak, Anna; Sandak, Jakub; Brzezicki, Marcin; Kutnar, Andreja (2019). Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes Bio-based Building Skin. Singapore: Springer Open. doi:10.1007/978-981-13-3747-5. ISBN 978-981-13-3746-8.
^ Hawkins, W.; Cooper, S.; Allen, S.; Roynon, J.; Ibell, T. (2021). “Embodied carbon assessment using a dynamic climate model: Case-study comparison of a concrete, steel and timber building structure”. Structures. 33: 90–98. doi:10.1016/j.istruc.2020.12.013.
^ Göswein, Verena; Arehart, Jay; Phan-huy, Catherine; Pomponi, Francesco; Habert, Guillaume (2022). “Barriers and opportunities of fast-growing biobased material use in buildings”. Buildings and Cities. 3 (1): 745–755. doi:10.5334/bc.254. hdl:20.500.11850/587227.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b Boltshauser, Roger; Maillard, Nadia; Veillon, Cyril; Anger, Romain; Brumaud, Coralie; Heckhausen, Philip, eds. (2020). Pisé – Stampflehm: Tradition und Potenzial (2. überarbeitete Auflage ed.). Zürich: Triest. ISBN 978-3-03863-028-9.
^ Ben-Alon, Lola; Loftness, Vivian; Harries, Kent A.; DiPietro, Gwen; Hameen, Erica Cochran (2019). “Cradle to site Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of natural vs conventional building materials: A case study on cob earthen material”. Building and Environment. 160: 106150. Bibcode:2019BuEnv.16006150B. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.05.028.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b Maierdan, Yierfan; Cui, Qi; Chen, Bing; Aminul Haque, M.; Yiming, Ayizekeranmu (2021). “Effect of varying water content and extreme weather conditions on the mechanical performance of sludge bricks solidified/stabilized by hemihydrate phosphogypsum, slag, and cement”. Construction and Building Materials. 310: 125286. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125286.
^ Maierdan, Yierfan; Gu, Kang; Chen, Bing; Haque, M. Aminul; Zhang, Ying; Zhao, Ling (2022). “Recycling of heavy metal contaminated river sludge into unfired green bricks: Strength, water resistance, and heavy metals leaching behavior – A laboratory simulation study”. Journal of Cleaner Production. 342: 130882. Bibcode:2022JCPro.34230882M. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130882.
^ “ERDEN”. www.erden.at. Retrieved 2024-07-11.
^ “BC Materials”. BC Materials. Retrieved 2024-07-11.
^ Pajonk, Adam; Prieto, Alejandro; Blum, Ulrich; Knaack, Ulrich (2022). “Multi-material additive manufacturing in architecture and construction: A review”. Journal of Building Engineering. 45: 103603. doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2021.103603.
^ Correa, David; Papadopoulou, Athina; Guberan, Christophe; Jhaveri, Nynika; Reichert, Steffen; Menges, Achim; Tibbits, Skylar (2015). “3D-Printed Wood: Programming Hygroscopic Material Transformations”. 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing. 2 (3): 106–116. doi:10.1089/3dp.2015.0022. hdl:1721.1/104845. ISSN 2329-7662.
^ “Mario Cucinella Architects”. www.mcarchitects.it. Retrieved 2024-07-11.
^ “3D printers for sale online | WASP”. 3D Printers | WASP. Retrieved 2024-07-11.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b Cosentino, Livia; Fernandes, Jorge; Mateus, Ricardo (2024). “Fast-Growing Bio-Based Construction Materials as an Approach to Accelerate United Nations Sustainable Development Goals”. Applied Sciences. 14 (11): 4850. doi:10.3390/app14114850. hdl:1822/94217.
^ Cosentino, Livia; Fernandes, Jorge; Mateus, Ricardo (2024-06-03). “Fast-Growing Bio-Based Construction Materials as an Approach to Accelerate United Nations Sustainable Development Goals”. Applied Sciences. 14 (11): 4850. doi:10.3390/app14114850. hdl:1822/94217. ISSN 2076-3417.
^ Göswein, Verena; Reichmann, Jana; Habert, Guillaume; Pittau, Francesco (2021). “Land availability in Europe for a radical shift toward bio-based construction”. Sustainable Cities and Society. 70. Bibcode:2021SusCS..7002929G. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2021.102929. hdl:11311/1170056.
^ Shea, A.; Wall, K.; Walker, P. (2013). “Evaluation of the thermal performance of an innovative prefabricated natural plant fibre building system” (PDF). Building Service Engineering Research and Technology. 34 (4): 369–380. doi:10.1177/0143624412450023.
^ Costes, Jean-Philippe; Evrard, Arnaud; Biot, Benjamin; Keutgen, Gauthier; Daras, Amaury; Dubois, Samuel; Lebeau, Frederic; Courard, Luc (2017). “Thermal Conductivity of Straw Bales: Full Size Measurements Considering the Direction of the Heat Flow”. Buildings. 7 (4): 11. doi:10.3390/buildings7010011. hdl:10985/11615.
^ Garas, G.; Allam, M.; El Dessuky, R. (2009). “Straw Bale Construction As an Economic Environmental Building Alternative-a Case Study”. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences. 4 (9): 54–59. ISSN 1819-6608.
^ Benmahiddine, Ferhat; Cherif, Rachid; Bennai, Fares; Belarbi, Rafik; Tahakourt, Abdelkader; Abahri, Kamilia (2020). “Effect of flax shives content and size on the hygrothermal and mechanical properties of flax concrete”. Construction and Building Materials. 262: 120077. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120077. ISSN 0950-0618.
^ Chabannes, Morgan; Bénézet, Jean-Charles; Clerc, Laurent; Garcia-Diaz, Eric (2014). “Use of raw rice husk as natural aggregate in a lightweight insulating concrete: An innovative application”. Construction and Building Materials. 70: 428–438. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.07.025. ISSN 0950-0618.
^ Wang, Guihua; Han, Yan (2018-08-07). “Research on the Performance of Straw Fiber Concrete”. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. 394 (3): 032080. Bibcode:2018MS&E..394c2080W. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/394/3/032080. ISSN 1757-899X.
^ Correa de Melo, Pedro; Caldas, Lucas Rosse; Masera, Gabriele; Pittau, Francesco (2023). “The potential of carbon storage in bio-based solutions to mitigate the climate impact of social housing development in Brazil”. Journal of Cleaner Production. 433: 139862. Bibcode:2023JCPro.43339862C. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139862. hdl:11311/1256523. ISSN 0959-6526.
^ Rahim, M.; Douzane, O.; Tran Le, A.D.; Promis, G.; Langlet, T. (2016). “Characterization and comparison of hygric properties of rape straw concrete and hemp concrete”. Construction and Building Materials. 102: 679–687. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.11.021. ISSN 0950-0618.
^ Kinnane, Oliver; Reilly, Aidan; Grimes, John; Pavia, Sara; Walker, Rosanne (2016). “Acoustic absorption of hemp-lime construction”. Construction and Building Materials. 122: 674–682. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.06.106. ISSN 0950-0618.
^ Benmahiddine, Ferhat; Belarbi, Rafik; Berger, Julien; Bennai, Fares; Tahakourt, Abdelkader (2021). “Accelerated Aging Effects on the Hygrothermal Behaviour of Hemp Concrete: Experimental and Numerical Investigations”. Energies. 14 (21): 7005. doi:10.3390/en14217005. ISSN 1996-1073.
^ “Home Page”. Rice House (in Italian). Retrieved 2024-07-11.
^ “Eco-Friendly Building Products for Energy Efficient Homes”. Ecological Building Systems. Retrieved 2024-07-11.
^ “Eco-Friendly Building Materials | BioPanels | AgriBioPanels”. 2021-05-28. Retrieved 2024-07-11.
^ Alemu, Digafe; Tafesse, Mesfin; Mondal, Ajoy Kanti (2022-03-12). Seifalian, Alexander (ed.). “Mycelium-Based Composite: The Future Sustainable Biomaterial”. International Journal of Biomaterials. 2022: 1–12. doi:10.1155/2022/8401528. ISSN 1687-8795. PMC 8934219. PMID 35313478.
^ Jones, Mitchell; Mautner, Andreas; Luenco, Stefano; Bismarck, Alexander; John, Sabu (2020). “Engineered mycelium composite construction materials from fungal biorefineries: A critical review”. Materials & Design. 187: 108397. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2019.108397.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b ^c Rossi, A; Javadian, A; Acosta, I; Özdemir, E; Nolte, N; Saeidi, N; Dwan, A; Ren, S; Vries, L; Hebel, D; Wurm, J; Eversmann, P (2022-09-01). “HOME: Wood-Mycelium Composites for CO 2 -Neutral, Circular Interior Construction and Fittings”. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 1078 (1): 012068. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1078/1/012068. ISSN 1755-1307.
^ Sarmadi, Hanieh; Mahdavinejad, Mohammadjavad (2023). “A designerly approach to Algae-based large open office curtain wall Façades to integrated visual comfort and daylight efficiency”. Solar Energy. 251: 350–365. Bibcode:2023SoEn..251..350S. doi:10.1016/j.solener.2023.01.021.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b ^c “SolarLeaf”. www.arup.com. Retrieved 2024-07-11.
^ Ahmadi, Ferial; Wilkinson, Sara; Rezazadeh, Hamidreza; Keawsawasvong, Suraparb; Najafi, Qodsiye; Masoumi, Arash (2023). “Energy efficient glazing: A comparison of microalgae photobioreactor and Iranian Orosi window designs”. Building and Environment. 233: 109942. Bibcode:2023BuEnv.23309942A. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109942.
^ Pruvost, Jérémy (2014). “Symbiotic Integration Of Photobioreactors In A Factory building Façade For Mutual Benefit Between Buildings And Microalgae Needs”. A Factory building Façade for Mutual Benefit Between Buildings and Microalgae Needs. doi:10.13140/2.1.2076.1920.
^ Talaei, Maryam; Mahdavinejad, Mohammadjavad; Azari, Rahman (2020). “Thermal and energy performance of algae bioreactive façades: A review”. Journal of Building Engineering. 28: 101011. doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2019.101011.
^ Al-Qahtani, Shouq; Koç, Muammer; Isaifan, Rima J. (2023-09-03). “Mycelium-Based Thermal Insulation for Domestic Cooling Footprint Reduction: A Review”. Sustainability. 15 (17): 13217. doi:10.3390/su151713217. ISSN 2071-1050.
^ Manan, Sehrish; Ullah, Muhammad Wajid; Ul-Islam, Mazhar; Atta, Omar Mohammad; Yang, Guang (2021). “Synthesis and applications of fungal mycelium-based advanced functional materials”. Journal of Bioresources and Bioproducts. 6 (1): 1–10. Bibcode:2021JBiBi…6….1M. doi:10.1016/J.JOBAB.2021.01.001. ISSN 2369-9698.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b ^c Ayres, Phil; Thomsen, Mette Ramsgaard; Sheil, Bob; Skavara, Marilena (2024-04-04). Fabricate 2024: Creating Resourceful Futures. UCL Press. doi:10.2307/jj.11374766.20. ISBN 978-1-80008-634-0.
^ “El Monolito Micelio — Jonathan Dessi-Olive”. jdovaults.com. Retrieved 2024-07-11.
^ Kaiser, Romy; Bridgens, Ben; Elsacker, Elise; Scott, Jane (2023-07-14). “BioKnit: development of mycelium paste for use with permanent textile formwork”. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. 11. doi:10.3389/fbioe.2023.1229693. ISSN 2296-4185. PMC 10374944. PMID 37520299.
^ muvobit. “Home Mogu”. mogu. Retrieved 2024-07-11.
^ “Ecovative – Mycelium Technology”. Ecovative. Retrieved 2024-07-11.
^ Aruta, Giuseppe; Ascione, Fabrizio; Bianco, Nicola; Iovane, Teresa; Mauro, Gerardo Maria (2023). “A responsive double-skin façade for the retrofit of existing buildings: Analysis on an office building in a Mediterranean climate”. Energy and Buildings. 284: 112850. Bibcode:2023EneBu.28412850A. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2023.112850.
^ Martellotta, Francesco; Cannavale, Alessandro; De Matteis, Valeria; Ayr, Ubaldo (2018). “Sustainable sound absorbers obtained from olive pruning wastes and chitosan binder”. Applied Acoustics. 141: 71–78. doi:10.1016/j.apacoust.2018.06.022.
^ Liuzzi, Stefania; Rubino, Chiara; Stefanizzi, Pietro; Martellotta, Francesco (2020-12-01). “Performance Characterization of Broad Band Sustainable Sound Absorbers Made of Almond Skins”. Materials. 13 (23): 5474. Bibcode:2020Mate…13.5474L. doi:10.3390/ma13235474. ISSN 1996-1944. PMC 7731410. PMID 33271849.
^ La Gennusa, Maria; Marino, Concettina; Nucara, Antonino; Panzera, Maria Francesca; Pietrafesa, Matilde (2021-12-14). “Insulating Building Components Made from a Mixture of Waste and Vegetal Materials: Thermal Characterization of Nine New Products”. Sustainability. 13 (24): 13820. doi:10.3390/su132413820. hdl:10447/578560. ISSN 2071-1050.
^ Mandili, B.; Taqi, M.; El Bouari, A.; Errouaiti, M. (2019). “Experimental study of a new ecological building material for a thermal insulation based on waste paper and lime”. Construction and Building Materials. 228: 117097. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117097.
^ Liuzzi, Stefania; Rubino, Chiara; Martellotta, Francesco; Stefanizzi, Pietro (2023-04-08). “Sustainable Materials from Waste Paper: Thermal and Acoustical Characterization”. Applied Sciences. 13 (8): 4710. doi:10.3390/app13084710. ISSN 2076-3417.
^ Aigbomian, Eboziegbe Patrick; Fan, Mizi (2013). “Development of Wood-Crete building materials from sawdust and waste paper”. Construction and Building Materials. 40: 361–366. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.11.018. ISSN 0950-0618.
^ Brzyski, Przemysław; Kosiński, Piotr; Skoratko, Aneta; Motacki, Wojciech (2019). “Thermal properties of cellulose fiber as insulation material in a loose state”. AIP Conference Proceedings. Central European Symposium on Thermophysics 2019 (Cest). 2133 (1): 020006. Bibcode:2019AIPC.2133b0006B. doi:10.1063/1.5120136.
^ “Management of used and waste textiles in Europe’s circular economy — European Environment Agency”. www.eea.europa.eu. Retrieved 2024-07-11.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b Briga-Sá, Ana; Gaibor, Norma; Magalhães, Leandro; Pinto, Tiago; Leitão, Dinis (2022). “Thermal performance characterization of cement-based lightweight blocks incorporating textile waste”. Construction and Building Materials. 321: 126330. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.126330. hdl:10198/25159.
^ Rubino, Chiara; Bonet Aracil, Marilés; Liuzzi, Stefania; Stefanizzi, Pietro; Martellotta, Francesco (2021). “Wool waste used as sustainable nonwoven for building applications”. Journal of Cleaner Production. 278: 123905. Bibcode:2021JCPro.27823905R. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123905.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b Muthu, Subramanian Senthilkannan; Li, Yi; Hu, Jun-Yan; Mok, Pik-Yin (2012). “Recyclability Potential Index (RPI): The concept and quantification of RPI for textile fibres”. Ecological Indicators. 18: 58–62. Bibcode:2012EcInd..18…58M. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.10.003. ISSN 1470-160X.
^ Augello, Andrea; Carcassi, Olga Beatrice; Pittau, Francesco; Malighetti, Laura Elisabetta; De Angelis, Enrico (2022-12-21). “Closing the loop of textile: Circular building renovation with novel recycled insulations from wasted clothes”. Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings. 38: 203–209. doi:10.14311/APP.2022.38.0203. hdl:11311/1230952. ISSN 2336-5382.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b “Seminario Mate.ria tessile”. 2023.festivalsvilupposostenibile.it (in Italian). Retrieved 2024-07-11.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b “Waste Framework Directive – European Commission”. environment.ec.europa.eu. Retrieved 2024-07-11.
^ “Waste framework directive: Council set to start talks on its revision”. European Council. 2024.
^ “Inno-Therm® – Homepage”. Inno-Therm®. Retrieved 2024-07-11.
^ “Le Relais !”. www.lerelais.org. Retrieved 2024-07-11.
^ Jordeva, Sonja; Golomeova Longurova, Sashka; Kertakova, Marija; Mojsov, Kiro; Efremov, Jordan (2019). “Тextile as a sustainable insulating material for buildings”. Tekstilna Industrija. 67 (2): 20–28. doi:10.5937/tekstind1902020J.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b Göswein, Verena; Arehart, Jay; Phan-huy, Catherine; Pomponi, Francesco; Habert, Guillaume (2022-10-06). “Barriers and opportunities of fast-growing biobased material use in buildings”. Buildings and Cities. 3 (1): 745–755. doi:10.5334/bc.254. hdl:20.500.11850/587227. ISSN 2632-6655.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b ^c Andrew, J. Jefferson; Dhakal, H.N. (2022). “Sustainable biobased composites for advanced applications: recent trends and future opportunities – A critical review”. Composites Part C: Open Access. 7: 100220. doi:10.1016/j.jcomc.2021.100220. ISSN 2666-6820.
^ Asdrubali, Francesco; D’Alessandro, Francesco; Schiavoni, Samuele (2015). “A review of unconventional sustainable building insulation materials”. Sustainable Materials and Technologies. 4: 1–17. Bibcode:2015SusMT…4….1A. doi:10.1016/j.susmat.2015.05.002. ISSN 2214-9937.
^ Chang, Boon Peng; Mohanty, Amar K.; Misra, Manjusri (2020). “Studies on durability of sustainable biobased composites: a review”. RSC Advances. 10 (31): 17955–17999. Bibcode:2020RSCAd..1017955C. doi:10.1039/C9RA09554C. ISSN 2046-2069. PMC 9054028. PMID 35517220.
^ “European industrial strategy”. commission.europa.eu.
^ “Commission takes action to boost biotechnology and biomanufacturing in the EU”. ec.europa.eu. 2024.
^ “Circular economy action plan”. environment.ec.europa.eu.