buildings

Review
Moving toward Net Zero Carbon Buildings to Face Global
Warming: A Narrative Review
Davide Tirelli and Daniela Besana *

Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture (DICAr), University of Pavia, 27100 Pavia, Italy
* Correspondence: [Link]@[Link]; Tel.: +39-0382-985404

Abstract: The increase in global surface temperatures will surpass the 2 ◦ C target set by the Paris
Agreement unless carbon emissions are lowered to zero by 2050. To date, the building sector is
responsible for 38% of all carbon emissions, thus one of the main targets is represented by the devel-
opment of building strategies that can facilitate the transition toward carbon-neutral buildings. The
main strategies are today represented by nearly zero energy buildings (nZEBs), zero energy buildings
(ZEBs)/net zero energy buildings (NZEBs) and net zero carbon buildings (NZCBs). Particularly,
NZCBs completely target zero operational and embodied carbon during their life cycles, fulfilling the
leadership role in the decarbonization of the construction sector. Moreover, adopting the European
Standard EN 15978:2011, carbon emissions can be precisely classified to enhance strategies aimed at
reducing them. Commercial viability remains a fundamental economic driver, but the higher initial
capital costs hinder the NZCBs. In addition, legislative, socio-cultural, technological, professional and
geographical barriers hold back its diffusion. NZCBs can be met by a four-steps program: embodied
carbon reduction, operational carbon reduction, increase in renewable energy supply and offset and
carbon storage. Circular economy principles are strictly connected to design for disassembly and
for adaptability to reduce embodied carbon, while passive design and solar and geothermal energy
production can satisfy the renewable energy demand of the building. The aim of this narrative review
is to determine and describe which is the current state of the art for NZCB definition, the drivers
and barriers toward its application in a broader context and which strategies are eligible to meet the
ambitious goal of zero operational and zero embodied carbon emissions.

Keywords: net zero carbon buildings; carbon-neutral buildings; zero energy buildings; embodied
Citation: Tirelli, D.; Besana, D.
carbon; climate change; global warming; Paris Agreement; LCA; nature-based solutions; drivers
Moving toward Net Zero Carbon
Buildings to Face Global Warming: A
and barriers
Narrative Review. Buildings 2023, 13,
684. [Link]
buildings13030684
1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Md Morshed Alam
The role of buildings has not changed during the millennia: their primitive purpose of
Received: 31 January 2023 shelter is still fundamental, although economical, technical and societal progress allowed
Revised: 28 February 2023 an evolution that dramatically changed design principles, tectonics (architectural syntax
Accepted: 2 March 2023 study), comfort quality and environmental impact [1]. In fact, during the current century,
Published: 5 March 2023 global warming and climate changes are the most relevant threats to mankind. Due to
the huge quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the consequent increase in
temperature is causing unusual meteorological phenomena, i.e., rising sea levels and a
growing number of hot days without precedent in history [2]. Moreover, buildings have
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
a crucial role in carbon emissions, accounting for 38% of global emissions [3]. Instead of
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
taking care of and protecting people, it could thus appear that buildings could involuntarily
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
become dangerous if a different path in construction technology is not followed. Designers,
conditions of the Creative Commons
developers, governments, users and other stakeholders have started to ask for more energy-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// efficient buildings, leading to a series of efficiency targets and definitions, like nearly zero
[Link]/licenses/by/ energy buildings (nZEBs) and zero energy buildings (ZEBs), and carbon-efficient buildings
4.0/). such as net zero carbon buildings (NZCBs), ready to satisfy the decarbonization process [4].

Buildings 2023, 13, 684. [Link] [Link]

Buildings 2023, 13, 684 2 of 21

The aim of this narrative review is to determine and describe which is the current state
of the art for NZCB definition, the drivers and barriers toward its application in a broader
context and which strategies are eligible to meet the ambitious goal of zero operational and
zero embodied carbon emissions. The paper highlights a significant uncertainty and a not
universally shared strategy for building decarbonization. Thus, underlining which are the
most promising research topics and where are the main problems to deal with will help in
the development of new approaches in the construction sector.

2. Methods
The paper carries out a non-systematic, narrative literature review about building
decarbonization, in particular about net zero carbon buildings, the design solutions and the
drivers and barriers toward its diffusion. The most relevant articles were retrieved through
the search engines Web of Science, Scopus and Connected Papers to select suitable original
articles and reviews written in English, in addition to specific pamphlets and publications
written by organizations such as the United Nations or the UK Green Building Council
and books about the above-mentioned topics. The following keywords were combined to
create ad hoc strings: net zero carbon buildings, nearly zero energy buildings, zero energy
buildings, carbon-negative buildings, absolute zero carbon, carbon neutrality, climate
change, global warming, drivers and barriers, bio-based materials, embodied carbon and
operational carbon.

3. Increase in Carbon Emission and Reduction Pathways

3.1. The Era of Anthropocene
Worldwide temperatures were increasing in the last century more than ever, reaching
new peaks every year so that each of the last 40 years turned out to be warmer than any one
since before 1850. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
the global surface temperature increase was about 1.07 ◦ C in the decade 2010–2019 [2].
The main causes of global warming are greenhouse gases that lead to an increase in
the global average temperature and in the growth in the number of hot days, unusual
meteorological phenomena of strong intensity and in the rise of sea levels. Crutzen coined
the term Anthropocene to figure out that a new geological era, human caused by the
greenhouse gases emissions, started around 1784, when James Watt patented his steam
machine that led to industrialization and the consequent rise in carbon emissions [5].
Several studies have proposed that an effective solution for controlling the rise in
temperatures could be represented by the progressive reduction in carbon emissions,
with the goal for them to become zero by 2050, pursuing a carbon-neutral strategy. Car-
bon emissions were at around 54 Gt CO2 e (carbon dioxide equivalent) in 2021, exclud-
ing land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) contributions, and will peak by
2024–2025. This means that complete decarbonization will be a huge task that will involve
all production sectors [6,7].
A universal agreement about climate protection, the Paris Agreement, was signed
in 2015 during the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) by 197 countries. The deal estab-
lished the pursuance of a carbon-neutral strategy to maintain the global average rise in
temperature closer to 1.5 ◦ C by 2050 and below 2 ◦ C [8]. However, according to the IPCC
publication, simulations indicate that this goal might not be respected since the increase in
temperatures may vary between an additional 1.6 ◦ C and 4.4 ◦ C during the 21st century in
the most severe simulation, leading to an increase in extreme events, including fires, floods,
heat waves and monsoons [2].
The zero net emissions target set for 2050 by the Paris Agreement requires that all gov-
ernments work together to increase renewable energy production (from eolic, hydroelectric,
solar and nuclear plants) and the development of clean technologies [9]. At the same time,
it is necessary to raise awareness and spread sustainable good practices among people for
different choices and habits.
Buildings 2023, 13, 684 3 of 21

3.2. Carbon Emissions in the Construction Sector: Decarbonization Targets

The main contributor of carbon dioxide emissions is the construction sector, account-
ing for 38% in 2019, equal to 10 billion tons of CO2 e, of which 28% is related to buildings
and 10% to the construction materials industry [3]. The building sector was also responsi-
ble for 33% of electricity consumed in 2020 in Europe, a percentage that will rise to 72%
by 2050. However, in OECD countries in 2020, 53% of electricity production came from
the combustion of fossil fuels, mainly natural gas and coal, which impact carbon emis-
sions negatively, while 30% came from renewable sources and 17% from nuclear power
plants [9–11].
To face climate change and environmental mitigation, the design of existing and
future buildings is crucial to achieve building energy efficiency and neutrality [12]. The
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) set two targets
for carbon reduction in buildings. By 2030, the net-zero target in operations for all new
or refurbished buildings and a reduction of at least 40% of the embodied carbon must be
achieved, while by 2050 all buildings will have to meet the net-zero-carbon target over the
entire life cycle [13]. In the faster transition scenario proposed by the International Energy
Agency (IEA), near-zero-energy construction and deep-energy retrofitting will cut energy
needs by 30% by 2050, even though the global floor area will double. Heating and cooling
systems are expected to grow their energy efficiency, although nowadays heat pumps have
already an efficiency factor of at least four, while heat produced with solar thermal provides
carbon-free supply to nearly 3 billion people [14].

4. NZCB Compared to Other Energy and Carbon Target Classifications

4.1. Definition of Energy and Carbon Reduction Classification for Buildings
The construction sector accounts for about 38% of the total greenhouse gases emissions.
Thus, it is the biggest contributor [3] but potentially the sector where it is more convenient
to intervene to reduce the carbon footprint. This would necessarily require thinking beyond
the actual regulatory schemes. Among the most relevant strategies to cut emissions it has
to be considered a more efficient energy consumption, together with the wider adoption of
clean and renewable energy sources [4].
Scientific literature offers many types of classification for low/zero-energy and
low/zero-carbon buildings.
Each classification and rating focuses on specific values, for example, energy efficiency,
carbon emissions (embodied or operational), renewable energy production and life-cycle
behavior from a sustainability point of view. According to Berardi, the sustainability as-
sessment rating schemes available worldwide number more than 600 and are still evolving
but can be grouped into the cumulative energy demand (CED) systems (which focus on
energy consumption), the life-cycle analysis (LCA) systems (more devoted to environmen-
tal aspects) and the total quality assessment (TQA) systems, which evaluate ecological,
economic and social aspects [15,16]. In the following paragraphs, a complete overview
of building classifications according to low/zero-energy and -carbon standards will be
presented (Figure 1).
 Buildings 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 21
Buildings 2023, 13, 684 4 of 21

Figure 1. Different classifications for buildings based on energy consumption from the grid, renewable
Figureproduction,
energy 1. Differentcarbon
classifications
emissionforproduction
buildings based on energy consumption from the grid, renew-
and offset.
able energy production, carbon emission production and offset.
4.2. Business as Usual (BaU)
4.2. The
Business as Usual
reference (BaU)
configuration of a building is commonly referred to as business as usual
(BaU),The
i.e.,reference
a building configuration
that has been of designed
a buildinginiscompliance
commonly with referred to as
energy business as
performance
usual (BaU),
standards i.e., anot
but does building that has
pay particular been designed
attention in compliance
to the reduction with energy
in greenhouse perfor-
gases (GHG)
mance standards
emissions, but does not
either operational or ofpay particular
those embodied attention
[17]. Theto reference
the reduction in greenhouse
building consumes
an average of about 220 kWh/m 2 , has an amount of operational GHG emissions of about
gases (GHG) emissions, either operational or of those embodied [17]. The reference build-
70 kgCO 2
ing 2 e/m /year
consumes and embodied
an average of about 220carbon emissions
kWh/m 2, has aninamount
the production and construction
of operational GHG emis-
phases (upfront carbon) 2 [18].
sions of about 70 kgCOof about
2e/m 2/year1000
andkgCO e/m
embodied
2 carbon emissions in the production and
construction phases (upfront carbon) of about 1000 kgCO2e/m [18]. 2
4.3. Nearly Zero Energy Building (nZEB)
4.3. One of Zero
Nearly the most relevant
Energy targets
Building (nZEB)for energy efficiency is the nearly zero energy build-
ing (nZEB), which is now mandatory
One of the most relevant targets for for energy
new and renewed
efficiency is buildings
the nearly in Europe,
zero energyasbuild-
pre-
scribed by the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) 2010/31/EU
ing (nZEB), which is now mandatory for new and renewed buildings in Europe, as pre- in Art. 9:
“Member States shall ensure that: (a) by 31 December 2020, all new buildings
scribed by the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) 2010/31/EU in Art. 9: are nearly
zero-energy buildings;
“Member States shall and (b) after
ensure that: 31
(a)December 2018, new
by 31 December buildings
2020, all newoccupied and
buildings areowned
nearly
by public authorities are nearly zero-energy buildings”, meanwhile introducing
zero-energy buildings; and (b) after 31 December 2018, new buildings occupied and a “numeri-
cal indicator of primary energy use expressed in kWh/m2 per year” [19].
owned by public authorities are nearly zero-energy buildings”, meanwhile introducing a
“numerical indicator of primary energy use expressed in kWh/m2 per year” [19].
The notion of nZEB is included in Art. 2(2) of the EPBD: an nZEB “means a building
that has a very high energy performance, as determined in accordance with Annex I. The
Buildings 2023, 13, 684 5 of 21

The notion of nZEB is included in Art. 2(2) of the EPBD: an nZEB “means a building
that has a very high energy performance, as determined in accordance with Annex I.
The nearly zero or very low amount of energy required should be covered to a very
significant extent by energy from renewable sources, including energy from renewable
sources produced on-site or nearby” [19].
EPBD Annex I states: “The energy performance of a building shall be determined on
the basis of the calculated or actual annual energy that is consumed in order to meet the
different needs associated with its typical use and shall reflect the heating energy needs
and cooling energy needs (energy needed to avoid overheating) to maintain the envisaged
temperature conditions of the building, and domestic hot water needs” [19].
Hence, the EU directive focuses on the envelope performance to meet low-energy
needs [20] but fails in the definition of embodied energy and embodied carbon [18].
Introducing life-cycle cost (LCC) and life-cycle inventory (LCI) analyses adds further
layers of assessment onto the application of nZEB in the construction sector. European
Regulation 224/2012 [21], in Annex I, defines the comparative methodology framework to
be applied by member states (MS) for the calculation of cost-optimal levels of minimum
energy-performance requirements in the building sector. Nevertheless, many factors
contribute to the economic uncertainty of the building LCC assessment, which are due to
both macroeconomic, financial viewpoints and the energy price and performance of the
building, so that it becomes a difficult task to find the cost-optimal level for nZEBs [22–24].
Overall, the strategies to reach the nZEB goal include optimal air tightness, insulation
thickness and glass and windows performance (U-value), heating, ventilation and air
conditioning (HVAC) systems with heat recovery and extensive installation of photovoltaic
panels [25–33].

4.4. Zero Energy Building (ZEB)/Net Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB)

A further step into energy efficiency is provided by the concept of net zero energy
buildings (NZEBs), which require a supply of energy from renewable sources to not use
fossil fuels while increasing energy efficiency [34]. The “net” word specifies that this type
of building has an overall balance of energy taken from and supplied back to the gird in
a certain amount of time [35]. This classification is commonly referred to also as the zero
energy building (ZEB), which is defined by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) as “a building that uses no more energy than
is provided by the building on-site renewable energy sources on annual basis” [36,37].
The US Department of Energy definition includes the advantages of a ZEB: “ZEBs use
all cost-effective measures to reduce energy usage through energy efficiency and include
renewable energy systems that produce enough energy to meet remaining energy needs.
There are a number of long-term advantages of moving toward ZEBs, including lower
environmental impacts, lower operating and maintenance costs, better resiliency to power
outages and natural disasters, and improved energy security” [38]. Still, the definitions
of NZEB and ZEB lack the embodied energy or embodied carbon assessment, which can
negatively affect the environment more than energy production, as later discussed [25].
Carbon metrics can be added to the ZEB definition, as well as exergy, energy cost
defined by national policies, investor priorities and goals to balance costs and
benefits [39–41].

4.5. Net Zero Carbon Building (NZCB)

To deal with climate changes indicators, the carbon footprint must be included to
properly know the main causes of GHG emissions.
The UK Green Building Council’s (UKGBC) proposed definition of NZCB is the clear-
est: a building is net zero carbon “when the quantities of greenhouse gas emissions associ-
ated with the operational and embodied footprint of the building throughout the life cycle,
including its disposal, are zero or negative” [42]. This definition, which considers the entire
life cycle, is considered particularly conservative and is still being studied. Therefore, a
Buildings 2023, 13, 684 6 of 21

different formulation is also proposed by the institution divided into three successive steps:
net zero carbon—construction (for embodied emissions), net zero carbon—operational
energy (for the operational emissions) and net zero carbon—whole life (previous definition),
as an end point to be reached in the future.
In particular, a building can be defined as net zero carbon—construction “when the
amount of GHG emissions associated with the production and construction phases of a
building up to completion is zero or less than zero, thanks to the offsetting of emissions or
the net export of renewable energy produced on-site”, and net zero carbon—operational
energy “when the amount of GHG emissions associated with the building’s energy in
operation on an annual basis is zero or less than zero. A net zero carbon building is energy
efficient and powered by on-site and off-site renewable energy sources, with any remaining
emissions offsetting” [42].
A further explanation was formulated by the designers of the ARUP studio, for whom
“Net zero carbon is defined as a reduction in the demand for energy and materials to
a level that can be met solely by sources that do not emit greenhouse gases”. To meet
this definition, it is estimated that the intensity of energy use in buildings will have to be
reduced by 60% by 2050 [4].
Despite the great number of studies about carbon emissions reduction, a shared
definition and term for NZCBs is still lacking. This is why they are referred to also
as zero carbon buildings (ZCB), especially in the US context [43], life-cycle zero energy
buildings (LC-ZEB), passive houses, carbon neutral, net zero energy, zero net energy, zero
energy, fossil fuel-free, energy plus, climate-neutral and 100% renewable [44–46], each one
with specific adopted metrics. The NZCB concept appeared first in 2006 in the United
Kingdom [47], but the boundaries of the energy balance, both geographically and in timing,
must be set to establish a generally applied definition [39]. First, it is important to include
both operational and embodied carbon deriving from construction, maintenance and the
end of life of the building [48,49]. As shown in several studies, embodied carbon can exceed
50% of overall emissions and be greater than operational carbon [4] because of a strong
reduction in energy consumption thanks to nZEB and ZEB principles. Specific materials
added to satisfy energy demand reduction can considerably improve the embodied carbon
of the building (such as mineral-based thermal insulation, mechanical equipment and new
windows), eliminating the corresponding reduction in operational carbon during the life
cycle [50–52].
Six materials or components (concrete, steel, aluminum profiles, glass and services
such as lighting, heating and cooling) are responsible for about 70% of the embodied carbon
contribution, while the maintenance phase can account for 20% of emissions over the
life cycle [18]. The main metrics method for the zero-carbon assessment is provided by
the EN15978:2011 standard, also called the whole-life carbon assessment (WLCA) [53,54].
Carbon emissions are divided into five phases: production (phases A1–A3), construction
(A4–A5), use (B1–B7), end of life (C1–C4) and beyond life (D), to be assessed separately
(production, construction, use, end of life and beyond life). The operational carbon is
represented by modules B6 and B7, while all the other modules refer to the embodied
carbon [55] (Table 1).
The WLCA evaluation is commonly conducted only for a few projects in the world be-
cause of insufficient carbon literacy and the lack of standard procedures and databases [56].
Buildings 2023, 13, 684 7 of 21

Table 1. Whole-life carbon assessment (WLCA) calculation methodology as defined by EN15978:2011.

Emissions are unpacked into four modules to highlight where emissions come from.

WLCA Methodology—EN 15978:2011

A1 Raw material supply
A2 Production Transport Embodied
A3 Manufacturing
A4 Transport
Construction Embodied
A5 Construction and installation process
B1 Use

Cradle—to grave
B2 Maintenance
B3 Repair Embodied

Cradle to completion
B4 Replacement

Cradle to gate
In-use

Cradle to site
B5 Refurbishment
B6 Operational energy
Operational
B7 Operational water
C1 Deconstruction and demolition
C2 Transport
End of life Embodied
C3 Waste processing
C4 Disposal
Benefits and loads
D Beyond life Embodied
Reuse, recovery, recycling

4.6. Beyond Carbon Neutrality

It is possible for a building to perform better than NZCBs, if the compensation for
carbon emissions is bigger than their release into the atmosphere.
Carbon-negative buildings (CNBs) or beyond zero embrace eco-positive principles
to reverse the negative impacts of construction and development, increasing the natural
life support [57]. For a CNB, the embodied carbon is the main concern, since it produces
more energy than it consumes in operation. Therefore, it is important to carefully select the
materials used in the design to minimize the environmental impact [58].
A possible solution is the adoption of a carbon capture unit (CCU) at a building level,
but the market feasibility, according to building managers, is scarce because of higher costs.
Thus, the emissions reduction goal for the local governments is in conflict with the building
sector stakeholders [59].
The last place within this classification can be occupied by the so-called absolute zero
carbon buildings (AZCB), an asymptotic condition to strive for but currently conceivable
only at a conceptual level. The absolute zero specification implies that emissions are actually
avoided without the use of offsets, both in the operational phase, with the use of renewable
energy (produced on site or not) that satisfies the energy needs of the building, and also in
the construction phase through the use of materials from zero-emission supply chains, in
the end-of-life (EoL) disposal phase and in the use of fuel and electricity for transport and
construction [60,61].

5. Drivers and Barriers to NZCB Adoption

As seen in the previous paragraph, the NZCB is a tough target to reach in the
construction sector but of vital importance to attempt to mitigate climate change and
global warming by 2 ◦ C and preferably by 1.5 ◦ C [8]. Despite the legislative frame-
work that set progressive targets to enable this pledge and the efforts in the research
field, there are several barriers to overcome to promote and diffuse the adoption of the
NZCB [62] (Figure 2).
Buildings 2023, 13,
Buildings x FOR
2023, PEER REVIEW
13, 684 8 of 21 8 of 21

FigureFigure
2. Drivers and barriers
2. Drivers for net zero
and barriers carbon
for net zero buildings: it is possible
carbon buildings: to sum them
it is possible up into
to sum themsix
up into
categories.
six categories.

5.1. Drivers
5.1. Main Main Drivers
As seenAs seen
in theinprevious
the previous paragraph,
paragraph, thethe NZCB
NZCB is is hardtotoreach
hard reach in
in the
the construction
constructionsector,
but some drivers for delivering zero carbon buildings have
sector, but some drivers for delivering zero carbon buildings have been studied been studied [63]. Osmani
[63]. Os- and
O’Reilly analyzed cultural, legislative, financial and business drivers,
mani and O’Reilly analyzed cultural, legislative, financial and business drivers, as well as as well as design,
design, cultural, legislative and financial barriers in England to the realization of zero car-homes
cultural, legislative and financial barriers in England to the realization of zero carbon
from the
bon homes fromhousebuilder
the housebuilderperspective [64]. [64].
perspective Legislative and and
Legislative economic
economicdrivers are the
drivers are most
relevant, but also personal commitment to the climate change
the most relevant, but also personal commitment to the climate change issue drives an issue drives an important
role, although
important this can
role, although thisrepresent a main
can represent a barrier if absent
main barrier [63,65–67].
if absent As stated
[63,65–67]. by the IEA,
As stated
buildings have a clear role in carbon emission reduction through
by the IEA, buildings have a clear role in carbon emission reduction through the adoptionthe adoption of existing
technologies while improving comfort and services. Since the built-floor
of existing technologies while improving comfort and services. Since the built-floor area area is expected
to double by 2050, construction of new buildings in association
is expected to double by 2050, construction of new buildings in association with the reno-with the renovation of
existing built assets is a crucial driver for delivering on the zero-carbon
vation of existing built assets is a crucial driver for delivering on the zero-carbon target bytarget by adopting
specific design solutions and strategies that can become common practices in the next
adopting specific design solutions and strategies that can become common practices in
decades [14,68]. Moreover, market expectations about the carbon performance of assets
the next decades [14,68]. Moreover, market expectations about the carbon performance of
and products are becoming higher, leading to the risk for carbon-intensive buildings to
assets and products are becoming higher, leading to the risk for carbon-intensive build-
become stranded if they are not decarbonized. Stakeholders should be aware of this risk to
ings to become stranded if they are not decarbonized. Stakeholders should be aware of
progressively assess the stranding risk of their assets [4,69].
this risk to progressively assess the stranding risk of their assets [4,69].
5.2. Main Barriers
5.2. Main Barriers
There are still many barriers that limit the diffusion of NZCBs around the world; many
There
studiesare still many
provide barriers
evidence thatinlimit
of this somethe diffusion
legislative of NZCBs [63,64,70–72].
frameworks around the world;
many studies provide evidence of this in some legislative frameworks
Ohene et al. highlight that the NZCB delivery supply chain needs [63,64,70–72].
great collaboration
Ohene et al. highlight that the NZCB delivery supply chain needs
between the stakeholders involved in the process (policymakers, developers,great collaboration
investors,
between theplanners,
urban stakeholders involved
architects in the process
and construction (policymakers,
companies) developers,
and classified investors,
the barriers to NZCBs
urbaninto
planners, architects economic,
seven categories: and construction companies)
legislative, and classified
technological, the barriers to
professional/technical, market,
NZCBs into seven categories:
social-cultural economic,
and geographic legislative,
barriers [62]. technological, professional/technical,
market, social-cultural and geographic barriers [62].
Buildings 2023, 13, 684 9 of 21

5.2.1. Economic Barriers

The scientific literature broadly discussed the economic and market barriers to NZCB
implementation, which are mainly related to the upfront investments (construction and
design phase) necessary to adopt NZCB strategies [73]. Heffernan and Pan and Pan noticed
that economic factors are the most significant barriers in the analyzed local contexts in
Europe and Hong Kong, but commercial viability remains a fundamental economic driver
to deliver the attractiveness of NZCBs. Therefore, the higher initial capital costs hinder
the NZCBs. To understand the environmental and economic implications of buildings’
construction, end users should know the carbon savings of their investments [63,65,74].
This is particularly relevant in developing and emerging economies or for lower- and
middle-income earners, where it is more difficult to provide the initial investment [62].
According to some recent studies, global cost, life-cycle cost or investment cost are
primarily considered, while energy consumption in the operational stage of the building is
considered secondly [75].
In addition, a cost-optimal approach focused on the district level should be defined to
establish the environmental and social impacts in terms of benefits at a local community
level. This may help the development of decarbonization strategies to reduce impacts on a
local scale [24,76,77].

5.2.2. Legislative Barriers

NZCB diffusion finds a big obstacle in legislative holes, since a common definition is
still missing in policies and regulations all over the world, as extensively discussed in the
literature [20,62,63,66,70,78–81]. Separating operational and embodied carbon calculations
pushes industry practice toward the unintended consequence of demolishing and then
replacing buildings with new ones, increasing the whole-life energy and carbon [82,83].
However, the legislative framework can stimulate the delivery of zero carbon practices
among stakeholders and investors, compelling the construction industry to decrease the
environmental impact, to supply energy-efficiency standards and to implement effective
monitoring. Nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and climate policies should
add building decarbonization strategies by the adoption of energy- and carbon-efficiency
labels, and the shift of all markets toward more energy-efficient appliances, lighting and
mechanical equipment can push forward to NZCB diffusion [62,78,84].
Moreover, the lack of specific governmental economic support through financial
incentives, such as green bond financing and lease agreements for NZCBs, remains a
substantial barrier given the great upfront investments by private customers, who are
unsure that they will recover the bigger costs [62,63,85].

5.2.3. Technological Barriers

The NZCB target can be already reached by adopting existing technologies, but the
availability of solutions to satisfy each performance requirement is limited and a really
accurate evaluation must be done during the project, metaproject and WLCA phases [86].
Technologies for enhancing building energy efficiency focusing on building envelope,
heating and cooling and energy generation are already diffused and are crucial to satisfy the
NZCB requirements, especially for the operational carbon [87]. Cost implications are today
much reduced for photovoltaic (PV) electricity (−75% since 2010) and for wind turbines
(−32%) [88,89].
Market demand for NZCBs is still substantially lacking good marketing strategies [65,66,80],
while the initial higher investment for energy efficiency [65] and the little knowledge of
market potential [39,73] hinder its viability. Lastly, geographical characteristics, density and
climate conditions can be obstacles for the adoption and integration of some carbon-zero
technologies, such as energy and heat production [62,64].
Buildings 2023, 13, 684 10 of 21

5.2.4. Professional Barriers

NZCB design is still rarely diffused, since the lack of databases and standard pro-
cedures adopted by professionals, as much as inadequate carbon literacy, affect its fea-
sibility [90,91]. Despite that environmental product declaration (EPD) databases had a
significant increase in the number of products available, it is still difficult to source the nec-
essary data to develop a carbon assessment, leading to the use of outdated or geographically
misplaced data [92].
Professionals are commonly not trained to design an NZCB. Since professional and
technical competencies are required to drive NZCB adoption, it is very difficult to dif-
fuse them on a large scale. Designers need to spend more time on the design phase
because of LCA evaluations, while knowledge of 3D modeling, building information
modeling (BIM) and digital twins (DT) is compulsory [93]. Moreover, construction work-
ers lack the appropriate knowledge, including dry construction methods that are not
strictly connected with NZCBs, and stakeholder involvement and collaboration are still
narrow [62,63,66,87,94,95].
Certification of net-zero buildings through recognized schemes is a big improvement
both for commercial viability and for professionals’ practices. However, experts perceive
in these certifications an obstacle, given their complexity and the necessity for specific
training to successfully obtain the results [62]. The certification of NZCBs does not require
specific tools but commonly relies on schemes like Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) in the US, the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment
Methodology (BREEAM) in the UK, the Green Star system in Australia and the Deutsche
Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen (DGNB) system in Germany [62,96].

5.2.5. Socio-Cultural Barriers

Governments need to raise experience and knowledge about carbon reduction, high-
lighting the benefits for the building sector and other sources of GHG emissions relatable
to people’s choices. In fact, many customers and end users are not aware at all of the conve-
nience of NZEB and NZCB homes, lessening their diffusion [63,65,81,95]. The perceived
difficulty of avoiding fossil fuels and resistance to change are main causes of the slowness
of the net-zero-carbon economy transition.
A fundamental driver to NZCBs is represented by favorable and easy financial support
that allows the reduction in the higher upfront investment cost. It is therefore necessary
that governments and loan companies provide adequate credit access for building owners
and investors [62].

5.2.6. Geographical Barriers

Geographical location and climate conditions can be obstacles to NZCB distribution.
Geography can affect in situ renewable energy production, in particular in high-rise, high-
density cities, limiting the reliability and adequacy for some regions [97]. Elsewhere, it
can be difficult to retrofit existing buildings because of climate conditions that restrict the
economic and technical feasibility of the interventions [20,56,63,98].

6. Net Zero Carbon Building Strategies

The adoption of new construction standards with their own requirements needs to
solve open questions on how to guarantee the willing performances set. The NZCB pushes
the boundaries of carbon efficiency to very strict limits, since all emissions produced must
be offset and compensated for, increasing the decarbonization strategy effort in the design
phase. As explained by Hill et al. [4], to achieve the net-zero-carbon target, it is needed to
reduce the demand for energy and materials and increase the sources of supply to meet the
demand without carbon emissions.
According to ZEB guidelines, the energy consumption reduction in new building
construction or renovation can benefit many strategies, all meant to reduce operational
carbon, including integrated design, reduced plug loads and energy-efficiency retrofits [38].
 renewable energy supply and compensation for residual embodied emissions [4,42,86]
(Figure 3).
Reducing emissions and energy consumption is crucial to meet the goal: the fewer
emissions produced, the less offsetting and compensation have to be provided. According
to UKGBC, the development of net-zero-carbon practices guarantees a competitive ad-
Buildings 2023, 13, 684 vantage in economic terms, following three guidelines: pay per pollute, encourage trans- 11 of 21
parency and encourage immediate action. In fact, the cost of offsetting is lower if positive
emission reduction practices are adopted; publishing data about carbon emissions drives
trust isand
This increases
only one steppublic awareness
of a four-step on thistotopic,
program meetwhile an early
the NZCB adoption
standards, of the
which zero- a
include
carbon approach for operational and construction emissions will help to meet the goal
reduction in embodied carbon, a reduction in operational carbon, an increase in renewable for
the entire life cycle [42].
energy supply and compensation for residual embodied emissions [4,42,86] (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Embodied and operational carbon timeline to complete decarbonization in four phases.
Figure 3. Embodied and operational carbon timeline to complete decarbonization in four phases.
Starting from the business-as-usual (BaU) condition, it is possible to reduce embodied and operational
Starting from the business-as-usual (BaU) condition, it is possible to reduce embodied and opera-
carboncarbon
tional and then
and offset/compensate for the
then offset/compensate for remaining part.
the remaining Transport
part. carbon
Transport can
carbon bebe
can considerably
consider-
reduced
ably by applying
reduced healthy-city
by applying principles.
healthy-city principles.

Reducing
6.1. Embodied emissions
Carbon and energy consumption is crucial to meet the goal: the fewer
Reduction
emissions produced, the less offsetting and compensation have to be provided. Accord-
ing to UKGBC, the development of net-zero-carbon practices guarantees a competitive
advantage in economic terms, following three guidelines: pay per pollute, encourage
transparency and encourage immediate action. In fact, the cost of offsetting is lower if
positive emission reduction practices are adopted; publishing data about carbon emissions
drives trust and increases public awareness on this topic, while an early adoption of the
zero-carbon approach for operational and construction emissions will help to meet the goal
for the entire life cycle [42].

6.1. Embodied Carbon Reduction

As provided for EN 15978:2011, embodied carbon is present both during the transport
and production of materials, as well as during construction, maintenance and the end of
life of the buildings, making it really difficult to reduce its quantity. To reduce embodied
Buildings 2023, 13, 684 12 of 21

carbon, one of the best strategies is to carefully evaluate the contractor’s requirements,
implementing the “Build Less, Build Clever” principle and, when possible, reusing existing
buildings, which can save up to 50% in embodied carbon emissions [4]. In fact, demolition
and new construction with energy-efficiency requirements impacts more than a well-
designed retrofit and the reuse of existing assets [82,86], but it is possible that the best
solution for the customer is not to build anything but to consider alternative solutions,
assuring a complete reduction in carbon emissions [99].
To reduce embodied carbon, it is essential to make low-carbon choices during the
design stage, including the designs for adaptability and flexibility. This allows the new
construction to be more resilient to future changes and users’ needs, extending the life
cycle of the building without making major modifications [4,100]. This strategy includes,
for example, designing new buildings with big story heights and very regular structural
frames to allow free internal distribution [101]. Choosing local materials and material
supplier is helpful to reduce transport carbon emissions, while enhancing the proximity
economy. Another fundamental design strategy is to apply circular economy principles
during construction and EoL, choosing recycled and recyclable materials [102].
The adoption of a design for disassembly principles, using mainly dry technologies
and mechanical connections, allows the deconstruction of the building at the end of its life
cycle, minimizing waste products and helping to reuse the materials. This will enable the
application of circularity principles that will contribute toward sustainable development
goals and climate change mitigation efforts [100,101,103].
Linked to circular economy principles, it is important to note the role of urban min-
ing applied to deconstruction and waste generated by buildings’ demolitions, providing
precious resources to create new reusable components and materials [104,105]. Processing
waste materials and components is likely to save more energy than the production of new
elements, reducing embodied carbon in the A1–A3 stages. Analysis of the inventory of
resources minable from the specific local context must be performed to determine the types
of resources and the estimated quantities available [106].
Value engineering (VE) is a process of design optimization through design strategies
that will deliver the value desired in the most effective way, substituting “building ma-
terials, systems or design strategies to reduce capital costs without negatively impacting
functionality” [107,108]. The same approach can be extended to embodied carbon optimiza-
tion, called carbon value engineering (CO2 VE), where an alternative design is considered
to reduce embodied carbon and evaluate the feasibility of the new proposal. Langston et al.
have analyzed several buildings in Melbourne, finding out that building cost reductions
can also reduce embodied carbon through dematerialization, meaning that more expensive
buildings and solutions also have higher embodied carbon [109]. A building’s cost and
embodied carbon are pointed out at three scales: the building scale, building components
and building materials [108].

6.2. Operational Carbon Reduction

Reducing operational carbon can be achieved through the adoption of the solutions
commonly provided for ZEBs and nZEBs, including integrated designs, reduced plug loads
and energy-efficiency retrofits. Once energy consumption is downsized, less renewable
energy production is required to meet the demand [38].
Reducing operational carbon emissions can be achieved by the adoption of solutions
for passive design, which include natural lighting and ventilation, passive heating and
cooling and adaptive comfort theories [86,110].
Users prefer to intervene directly in the internal climate, deciding to power on or off
the heating and cooling system and lights, to open windows or change the air velocity
controlled by fan –coil systems. To reduce operational carbon and satisfy users is therefore
preferable, allowing people to freely intervene in uncomfortable conditions, avoiding
unintuitive behavior such as the “blinds down, lights on syndrome” [103,111]. Moreover,
users mainly tolerate situations in natural conditions where they do not meet the required
Buildings 2023, 13, 684 13 of 21

standards (adaptive comfort theory) [112]. The use of an energy demands management
shifts energy demand peaks, throttling it to use simpler energy-supply systems that are
balanced to the common energy request occurring most of the time (in particular for
electricity) [4].
The biggest operational carbon benefits can be achieved with architectural solutions,
such as envelope thermal performance (both glazed surfaces and walls), where the trans-
mittance level is the main key performance indicator, but also with the disposition of glazed
surfaces, thermal masses and solar-reflective surfaces, both in case of new construction
or retrofit [86,110,113,114]. The inclusion of green roofs is a good way to reflect between
20% and 30% of solar radiation, while absorbing light and carbon emissions through
photosynthesis [115].

6.3. Zero Carbon Energy Sources

The compensation of operational carbon can be achieved through renewable energy
production directly in situ. This requirement is satisfied also for nZEB and ZEB buildings,
with the need to evaluate the embodied carbon associated with the energy production
equipment. Energy production can occur with photovoltaic panels, eventually integrated
in the facades and on the roofs, micro-eolic power units and geothermal pumps [4,28,86].
In association with heat pumps for heating, cooling and hot sanitary water production,
it is possible to achieve the net-zero operational carbon target or surpass it; in fact, electricity
production in excess can be sold to the grid, increasing its amount of green electricity, which
is on a complex and long path toward decarbonization [116].
As for transport carbon, produced by the people reaching the building, following
decarbonization in the transport sector, the amount of GHGs will be lower, but promoting
healthy-city principles with a bigger share in the use of soft mobility and public transport
must be preferred [103,117].

6.4. Offset, Carbon Storage and Compensation

To compensate for embodied carbon produced during modules A1–A5, B1–B5 and C,
ascertaining that the AZCB target is beyond reach, it is possible to undertake two paths.
Carbon offsetting means to purchase carbon credits that will be used to develop
investments in green energy and plant new forests. These credits can make a difference
in funding global or local projects that would otherwise not start. This strategy is closely
linked to weak sustainability and should be used only after applying every possible strategy
to reduce operational and embodied carbon. However, in the future, it may become
mandatory to reduce carbon emissions or compensate for them through the acquiring of
certified carbon credits, which will increase their price enormously: it is estimated that
in 2035, offsetting 1 ton of GHGs may cost GBP 43, a huge increase from the GBP 13 in
the summer 2020, and the global trading market of carbon credits can rise to GBP 500 M
worldwide [4].
Furthermore, the carbon credits market has a great potential to employ blockchain,
helping the reduction in fossil fuel consumption, thanks to the interconnected data blocks [118].
To reduce carbon emissions and reach carbon neutrality, it is of great importance to
avoid their release into the atmosphere during building operation and construction, so that
compensation will need a minor effort. The adoption of nature-based solutions (NBS) and
materials that assure carbon sequestration, thanks to biogenic carbon absorbed during its
life span and growth before being manufactured, is a way to explore to reach the NZCB
target [86]
Absorbing carbon dioxide, resulting in negative contributions for embodied carbon, is
not a solution shared by the entire scientific community since the effective results can be
dramatically different depending on the adopted method of calculation.
The most promising organic materials for applications in construction that can absorb
and store CO2 during their life cycles like “carbon sponges” are wood, hemp, mycelium,
Buildings 2023, 13, 684 14 of 21

straw, bamboo, cork, cellulose and wool. These materials can be recycled, land-filled or
reused at the EoL, enabling circular economy processes [101,119–122].
Storing carbon in buildings can benefit from the big number of new volumes built
continuously to accommodate market requests for new and retrofitted buildings, changing
the materials for structures, finishes and insulation from mineral-based to bio-based ma-
terials. The carbon storage in timber, for example, can offset the temporary reduction in
the forest carbon stocks, which can regrow, restarting carbon absorption. Thus, buildings
can act as a forest inside the city, with a carbon density that grows when building density
intensifies, as long as wood is sourced from controlled producers [123,124]. Several studies
have shown that bio-based materials offer not only stored biogenic carbon but also lower
embodied carbon [123,125,126]. However, there is not an unambiguous consensus on the
calculation for negative contributions in the literature, given that it is not always specified
in which module they occur [86].
Bio-based materials store carbon deriving from their organic origin, though it is not
locked in forever: during the decomposition process, this carbon will be free in the air. Thus,
following the “0/0 approach”, no negative contributions are accounted along the materials’
life cycles; otherwise, the “−1/+1 approach” tracks all the biogenic carbon exchanges in
and out during the life cycle in a more detailed way [86,127].
As analyzed by Cordier et al., cogeneration at the end of wood’s life cycle can be a
low-carbon energy source, but this can lead to positive carbon emissions nullifying all
the negative contributions during the building’s whole life [128]. Carbon stored in timber
buildings must be preserved on land as long as possible, so that their components can be
not only reused or recycled, but also sold in the market as used wood. Smaller components
can be recycled in structural and nonstructural components such as flake for panel boards,
cellulose insulation or interior finish products [123].
For these reasons, the adoption of biogenic materials in construction should be pre-
ferred, but stored carbon and the negative contribution in the WLCA assessment are
uncertain and unpredictable.

6.5. NZCB Case Studies

The diffusion of the NZCB standard, as mentioned in the paragraphs above, is still
limited. However, there are a few examples described in the literature that belong to the
NZCB definition, or they at least try to reduce embodied and operational carbon following
the application of some of the strategies described above.
In 2012, the Construction Industry Council (CIC) built the first zero carbon building
(ZCB) in Hong Kong, a three-story building with a footprint of approximately 1400 sqm.
Specific design strategies helped to reduce the embodied carbon and to offset the remaining
through renewable energy production and transfer to the grid, reaching a carbon balance
in 50 years [129].
A good example of integrated operational and embodied carbon reduction is provided
by the GSK Centre for Sustainable Chemistry in Nottingham, UK (2017), a laboratory
of 4500 sqm designed by AECOM. Wooden structures, big internal spaces and specific
strategies to reduce the energy consumption of chemical laboratories in combination with
winter gardens, green roofs, natural ventilation and PV energy production allowed the
building to be awarded BREEAM Gold and LEED Gold. The building reduces its energy
consumption by 60% and can offset its embodied carbon in a 25-year life span [130,131].
The application of NZCB strategies in one-off projects to experiment with new tech-
nologies can deliver breakthrough solutions that can be later applied in a broader context.
For instance, adopting circular economy principles can lead to the reuse of many waste
materials that were never associated with architecture. This is the case of the Brighton
Waste House by Baker-Brown (2014), in which 85% of the materials originates from the
building site and household waste, including toothbrushes, denim cuts and VHS tapes for
insulation [132]. Moreover, some papers deepened the application of NZCB strategies at a
model scale, understanding when emissions occur during the building life cycle [86,133].
Buildings 2023, 13, 684 15 of 21

7. Discussion and Conclusions

Net zero carbon buildings may constitute a real change to slow down climate changes,
since the construction sector accounts for 38% of total GHG emissions in the world [3].
Currently, the best definition is offered by UKGBC: an NZCB has an overall balance of
operational carbon and embodied carbon emissions during its life cycle equal to or less
than zero [42]. As discussed in the paper, for each strategy for energy efficiency and carbon
reduction targets, it appears that multiple definitions are possible. Anyway, in many cases
substantial differences refer to the same word: for example, the ZEB definition can also
include embodied energy, becoming very similar to the NZCB definition [25].
The NZCB target is still very difficult to achieve in real life, as shown by the lack of
published case studies in the literature, although existing technologies allow the reaching of
the goal [86]. Nevertheless, major barriers to NZCB adoption have also to be considered [62].
Particularly, they can be summed up in six categories: economical, legislative, technological,
professional, socio-cultural and geographical. Simultaneously, driver classifications include
economical, legislative and technological, showing that, in the near future, it desirable for
further exploration and application of this standard to be made.
Materials and components with EPD certificates are still hard to find, especially in
countries that do not have national databases like Italy, weakening the diffusion of WLCA
evaluation and NZCB diffusion. To satisfy the strict requisites of NZCB, comprehensive
knowledge and professional quality along the entire supply chain, from design stage to
material supply, construction, maintenance and EoL of the building, are in fact necessary.
Moreover, the application of carbon-value engineering can reduce both costs and embodied
carbon emissions [108].
To conclude, NZCBs are a viable and internationally renowned path to follow to
reduce environmental footprints in architecture, but there are still many obstacles toward its
diffusion. Future research directions may concentrate on the relationship between buildings
and carbon-neutral materials and components and on new simplified ways to assess
embodied carbon and its reduction path. Legislative frameworks must globally include
carbon assessments for buildings and construction products as among the requirements
prior to mass production.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.T. and D.B.; methodology, D.T. and D.B.; writing—original
draft preparation, D.T.; writing—review and editing, D.B.; visualization, D.T.; supervision, D.B. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: Data sharing not applicable. No new data were created or analyzed in
this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.
Acknowledgments: We would like to acknowledge Claudio Tirelli for his kind support.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

ASHRAE The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers

AZCB Absolute Zero Carbon Buildings
BaU Business as Usual
BIM Building Information Modeling
BREEAM Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology
CCU Carbon Capture Unit
CED Cumulative Energy Demand
CNB Carbon Negative Building
CO2 e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
CO2 VE Carbon Value Engineering
COP Conference of Parties
DGNB Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen
Buildings 2023, 13, 684 16 of 21

DT Digital Twins
EoL End of Life
EPBD Energy Performance of Buildings Directive
EPD Environmental Product Declaration
GHG Greenhouse gases
HVAC Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning
IEA International Energy Agency
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LCA Life-Cycle Analysis
LCC Life-Cycle Cost
LCI Life-Cycle Inventory
LC-ZEB Life-Cycle Zero Energy Buildings
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LULUCF Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry
NBS Nature-Based Solutions
NDCs Nationally Determined Contributions
nZEB Nearly Zero Energy Building
NZCB Net Zero Carbon Building
NZEB Net Zero Energy Building
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PV Photovoltaics
TQA Total Quality Assessment
UKGBC UK Green Building Council
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
VE Value Engineering
WLCA Whole-Life Carbon Assessment
ZCB Zero Carbon Buildings
ZEB Zero Energy Building

References
1. Frampton, K. Studies in Tectonic Culture—The Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture; The MIT Press:
Cambridge, MA, USA, 1995.
2. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes (IPCC). Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Masson-
Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S.L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M.I., et al., Eds.;
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA; pp. 3–32. [CrossRef]
3. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction (GlobalABC). 2020 Global
Status Report for Buildings and Construction: Towards a Zero-Emissions, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector; UNEP:
Nairobi, Kenya, 2020; p. 10.
4. Hill, S.; Dalzell, A.; Allwood, M. Net Zero Carbon Buildings: Three Steps to Take Now; ARUP: London, UK, 2020. Available
online: [Link]
now (accessed on 28 January 2023).
5. Crutzen, P.J. Geology of Mankind. Nature 2002, 415, 23. [CrossRef]
6. Crippa, M.; Guizzardi, D.; Banja, M.; Solazzo, E.; Muntean, M.; Schaaf, E.; Pagani, F.; Monforti-Ferrario, F.; Olivier, J.G.J.;
Quadrelli, R.; et al. CO2 Emissions of All World Countries—JRC/IEA/PBL 2022 Report; Publications Office of the European Union:
Luxembourg, 2022. [CrossRef]
7. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Emissions Gap Report 2022: The Closing Window—Climate Crisis Calls for Rapid
Transformation of Societies; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2022. Available online: [Link]
(accessed on 31 January 2023).
8. United Nations (UN). Paris Agreement; UN: Paris, France, 2015; pp. 2–4.
9. International Energy Agency (IEA). Net Zero by 2050. A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, Summary for Policymakers; IEA: Paris,
France, 2021; pp. 4–5.
10. IEA. Electricity Generation by Source, OECD, 2000–2020. Available online: [Link]
electricity-generation-by-source-oecd-2000-2020 (accessed on 28 January 2023).
11. Compass Lexacon; Enerdata; ENEL Foundation. Sustainable Paths for EU Increased Climate and Energy Ambition, Final Report; ENEL
Foundation: Rome, Italy, 2020. Available online: [Link]
increased-climate-and-energy-ambition (accessed on 28 January 2023).
12. IEA. TASK 40/Annex 52. Towards Net Zero Energy Solar Buildings; SHC Task 40 and ECBCS Annex 52; IEA: Paris, France, 2008.
Buildings 2023, 13, 684 17 of 21

13. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Climate Action Pathway, Human Settlements; UNFCCC:
Bonn, Germany, 2021; pp. 2–6.
14. International Energy Agency (IEA). Perspectives for the Clean Energy Transition, The Critical Role of the Buildings; IEA: Paris, France,
2017; pp. 39–40.
15. Berardi, U. Sustainability Assessment in the Construction Sector: Rating Systems and Rated Buildings. Sust. Dev. 2012, 20, 411–424.
[CrossRef]
16. Hastings, R.; Wall, M. Sustainable Solar Housing, Vol. 1—Strategies and Solutions; Earthscan: London, UK, 2007.
17. Jeong, Y.S. Assessment of Alternative Scenarios for CO2 Reduction Potential in the Residential Building Sector. Sustainability 2017,
9, 394. [CrossRef]
18. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD); ARUP. Net-Zero Buildings. Where Do We Stand? WBCSD: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2021.
19. The Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the Energy Performance of Buildings
(recast). Official Journal of the European Union. 2010, pp. 13–35. Available online: [Link]
[Link]?uri=OJ:L:2010:153:0013:0035:en:PDF (accessed on 31 January 2023).
20. Attia, S.; Eleftherioub, P.; Xenib, F.; Morlotc, R.; Menezo, C.; Kostopoulos, V.; Betsi, M.; Kalaitzoglou, I.; Pagliano, L.;
Cellura, M.; et al. Overview and future challenges of nearly zero energy buildings (nZEB) design in Southern Europe. Energy
Build. 2017, 155, 439–458. [CrossRef]
21. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 244/2012 of 16 January 2012 Supplementing Directive 2010/31/EU of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the Energy Performance of Buildings by Establishing a Comparative Methodology Framework
for Calculating Cost-Optimal Levels of Minimum Energy Performance Requirements for Buildings and Building Elements.
Official Journal of the European Union. 2012. Available online: [Link]
2012:081:0018:0036:EN:PDF (accessed on 31 January 2023).
22. Hamdy, M.; Sirén, K.; Attia, S. Impact of financial assumptions on the cost optimality towards nearly zero energy buildings. A
case study. Energy Build. 2017, 153, 421–438. [CrossRef]
23. Attia, S.; Hamdy, M.; Carlucci, S.; Pagliano, L.; Bucking, S.; Hasan, A. Building performance optimization of net zero-energy
buildings. In Modeling, Design, and Optimization of Net-Zero Energy Buildings; Athienitis, A., O’Brien, W., Eds.; Wilhelm Ernst &
Sohn: Berlin, Germany, 2015. [CrossRef]
24. Zangheri, P.; D’Agostino, D.; Armani, R.; Bertoldi, P. Review of the Cost-Optimal Methodology Implementation in Member States
in Compliance with the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. Buildings 2022, 12, 1482. [CrossRef]
25. Chastas, P.; Theodosiou, T.; Bikas, D. Embodied energy in residential buildings-towards the nearly zero energy buildings: A
literature review. Build. Environ. 2016, 105, 267–282. [CrossRef]
26. Ascione, F.; Bianco, N.; De Stasio, C.; Mauro, G.M.; Vanoli, G.P. A new methodology for cost-optimal analysis by means of the
multi-objective optimization of building energy performance. Energy Build. 2015, 88, 78–90. [CrossRef]
27. Baglivo, C.; Congedo, P.M.; D’Agostino, D.; Zaca, I. Cost-optimal analysis and technical comparison between standard and high
efficient mono-residential buildings in a warm climate. Energy 2015, 83, 560–575. [CrossRef]
28. D’Agostino, D.; Parker, D.; Melià, P.; Dotelli, G. Optimizing photovoltaic electric generation and roof insulation in existing
residential buildings. Energy Build. 2022, 255, 111652. [CrossRef]
29. Ferrara, M.; Fabrizio, E.; Virgone, J.; Filippi, M. A simulation-based optimization method for cost-optimal analysis of nearly Zero
Energy Buildings. Energy Build. 2014, 84, 442–457. [CrossRef]
30. Corrado, V.; Ballarini, I.; Paduos, S. Assessment of cost-optimal energy performance requirements for the Italian residential
building stock. Energy Procedia 2014, 45, 443–452. [CrossRef]
31. Hamdy, M.; Hasan, A.; Sirén, K. A multi-stage optimization method for cost-optimal and nearly-zero-energy building solutions
in line with the EPBD-recast 2010. Energy Build. 2013, 56, 189–203. [CrossRef]
32. Han, G.; Srebric, J.; Enache-Pommer, E. Variability of optimal solutions for building components based on comprehensive life
cycle cost analysis. Energy Build. 2014, 79, 223–231. [CrossRef]
33. Becchio, C.; Bottero, M.C.; Corgnati, S.P.; Ghiglione, C. nZEB design: Challenging between energy and economic targets. Energy
Procedia 2015, 78, 2070–2075. [CrossRef]
34. Jaysawal, R.K.; Chakraborty, S.; Elangovan, D.; Padmanaban, S. Concept of net zero energy buildings (NZEB)—A literature
review. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2022, 11, 100582. [CrossRef]
35. Andresen, I. Towards zero energy and zero emission buildings—Definitions, concepts and strategies. Curr. Sustain. /Renew.
Energy Rep. 2017, 4, 63–71. [CrossRef]
36. Kilkis, S. A new metric for net- zero carbon buildings. Proceedings of ES2007. In Proceedings of the ASME 2007 Energy
Sustainability Conference, Long Beach, CA, USA, 27–30 July 2007; pp. 219–224. [CrossRef]
37. Kilkis, S. A Rational Exergy Management Model for Curbing CO2 Emissions. In ASHRAE Transactions; ASHRAE: Atlanta, GA,
USA, 2007; Volume 113, Part 2.
38. The National Institute of Building Sciences. A Common Definition for Zero Energy Buildings; U.S. Department of Energy: Washington,
DC, USA, 2015; pp. 1–10. Available online: [Link]
zero_energy_buildings_093015.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2023).
Buildings 2023, 13, 684 18 of 21

39. Marszal, A.J.; Heiselberg, P.; Bourrelle, J.S.; Musall, E.; Voss, K.; Sartori, I.; Napolitano, A. Zero Energy Building—A review of
definitions and calculation methodologies. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 971–979. [CrossRef]
40. Torcellini, P.; Pless, S.; Deru, M. Zero Energy Buildings: A Critical Look at the Definition. In National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Pacific Grove, California; ACEEE Summer Study 2006, NREL/CP-550-39833; National Renewable Energy Lab.: Golden, CO, USA,
2006. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 31 January 2023).
41. Voss, K.; Musall, E. Net Zero Energy Buildings: International Projects of Carbon Neutrality in Buildings; DETAIL: München,
Germany, 2013. [CrossRef]
42. UK Green Building Council (UKGBC). Net Zero Carbon Buildings: A Framework Definition; UKGBC: London, UK, 2019.
43. Yu, F.; Feng, W.; Leng, J.; Wang, Y.; Bai, Y. Review of the U.S. Policies, Codes, and Standards of Zero-Carbon Buildings. Buildings
2022, 12, 2060. [CrossRef]
44. Hernandez, P.; Kenny, P. From net energy to zero energy buildings: Defining life cycle zero energy buildings (LC-ZEB). Energy
Build. 2010, 42, 815–821. [CrossRef]
45. Riedy, C.; Lederwasch, A.J.; Ison, N. Defining Zero Emission Buildings-Review and Recommendations: Final Report; University of
Technology Sydney: Sydney, Australia, 2011.
46. Pan, W. System boundaries of zero carbon buildings. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 37, 424–434. [CrossRef]
47. DCLG. Code for Sustainable Homes: A Step-change in Sustainable Home Building Practice; Department of Communities and Local
Government: London, UK, 2006.
48. Satola, D.; Balouktsi, M.; Lützkendorf, M.; Wiberg, A.H.; Gustavsen, A. How to define (net) zero greenhouses gas emissions
buildings: The results of an international survey as part of IEA EBC annex 72. Build. Environ. 2021, 192, 107619. [CrossRef]
49. Yang, F. Whole Building Life Cycle Assessment: Reference Building Structure and Strategies; American Society of Civil Engineers:
Reston, VA, USA, 2018.
50. Lützkendorf, T.; Foliente, G.; Balouktsi, M.; Wiberg, A.H. Net-zero buildings: Incorporating embodied impact. Build. Res. Inf.
2015, 43, 62–81. [CrossRef]
51. Esram, N.W.; Hu, M. Knowledge Infrastructure: The Critical Path to Advance Embodied Carbon Building Codes; White Paper; American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy: Washington, DC, USA, 2021.
52. Architecture 2030. A Brief Introduction to the Development of Zero Energy and Zero Carbon Buildings in the United States. 2018.
Available online: [Link] (accessed on 21 January 2023).
53. Finch, P.; Hirigoyen, J. Foreword. In Targeting Zero: Whole Life and Embodied Carbon Strategies for Design Professionals;
Sturgis, S., Ed.; RIBA Publishing: London, UK, 2019.
54. EN 15978:2011; Sustainability of Construction Works—Assessment of Environmental Performance of Buildings—Calculation
Method. Available online: [Link] (accessed on 22 January 2023).
55. Institution of Structural Engineers (ISTRUCTE). How to Calculate Embodied Carbon; ISTRUCTE: London, UK, 2020; pp. 1–2.
56. Pan, W.; Li, K. Clusters and exemplars of buildings towards zero carbon. Build. Environ. 2016, 104, 92–101. [CrossRef]
57. Birkeland, J. ‘Beyond Zero Waste’, Societies for a sustainable future. In Proceedings of the Third UKM-UC International
Conference Proceedings, Canberra, Australia, 14–15 April 2003.
58. Renger, B.C.; Birkeland, J.L.; Midmore, D.J. Net-positive building carbon sequestration. Build. Res. Inf. 2015, 43, 11–24. [CrossRef]
59. Pokhrel, S.R.; Hewage, K.; Chhipi-Shrestha, G.; Karunathilake, H.; Li, E.; Sadiq, R. Carbon capturing for emissions reduction at
building level: A market assessment from a building management perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 294, 126323. [CrossRef]
60. Whole Life Carbon Network (WLCN). Improving Consistency in Whole Life Carbon Assessment and Reporting: Carbon Defini-
tions for the Built Environment, Buildings and Infrastructure; RIBA: London, UK, 2021. Available online: [Link]
wp-content/uploads/2021/05/[Link] (accessed on
31 January 2023).
61. Sturgis, S. Targeting Zero: Whole Life and Embodied Carbon Strategies for Design Professionals; RIBA Publishing: London, UK, 2019.
62. Ohene, E.; Chan, A.P.C.; Darko, A. Prioritizing barriers and developing mitigation strategies toward net-zero carbon building
sector. Build. Environ. 2022, 223, 109437. [CrossRef]
63. Pan, W.; Pan, M. Drivers, barriers and strategies for zero carbon buildings in high- rise high-density cities. Energy Build. 2021,
242, 110970. [CrossRef]
64. Osmani, M.; O’Reilly, A. Feasibility of zero carbon homes in England by 2016: A house builder’s perspective. Build. Environ. 2009,
44, 1917–1924. [CrossRef]
65. Heffernan, E.; Pan, W.; Liang, X.; De Wilde, P. Zero carbon homes: Perceptions from the UK construction industry. Energy Policy
2015, 79, 23–36. [CrossRef]
66. Persson, J.; Grönkvist, S. Drivers for and barriers to low-energy buildings in Sweden. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 109, 296–304. [CrossRef]
67. Häkkinen, T.; Belloni, K. Barriers and drivers for sustainable building. Build. Res. Inf. 2011, 39, 239–255. [CrossRef]
68. Besana, D.; Tirelli, D. Net Zero Carbon Building: A methodological case study in Milan. In Proceedings of the 2030 d.c. Proiezioni
Future per Una Progettazione Sostenibile, Messina, Italy, 17–19 November 2022.
69. Hirsch, J.; Lafuente, J.J.; Recourt, R.; Spanner, M.; Geiger, P.; Haran, M.; McGreal, S.; Davis, P.; Taltavull, P.; Perez, R.; et al.
Stranding Risk & Carbon. Science-Based Decarbonising of the EU Commercial Real Estate Sector; CRREM report No.1; EU CRREM:
Wörgl, Austria, 2019.
70. Butera, F.M. Zero-energy buildings: The challenges. Adv. Build. Energy Res. 2013, 7, 51–65. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2023, 13, 684 19 of 21

71. Pan, W.; Ning, Y. A socio-technical framework of zero-carbon building policies. Build. Res. Inf. 2015, 43, 94–110. [CrossRef]
72. Mavrigiannaki, A.; Pignatta, G.; Assimakopoulos, M.; Isaac, M.; Gupta, R.; Kolokotsa, D.; Isaac, S. Examining the benefits and
barriers for the implementation of net zero energy settlements. Energy Build. 2021, 230, 110564. [CrossRef]
73. Mata, E.; Penaloza, D.; Sandkvist, F.; Nyberg, T. What is stopping low-carbon buildings? A global review of enablers and barriers.
Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021, 82, 102261. [CrossRef]
74. Singh, R.; Walsh, P.; Mazza, C. Sustainable Housing: Understanding the Barriers to Adopting Net Zero Energy Homes in Ontario,
Canada. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6236. [CrossRef]
75. Longo, S.; Montana, F.; Riva Sanseverino, E. A review on optimization and cost-optimal methodologies in low-energy buildings
design and environmental considerations. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 45, 87–104. [CrossRef]
76. Congedo, P.M.; Baglivo, C.; Zacà, I.; D’Agostino, D. High performance solutions and data for nZEBs offices located in warm
climates. Data Brief 2015, 5, 502–505. [CrossRef]
77. D’Agostino, D.; Parker, D.; Melià, P.; Dotelli, G. Data on roof renovation and photovoltaic energy production including energy
storage in existing residential buildings. Data Brief 2022, 41, 107874. [CrossRef]
78. Ozorhon, B. Response of construction clients to low-carbon building regulations. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, A5013001.
[CrossRef]
79. Williams, K.; Dair, C. What is stopping sustainable building in England? Barriers experienced by stakeholders in delivering
sustainable developments. Sustain. Dev. 2007, 15, 135–147. [CrossRef]
80. Zhang, L.; Zhou, J. Drivers and barriers of developing low-carbon buildings in China: Real estate developers’ perspectives. Int. J.
Environ. Technol. Manag. 2015, 18, 254–272. [CrossRef]
81. Makvandia, G.; Safiuddin, M. Obstacles to developing net-zero energy (NZE) homes in greater toronto area. Buildings 2021, 11, 95.
[CrossRef]
82. Moncaster, A.M.; Birgisdottir, H.; Malmqvist, T.; Nygaard Rasmussen, F.; Houlihan Wiberg, A.; Soulti, E. Embodied Carbon
Measurement, Mitigation and Management Within Europe, Drawing on a Cross-Case Analysis of 60 Building Case Studies. In
Embodied Carbon in Buildings; Pomponi, F., De Wolf, C., Moncaster, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 443–462.
[CrossRef]
83. Baker, H.E.; Moncaster, A.M.; Al Tabbaa, A. The decision to demolish or adapt existing buildings on brownfield sites. In
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers—Forensic Engineering, Special Issue: Forensic Engineering in Urban Renovation,
170, 8 March 2017. published online ahead of print.
84. Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction (GlobalABC); International Energy Agency (IEA); United Nations Environ-
ment Programme (UNEP). GlobalABC Roadmap for Buildings and Construction 2020-2050: Towards a Zero-Emission, Efficient and
Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector; IEA: Paris, France, 2020. Available online: [Link]
6cca78af-2327-4e97-868c-294d48cb66b3/GlobalABC_Roadmap_for_Buildings_and_Construction_2020-[Link] (accessed on 31
January 2023).
85. Van Der Schoor, T.; Scholtens, B. Power to the people: Local community initiatives and the transition to sustainable energy. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 43, 666–675. [CrossRef]
86. Besana, D.; Tirelli, D. Reuse and Retrofitting Strategies for a Net Zero Carbon Building in Milan: An Analytic Evaluation.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 16115. [CrossRef]
87. Ohene, E.; Chan, A.P.; Darko, A. Review of global research advances towards net- zero emissions buildings. Energy Build. 2022,
226, 112142. [CrossRef]
88. Jäger-Waldau, A. PV Status Report 2019; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2019. [CrossRef]
89. Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). Bloomberg New Energy Finance. 2018. Available online: [Link]
neo2018 (accessed on 31 January 2023).
90. De Wolf, C. Low Carbon Pathways for Structural Design: Embodied Life Cycle Impacts of Building Structures. Ph.D. Thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, June 2017.
91. De Wolf, C.; Pomponi, F.; Moncaster, A. Measuring embodied carbon dioxide equivalent of buildings: A review and critique of
current industry practice. Energy Build. 2017, 140, 71–75. [CrossRef]
92. Giesekam, J.; Pomponi, F. Briefing: Embodied carbon dioxide assessment in buildings: Guidance and gaps. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.
Eng. Sustain. 2018, 171, 334–341. [CrossRef]
93. Amini Toosi, H.; Lavagna, M.; Leonforte, F.; Del Pero, C.; Aste, N. Implementing Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment in Building
and Energy Retrofit Design—An Investigation into Challenges and Opportunities. In Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of
Products and Processes; Muthu, S.S., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 103–136. [CrossRef]
94. Stevenson, F.; Kwok, A. Mainstreaming zero carbon: Lessons for built-environment education and training. Build. Cities 2020,
1, 687–696. [CrossRef]
95. Godin, K.; Sapinski, J.P.; Dupuis, S. The transition to net zero energy (NZE) housing: An integrated approach to market, state,
and other barriers. Clean. Responsible Consum. 2021, 3, 100043. [CrossRef]
96. Burton, S. Environmental Assessment Rating Scheme. In Sustainable Retrofitting of Commercial Buildings: Cool Climates; Burton, S.,
Ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 161–169.
97. Pan, W.; Pan, M. Opportunities and risks of implementing zero-carbon building policy for cities: Hong Kong case. Appl. Energy
2019, 256, 113835. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2023, 13, 684 20 of 21

98. Luthra, S.; Kumar, S.; Garg, D.; Haleem, A. Barriers to renewable/sustainable energy technologies adoption: Indian perspective.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 41, 762–776. [CrossRef]
99. World Green Building Council (WorldGBC). Bringing Embodied Carbon Upfront: Coordinated Action for the Building and Construction
Sector to Tackle Embodied Carbon; WorldGBC: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2019.
100. 3XN. Building a Circular Future; 3XN: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2019.
101. Cheshire, D. The Handbook to Building a Circular Economy; RIBA Publishing: London, UK, 2021.
102. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. Towards a Circular Economy: Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition; Ellen MacArthur
Foundation: London, UK, 2015; p. 2. Available online: [Link]
(accessed on 28 January 2023).
103. Clark, D. What Colour is Your Building? Measuring and Reducing the Energy and Carbon Footprint of Buildings; RIBA Publishing:
London, UK, 2019; Chapter 1–3.
104. Arora, M.; Raspall, F.; Cheah, L.; Silva, A. Buildings and the circular economy: Estimating urban mining, recovery and reuse
potential of building components. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 154, 104581. [CrossRef]
105. Graedel, T.E. The Prospects for Urban Mining. Bridge 2011, 41, 43–50.
106. Arora, M.; Raspall, F.; Cheah, L.; Silva, A. Residential building material stocks and component-level circularity: The case of
Singapore. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 216, 239–248. [CrossRef]
107. Oke, A.E.; Aigbavboa, C.O. Sustainable Value Management for Construction Projects; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017.
108. Robati, M.; Oldfield, P.; Akbar Nezhad, A.; Carmichael, D.G.; Kuru, A. Carbon value engineering: A framework for integrating
embodied carbon and cost reduction strategies in building design. Build. Environ. 2021, 192, 107620. [CrossRef]
109. Langston, Y.L.; Langston, C.A. Reliability of building embodied energy modelling: An analysis of 30 Melbourne case studies.
Construct. Manag. Econ. 2008, 26, 147–160. [CrossRef]
110. La Roche, P.M. Carbon-Neutral Architectural Design; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017; Chapter 9–10.
111. Gething, B. Resilience to a changing climate. In Sustainable Retrofitting of Commercial Buildings: Cool Climates; Burton, S., Ed.;
Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 47–49.
112. Backer, N. Retrofitting for comfort. In Sustainable Retrofitting of Commercial Buildings: Cool Climates; Burton, S., Ed.; Routledge:
New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 120–122.
113. Naboni, E.; Ofria, L.; Danzo, E. A Parametric Workflow to Conceive Facades as Indoor and Outdoor Climate Givers. In
Proceedings of the SimAUD 2019, Atlanta, GA, USA, 7–9 April 2019.
114. Naboni, E.; Milella, A.; Vadalà, R.; Fiorito, F. On the localised climate change mitigation potential of building facades. Energy
Build. 2020, 224, 110284. [CrossRef]
115. La Roche, P.; Berardi, U. Comfort and energy savings with active green roofs. Energy Build. 2014, 82, 492–504. [CrossRef]
116. Gerbaulet, C.; von Hirschhausen, C.; Kemfert, C.; Lorenz, C.; Oei, P.-Y. European electricity sector decarbonization under different
levels of foresight. Renew. Energy 2019, 141, 973–987. [CrossRef]
117. Giles-Corti, B.; Vernez-Moudon, A.; Reis, R.; Turrell, G.; Dannenberg, A.L.; Badland, H.; Foster, S.; Lowe, M.; Sallis, J.F.;
Stevenson, M.; et al. City planning and population health: A global challenge. Lancet 2016, 388, 2912–2924. [CrossRef]
118. Woo, J.; Asutosh, A.T.; Li, J.; Ryor, W.D.; Kibert, C.J.; Shojaei, A. Blockchain: A Theoretical Framework for Better Application of
Carbon Credit Acquisition to the Building Sector. In Construction Research Congress; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston,
VA, USA, 2020; pp. 885–894. [CrossRef]
119. Carcassi, O.B.; De Angelis, E.; Iannacone, G.; Malighetti, L.E.; Masera, G.; Pittau, F. Bio-Based Materials for the Italian Construction
Industry: Buildings as Carbon Sponges. In Regeneration of the Built Environment from a Circular Economy Perspective; Della Torre, S.,
Cattaneo, S., Lenzi, C., Zanelli, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 237–247. [CrossRef]
120. Carcassi, O.B.; Minotti, P.; Habert, G.; Paoletti, I.; Claude, S.; Pittau, F. Carbon Footprint Assessment of a Novel Bio-Based
Composite for Building Insulation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1384. [CrossRef]
121. Mouton, L.; Allacker, K.; Röck, M. Bio-based Building Material Solutions for Environmental Benefits over Conventional Construc-
tion Products—Life Cycle Assessment of Regenerative Design Strategies (1/2). Energy Build. 2022, 282, 112767. [CrossRef]
122. Campioli, A.; Mussinelli, E.; Lavagna, M.; Tartaglia, A. Design Strategies and LCA of Alternative Solutions for Resilient, Circular,
and Zero-Carbon Urban Regeneration: A Case Study. In Regeneration of the Built Environment from a Circular Economy Perspective;
Della Torre, S., Cattaneo, S., Lenzi, C., Zanelli, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 205–215. [CrossRef]
123. Churkina, G.; Organschi, A.; Reyer, C.P.O.; Ruff, A.; Vinke, K.; Liu, Z.; Reck, B.K.; Graedel, T.E.; Schellnhuber, H.J. Buildings as a
global carbon sink. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 269–276. [CrossRef]
124. Amiri, A.; Ottelin, J.; Sorvari, J.; Junnila, S. Cities as carbon sinks—Classification of wooden buildings. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020,
15, 094076. [CrossRef]
125. Pittau, F.; Krause, F.; Lumia, G.; Habert, G. Fast-growing bio-based materials as an opportunity for storing carbon in exterior
walls. Build. Environ. 2018, 129, 117–129. [CrossRef]
126. Carcassi, O.B.; Habert, G.; Malighetti, L.E.; Pittau, F. Material Diets for Climate-Neutral Construction. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022,
56, 5213–5223. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
127. Hoxha, E.; Passer, A.; Mendes Saade, M.R.; Trigaux, D.; Shuttleworth, A.; Pittau, F.; Allacker, K.; Habert, G. Biogenic carbon in
buildings: A critical review of LCA methods. Build. Cities 2020, 1, 504–524. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2023, 13, 684 21 of 21

128. Cordier, S.; Blanchet, P.; Robichaud, F.; Amor, B. Dynamic LCA of the increased use of wood in buildings and its consequences:
Integration of CO2 sequestration and material substitutions. Build. Environ. 2022, 226, 109695. [CrossRef]
129. Yau, R. The ZCB—Hong Kong’s first zero carbon building and its key carbon neutrality strategies. In Zero Carbon Building Journal;
Li, G., Ed.; Edge Media Limited: Hong Kong, 2014; pp. 25–29.
130. UKGBC. Case Study: GSK Centre for Sustainable Chemistry. Available online: [Link]
gsk-centre-for-sustainable-chemistry/ (accessed on 21 February 2023).
131. University of Nottingham. School of Chemistry, the Carbon Neutral Laboratory. Available online: [Link]
uk/chemistry/research/centre-for-sustainable-chemistry/[Link] (accessed on 21 February 2023).
132. Smith, C.; Topham, S. Houses That Can Save The World; Thames & Hudson: London, UK, 2022; pp. 188–197.
133. Causone, F.; Tatti, A.; Alongi, A. From Nearly Zero Energy to Carbon-Neutral: Case Study of a Hospitality Building. Appl. Sci.
2021, 11, 10148. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.