Evaluation of the Carbon Footprint of Wooden Glamping Structures by Life Cycle Assessment

Abstract

Despite the increasing popularity of glamping structures, empirical studies often overlook the carbon impact of wood in these constructions, creating a significant research gap. Understanding the net carbon effect of wood in glamping structures is crucial for informing sustainable building practices. This paper aims to quantitatively compare the net carbon impact of wood in glamping structures, filling a notable gap in the current research literature. The investigation undertakes a thorough evaluation employing a life cycle methodology, appraising the emissions linked with the complete glamping life span. Seven Romanian companies are examined vertically within the glamping production chain and horizontally across the supply value chain. The investigation unveils a notable discovery: the integration of wood within glamping yields considerable carbon sequestration, wherein the wood employed sequesters 36.83 metric tons of CO₂ per glamping unit. This surpasses the carbon emissions entailed throughout the entirety of the glamping life cycle, ranging from 9.97 to 11.72 metric tons of carbon. Remarkably, a single wood-incorporated glamping structure has the capacity to sequester approximately 25 metric tons of carbon within a span of 50 years. In summary, the investigation underscores the capacity of responsibly sourced timber to function as a carbon reservoir, proficiently counterbalancing emissions across the entirety of the construction life cycle. The findings underscore the importance of sustainably sourced wood in achieving carbon neutrality and provide valuable insights for promoting sustainable building practices. This methodology has broad applicability beyond glamping structures, holding potential for replication and scalability across various sectors and regions, thereby contributing to global efforts towards mitigating climate change and fostering positive environmental change.

1. Introduction

A significant challenge confronting the contemporary world involves addressing climate change, necessitating substantial mitigation efforts targeting anthropogenic emissions of CO₂ [1] and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) [2]. Humanity has also realized that it is not only necessary to slow down CO₂ emissions but also to ensure CO₂ sequestration from the atmosphere [3]. Nowadays, we are measuring the carbon footprint of various economic sectors and the CO₂ footprint of end products as well as services, providing a new choice opportunity for climate-conscious customers [4,5]. The present paper, therefore, quantifies the carbon footprint of wooden glamping as the final product in a local value chain developed for sustainable production in forest-based industry (FBI).

The intersection of sustainable construction and carbon sequestration has increasingly gained attention in the discourse on mitigating climate change. Carbon-neutral products are products whose CO₂ emissions related to their production have been calculated and reduced to zero through in-house measures or are supported by external emission reduction schemes [6,7]. Other approaches, such as wood-based construction, offer a new opportunity to produce low-carbon-footprint facilities and could also become a compensation tool for a carbon offset project [8]. Within this context, the utilization of wood in building materials has emerged as a focal point due to its potential as a carbon sink. The literature examining the environmental impact of wood incorporation in various construction contexts forms the foundation for understanding its implications in glamping structures.

The environmental benefits of wood as a building material have been extensively documented [9,10]. The pivotal role of the FBI in carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere is underscored as an essential component within climate mitigation strategies [11,12]. Concurrently, the European Green Deal places considerable emphasis on the forest sector and wood products as pivotal contributors to achieving climate neutrality within the European Union by 2050 [12].

As it is known, the building sector accumulates an overall 40% of primary energy consumption as well as up to 30% of GHG emissions on this planet [13,14], while others estimate up to 37% of GHG emissions [2]. Based on different estimations made on a worldwide level, construction related CO₂ emissions has up to 40% each year out of the total [15], while within the tourism sector, the second largest emitter of GHGs is tourist accommodations (21%), whose share in the global carbon footprint is estimated as at least 1% [16,17,18].

Hence, there exists a critical necessity to disseminate knowledge regarding the latest and most efficient strategies for decarbonizing buildings worldwide. To attain climate objectives, substantial interventions must primarily target existing buildings and new construction sectors by 2050, given that over 60% of current and past buildings are projected to emit CO₂ during this period. Within the building sector, significant attention should be directed towards embodied carbon in all new constructions anticipated to be erected between 2024 and 2050, recognizing its pivotal role.

In the realm of eco-tourism accommodations, glamping structures have emerged as environmentally conscious alternatives [19]. Throughout the COVID-19 period and during the post-COVID times, as well as during contemporary times with tensions among countries [20], a significant portion of tourists prefer to spend their holidays in more remote locations [21] near to nature in a healthy, beautiful, harmonious, and comfortable environment [22,23]. Stress and the desire to escape crowded cities are two significant factors driving the growth of glamping-based tourism [19]. As a response, glamping provides a low-carbon solution [24] by utilizing natural resources and adjusting to an authentic way of life, promoting the beauty of nature without sacrificing the consumer’s comfort [19].

Throughout the period influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic, in the post-pandemic era and amidst contemporary geopolitical tensions among nations [20], a notable proportion of tourists exhibit a preference for holiday destinations situated in more secluded areas [21], characterized by proximity to nature and offering a healthy, aesthetically pleasing, harmonious, and comfortable setting [22,23]. Stress alleviation and the inclination to escape densely populated urban areas emerge as two prominent factors fostering the expansion of glamping-oriented tourism [19]. In response, glamping initiatives offer a sustainable solution [24] by leveraging natural resources and embracing an authentic lifestyle, thus promoting the splendor of nature without compromising consumer comfort [19].

Many studies conducted CO₂ emission assessments regarding eco-friendly travel [25] or [26] included a life cycle assessment (LCA) on accommodation, stay, catering, sport, and outdoor activities, but fewer assessments focused on the carbon footprint of building structures. Other researches evaluated the carbon storage potentials of the building sector, focusing on housing stock only [27] and construction materials [28] or on the urban built environment [29], while other assessments highlighted the role and carbon sequestration potential of the FBI [30,31], or more specifically, the CO₂ capture capacities of wood products [32]. Although various reviews and research articles were published on these topics, there is no published research assessing the carbon storage capacities and impact of wooden glamping production for a more sustainable, post-COVID tourism situation in a rapid development curve. Even if the glamping construction for tourism was assessed, these studies have less attention on CO₂ capture and carbon storage using predominantly wood materials and functionalized massive wood components. Research by Apolloni et al. [33] and Hindley [34] explored the potential of glamping in reducing the ecological footprint compared to traditional hospitality facilities [33,34]. However, despite the perceived environmental friendliness of glamping, few studies have comprehensively assessed the net carbon impact of wood used in these structures.

Key gaps in the existing literature point towards the need for a focused examination of the carbon sequestration potential of wood in glamping structures vis-à-vis the GHG emissions related to the entire life cycle. Previous studies have primarily centered on either the carbon sequestration capacity of wood or the eco-tourism benefits of glamping, but few have attempted to quantitatively compare carbon sequestration against emissions in this specific context.

This assessment demonstrates a dearth of empirical data and comprehensive analyses regarding the net carbon impact of wood incorporation in glamping structures. Addressing this gap will be crucial in informing sustainable construction practices within the burgeoning eco-tourism industry and providing evidence-based insights for policymakers, stakeholders, and the construction sector. The characterization of the research problem is the following: the environmental impact of construction and building materials has gained increasing attention due to concerns about climate change and sustainability [6]. Glamping structures, although providing eco-friendly alternatives to traditional accommodations, necessitate an evaluation of their overall carbon footprint. The utilization of wood in these structures raises questions regarding its role as a carbon sink or source throughout the life cycle of the glamping facilities. Understanding the net impact of wood incorporation—balancing carbon sequestration against emissions—presents a critical aspect for sustainable construction practices and climate mitigation strategies.

Hence, the present research examines the LCA of the manufacturing process involved in wooden glamping, recognized as a leading approach to sustainable tourism development [35]. The main hypothesis of the research is that the incorporation of wood in glamping structures results in a significant net carbon sequestration effect after excluding the carbon emissions associated with the manufacturing and construction, as well as the entire glamping life cycle. The secondary hypotheses are that sustainable sourcing and management of timber, coupled with carbon-positive design principles and innovative production capacities, contribute substantially to the carbon sequestration potential of wooden glamping structures.

Building on previous theoretical frameworks and empirical research highlighting the carbon sequestration potential of wood [36] and the sustainability benefits [13] of eco-tourism accommodations, like glamping [37], this research realizes a step forward and employs a comprehensive quantitative methodology to assess the net carbon impact of wooden glamping. It compares the carbon sequestration achieved by wood in glamping structures against the carbon emissions generated throughout their life cycle.

Previous theoretical frameworks [38] and empirical research [39] have established the environmental benefits of wood as a building material and the eco-tourism advantages of glamping. However, few studies have quantitatively compared the net carbon impact of wood incorporation in glamping structures. This research fills this gap by providing empirical evidence and a quantitative understanding of the carbon sequestration potential of wood in glamping. By contextualizing the findings within the existing literature, this study contributes to the body of knowledge on sustainable construction practices and environmental conservation in the tourism sector.

The objectives of the present research are as follows. 1. To assess the carbon sequestration capacities sequestered by the wood used in glamping structures throughout its life cycle. 2. To quantify the carbon emissions associated with the manufacturing, construction, and operational phases of glamping structures. 3. Establish a comparative analysis to ascertain whether the carbon capture potential of timber in glamping surpasses the CO₂ pollution generated during their life cycle. 4. Examine the influence of sustainable timber sourcing, management practices, and carbon-positive design on enhancing the carbon sequestration capacity of wooden glamping structures. 5. Provide empirical data and insights to inform policymakers, stakeholders, and the construction industry about the environmental implications and benefits of using wood in eco-tourism accommodations, like glamping, aiming to foster more sustainable practices and decision making in the construction and tourism sectors.

Based on these considerations, an innovative collaboration within the ProWood—Regional Wood Cluster, involving seven regional companies based in Romania, was examined. The primary aim was to assess the carbon emissions and sequestration potentials associated with glamping production for tourism. Operating within the forest-based industry sector, these companies established a regional supply value chain and innovation network to enhance the sustainability of wood-based product manufacturing. Situated in the south-eastern part of the Transylvania region, these companies benefit from a rich history and extensive expertise in forest and wood manufacturing.

Collectively, the involved companies embarked on the manufacturing of carbon-neutral glamping structures. This study seeks to evaluate the environmental impacts of glamping production and construction, spanning from forest management and wood manufacturing to glamping construction and eventual reusing or disposal, utilizing an LCA approach. Part of the ProWood Cluster under the Bio Wood Net project, “The distributed industrial research-innovation network in partnership for the sustainable development of the forestry sector in the Pro Wood Cluster”, aims to enhance the visibility of carbon-neutral production methods within the FBI and disseminate the scientific findings globally.

A distinctive aspect of this study lies in the evaluation of the environmental advantages of wood-based glamping construction facilitated by regional supply chains structured both horizontally and vertically. This assessment encompasses both the direct and indirect environmental benefits of the final product. Notably, environmental impacts were assessed across all phases of glamping, from harvesting and replanting to timber production, prefabrication, construction, and operational stages through to disposal. The manufacturing process of glamping embraced a regional value chain approach among industrial producers, while prefabrication technology was employed to enhance production efficiency and reduce the overall carbon footprint of the glamping industry. Given the predominantly organic nature of glamping components, wooden glamping structures sequester significant amounts of CO₂.

2. Methodology

Utilizing the LCA as a comprehensive methodology for evaluating the environmental impact of specific activities, products, or services encompasses all stages in the life cycle, spanning from raw material acquisition through pre-processing, processing, manufacturing, promotion, dissemination, utilization, maintenance-related impacts, and eventual product disposal or valorization [40].

The current LCA employs a quantitative methodology to precisely assess and quantify the carbon sequestration potential inherent in the wood utilized within glamping structures. This entails the precise calculation of CO₂ captured and stored within the wood biomass throughout its life cycle, encompassing growth to end of life.

Typically, standard methodological approaches identify at least four distinct stages in a building’s life cycle: (1) the preparation of construction materials, (2) on-site building, (3) building operation, and (4) building demolition [41]. Alternative methods may further segment the prefabrication process into six distinct components [42], including “element prefabrication”, “logistics”, and “on-site assembly” [43]. In the context of wood-based glamping construction, additional considerations come into play. These encompass various steps, such as forest management, harvesting activities, raw material logistics, mechanical pre-processing of wood-based materials, interior equipment manufacturing, groundwork, component logistics, on-site assembly, glamping operations, and eventual building dismantling, which may manifest at the outset of the supply chain.

The LCA methodology scrutinizes the environmental impact of glamping as a product, documenting the origin of raw materials and evaluating the impacts of construction processes, transportation, logistics, and eventual disposal or reintroduction into valorization cycles. Comprehensive explanations of LCA findings are crucial for facilitating deeper understanding. In accordance with EN standards [44]), the production stage of a conventional building entails three primary modules (A1–A3) focusing on the product stage, followed by two modules (A4–A5) concentrated on construction processes, a subsequent module (B1–B7) dedicated to operational stages, and a final module (C1–C4) assigned to end-of-life phases.

In the methodology, the calculations adhere to a systematic approach where 10 measurements are assumed for each parameter under consideration. These measurements are then synthesized into a single representative value, typically expressed as the average or mean value. However, to ensure the reliability and accuracy of the results, a quality control mechanism is implemented. If the deviation of any individual measurement from the calculated average value exceeds 10%, it is flagged as an outlier. In such cases, the results are presented not as a single value but as an interval within which 90% of the measured values fall. This approach mitigates the impact of outliers and accounts for potential variability or uncertainty in the measurements. By presenting the results as an interval, rather than a single value, the methodology acknowledges the inherent variability in the data and provides a more robust representation of the measured parameters. This ensures that the findings are both accurate and reliable, enhancing the credibility of the research outcomes (

Table 1. The life cycle stages according to EN 15804:2012; adaptation by the author.

Product Stage (EN 15804:2012)			Construction Process Stage: (EN 15804:2012)		Use Stage (EN 15804:2012)							End-of-Life Stage (EN 15804:2012)
Sustainable raw material supply	Raw material transport	Manufacturing	Transport to building site	Installation into building	Use/application	Maintenance	Repair	Replacement	Refurbishment	Energy and renewable energy use	Operational water use	Deconstruction and selection	Transport	Reuse and reprocessing	Second life or disposal
A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	B6	B7	C1	C2	C3	C4

).

2.1. Product Stage

2.1.1. Sustainable Raw Material Supply

Assessing the impact of wood harvesting activities on CO₂ emissions presents a significant challenge. This complexity stems from various factors, such as the diversity of methods employed, site and harvesting conditions, tool efficacy, operational duration per unit of freshly harvested wood, emissions from transportation machinery, and distances to initial depositing platforms, among others [45]. Considering these variables, it is estimated that CO₂ emissions resulting from wood harvesting account for approximately 6% of the CO₂ stored within the economic, technological, geographical, and climatic contexts of the researched region [46]. Concurrently, replanting processes also contribute additional CO₂ emissions, averaging around 2% [47]. The calculation of CO₂ emissions associated with harvesting is determined by Equation (1).

$$\sum _{CO2 seq }=\left(W_{CO2}-(L_{CO2}+T_{CO2}+R_{CO2})\right)$$

(1)

where WCO₂ is the amount of CO₂ in a given amount of wood, and LCO₂, TCO₂, and RCO₂ are the CO₂ emissions that come from timber extraction, conveyance, and reforestation (Table 2). According to the literature, the logging-related emissions are 0.3881 t/yr CO₂ eq. on each t wood harvested [48,49], the transport under the harvesting activity-related emissions are up to 0.1078 t/yr CO₂ eq. [48], the replantation-related emissions are estimated to be 0.0078 t/yr CO₂ eq. for each newly planted tree seedling during the initial 5-year period [49], and the transport to the first processing site is estimated to be 0.03874 t/yr CO₂ eq. [50], as can be seen in Table 2.

2.1.2. Raw Material Transport

The transport of raw materials and feedstock-related GHG emissions have been calculated following the CarbonCare Carbon Emissions Calculator’s EN16258 Standards [51]; more specifically, the WTW (Well-to-Wheels) calculation, of which Romania is also a member state. Transportation distance, truck emissions, distance traveled, vehicle type, the weight of the goods being transported, and road type are all factors to consider [13]. Working with Equation (2), there are a few aspects to consider: the weighted average distance traveled between the providers of raw materials and the manufacturing site, expressed in hour duration, where the distances should also be weighted with the emission index of the trucks (EURO4 to EURO6) and the road types, as seen in Equation (2) as follows:

$$\sum _{T_{CO2}}=\left(D_{km}\ast T_{g/km}+R_h\right)$$

(2)

where TCO₂ is the CO₂ emission during transportation, D_km is the distance from raw material suppliers to the manufacturing site, T_g/km is the integrated CO₂ eq. emission with a full load, and R_h is the duration of the transportation, as it can extend or shorten the CO₂ release time and is expressed in CO₂ eq. emission (Table 2).

2.1.3. Production of Timber Components

The fabrication process of glamping encompasses a variety of tasks, commencing with the initial phase where raw materials undergo preparation and several procedures, such as timber cutting, sectioning, edging, stacking, autoclaving, and drying. This manufacturing process extends until the prefabrication stage. To discern the CO₂ emissions, it is imperative to scrutinize each phase independently, encompassing emission parameters of all machinery alongside operational duration, as delineated in Equation (3) as follows:

$$\sum _{M_{CO2}}=\left(T_{CO2}+S_{CO2}+E_{CO2 }+M_{CO2}+A_{CO2}+D_{CO2}+{Po}_{CO2}+{Pa}_{CO2}+A_{CO2}+{Ad}_{CO2}\right)$$

(3)

in the defined notation, MCO₂ denotes the comprehensive CO₂ emissions considered throughout the manufacturing process. Specifically, MCO₂ accounts for manipulation and stocking activities, ACO₂ represents emissions from autoclaving, DCO₂ pertains to drying processes, TCO₂ signifies timber cutting, SCO₂ denotes sectioning procedures, ECO₂ refers to edging in timber processing, PoCO₂ encompasses emissions from polishing, and PaCO₂ denotes emissions associated with painting activities. These production steps are quantified in terms of CO₂ equivalent emissions. Auxiliary materials such as nails, plumbing and electrical fixtures, insulation materials, paint, doors, windows, and furniture fittings possess predefined CO₂ emissions per unit, which are integrated into the assessment as additional units expressed as AdCO₂. The input data were gathered and measured directly from the participating companies (Table 3).

2.2. Building Phase

2.2.1. Conveyance to Construction Location

The building phase encompasses the conveyance of prefabricated components and all supplementary elements to the construction site. The assessment considers the transportation distance from the manufacturing facility to the construction site, incorporating and weighting the emission index of the transport vehicles (ranging from EURO5—136 gr/km to EURO6—98 gr/km), supplemented with precise data from suppliers. Given the considerable transportation distances of wooden prefabricated elements, only fully loaded trucks departing from the fabrication site are considered, employing Equation (4) for calculation as follows:

$$\sum _{T_{CO2}}=\left({Tr}_{CO2}\ast D_{CO2}\right)$$

(4)

where TCO₂ is the total carbon emission produced under the conveyance of the semi-finished parts, TrCO₂ is the pollution index of the transportation vehicle, and DCO₂ is the spatial interval between the production and building sites [52].

2.2.2. Incorporation and Assembling of Glamping Structures

The assessment of the building up and assembly phase comprehensively considers all immediate and indirect factors associated with construction. This process encompasses additional elements, materials, paints, and energy consumption during assembly preceding operational deployment. While construction inevitably generates a certain amount of waste, the utilization of prefabricated components substantially diminishes this aspect compared to conventional building methods. The waste primarily emanates from the assembly of indoor furnishings and wall elements. Energy consumption during glamping construction fluctuates based on the regional or national electrical mix; consumption adheres to IEA standards, yet overall emissions are contingent on this variability [53]. Water usage is negligible throughout the construction phase, although various forms of waste are generated on site, including wood, plastic, insulation, and general refuse [54]. Equation (5) is applied to this phase of assessment, incorporating emissions from all auxiliary installations, including metal, plastic, and components of doors and windows as follows:

$$\sum _{C_{CO2}}=\left(M_{CO2}+P_{CO2}+{DW}_{CO2}+{En}_{CO2}+W_{CO2}+{El}_{CO2}+{II}_{CO2}+{IO}_{CO2}+I_{CO2}+R_{CO2}+F_{CO2}+R_{CO2}\right)$$

(5)

where CCO₂ represents the cumulative CO₂ releases occurring throughout the construction phase, PCO₂ denotes the carbon emissions attributed to plastic waste generated during construction, DWCO₂ signifies the CO₂ releases linked to doors and windows, EnCO₂ represents the CO₂ releases associated with energy uptake under the assembling process, WCO₂ pertains to emissions from water installations, ElCO₂ denotes releases from electricity consumption, IlCO₂ refers to releases from indoor insulation, IOCO₂ signifies releases from outdoor insuflation, ICO₂ represents releases from ironwork, RCO₂ denotes releases related to roofing, FCO₂ pertains to releases from furnishings, and RCO₂ representing the CO₂ releases associated with the utilization of renewable energy technologies implemented in glamping structures (Table 4 and Table 5).

2.3. Operational Phase

Prior LCAs have yielded diverse outcomes regarding the carbon dioxide releases emanating from the constructed structure under the ”in-use phase” [13]. Predominantly, the majority of CO₂ emissions are attributed to energy use given that, across the entire life cycle, approximately 80–85% of total energy utilization occurs during operational phases, assuming the building serves its intended purpose [55]. ”Cradle-to-grave” investigations suggest that CO₂ emissions during the use phase of wooden houses could account for approximately 64% of total emissions [13]. Conversely, others emphasize that GHG emission levels are heavily contingent upon user behaviour, thereby lying beyond the scope of construction control [56]. Given that the CO₂ emission impact of the ”in-use stage” is projected for the same facility lifespan, all sub-sectors are treated as a unified entity in the assessment. Within the glamping operational phase, CO₂ emissions associated with usage, maintenance, repairs, and replacements, as well as electricity and water consumption, were quantified utilizing Equation (6) as follows:

$$\sum _{C_{CO2}}=\left(U_{CO2}+M_{CO2}+R_{CO2}+S_{CO2}+E_{CO2}+W_{CO2}\right)$$

(6)

where UCO₂ denotes the CO₂ releases linked to usage, encompassing waste generation, wastewater sludge elimination, and similar factors. MCO₂ represents CO₂ emissions associated with maintenance activities, while RCO₂ signifies CO₂ emissions related to repairs. SCO₂ denotes CO₂ emissions linked to substitutions, and ECO₂ represents CO₂ emissions attributable to energy consumption. Different CO₂ indices are employed for distinct countries in this context. Finally, WCO₂ refers to CO₂ releases stemming from water consumption (Table 6).

2.4. End-of-Life Phase

The producer of sub-components guarantees the durability of the treated wood for a span of 50 years, thus establishing the estimated lifespan of the glamping structure [35]. Under this premise, the initial lifespan of the employed wood spans 50 years to sequester accumulated CO₂ within the wooden components. Vandervareen et al. underscore the importance of disassembly over demolition upon completion of the ”in-use stage” [57]. Given that prefabricated elements are designed not only for ease of installation but also for eventual deconstruction, they contribute to enhancing material efficiency towards the end-of-life phase of such structures. The overall material of the glamping structure, as well as the masses of individual components, were assessed alongside potential CO₂ emissions based on reuse, recycling, or disposal prospects in the present evaluation [58]. Following the standard protocols [59], diverse end-of-life scenarios were appraised, encompassing the disassembly of prefabricated components, collection and on-site sorting of waste materials, potential reuse or recycling, or ultimate disposal. Owing to the minimal CO₂ emissions associated with the end-of-life phase, it was integrated into a single module using Equation (7).

$$\sum _{{EoL}_{CO2}}=\left(D_{CO2}+T_{CO2}+W_{CO2}+R_{CO2}+D_{CO2}\right)$$

(7)

where EoLCO₂ is the “end-of-life” associated CO₂ release, which sums up DCO₂ as deconstructing activities and associated pollutions. TCO₂ is the conveyance-related CO₂ emission, WCO₂ is the waste management-related CO₂ release, and DCO₂ is the GHG release associated with disposal or landfilling [52] (Table 7).

2.5. Application of the Methodology

The methodology utilizes a quantitative approach for accurate measurement and quantification of the carbon sequestration capacity of the wood utilized in glamping constructions. This encompasses a precise calculation of the quantity of CO₂ sequestered and retained within the wood biomass across its entire life span, ranging from initial growth stages to the end-of-life phase.

The LCA served as a comprehensive framework for evaluating the environmental impact of wooden glamping structures. The LCA approach was selected because it allows for a holistic assessment by accounting for the carbon emissions associated with each stage and contrasting it with the carbon stored in the wood.

The methodology adheres to established carbon accounting principles and protocols endorsed by international standards, such as IPCC guidelines for GHG inventories, and it ensures credibility, consistency, and comparability of the results. This approach provided a standardized framework for accurately quantifying carbon sequestration and emissions.

The methodology involved collecting detailed data on timber sourcing, forest management practices, wood processing, transportation, construction, and other relevant factors. This data-driven approach enables precise calculations of carbon sequestration and emissions at each stage. Advanced modeling techniques may be used to estimate values where direct data are unavailable.

The selected methodology enables a comparative examination between the carbon sequestration attained by the wood utilized in glamping structures and the carbon emissions produced throughout their life cycle. This comparative analysis facilitates a comprehensive understanding of whether the carbon stored within the wood surpasses the emissions linked to the structures.

The methodology prioritizes robustness and transparency by following established scientific protocols. It allows for the replication of this study and ensures the reliability of the findings, providing stakeholders, policymakers, and the scientific community with credible and actionable information.

In summary, this methodology was chosen for its comprehensive nature, allowing for a rigorous evaluation of the carbon capture and storage potential of wood in glamping structures. It aims to provide empirical data and insights essential for informed decision-making, fostering sustainable construction practices, and supporting environmental conservation efforts in the tourism industry.

3. Results

The following section presents the empirical research findings obtained through a comprehensive analysis of the carbon footprint associated with glamping structures. This research delves into the intricate environmental implications of incorporating wood in glamping construction, aiming to quantify the net carbon impact across various stages of the glamping life cycle. By meticulously examining sourcing, manufacturing, construction, use, and end-of-life stages, this study sheds light on the complex interplay between human activities and environmental sustainability within the context of eco-tourism accommodations. Through rigorous data collection, analysis, and interpretation, the research endeavors to provide valuable insights into the carbon sequestration potential of wood, the efficacy of mitigation measures, and the overall environmental performance of glamping structures. The empirical findings presented herein offer a nuanced understanding of the environmental footprint of glamping, thereby contributing to broader discussions on sustainable construction practices and eco-tourism management.

3.1. Improving Low-Emission Glamping Manufacturing via Regional Supply Networks

In order to manufacture a low-carbon product the glamping-, regional supply chain was established between Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprise (SME) members of the ProWood Regional Wood Cluster. The objective of this regional value chain was to minimize CO₂ release under the procurement and production phases. Through collaborative efforts and resource pooling within the local framework, seven SMEs initiated a business collaboration by establishing a value chain spanning from sustainable forest management to the finalization of massive wood products. Within this collaboration, SMEs collectively capitalized on their specialized skills and expertise to develop a highly efficient production process that prioritizes minimal carbon emissions (Figure 1). By integrating innovative practices into the sourcing, manufacturing, and construction stages of glamping production, SMEs managed to reduce overall carbon emissions. These practices included sourcing locally sourced wood materials, utilizing prefabrication techniques, and implementing waste reduction and recycling strategies. This approach not only reduced the carbon footprint of glamping facilities but also enhanced the economic resilience of the region. The efforts undertaken by the involved SMEs to mitigate CO₂ emissions in glamping manufacturing were aligned with the EN15804 standard phases, which will be elaborated on in subsequent sections.

3.2. Product Stage

3.2.1. Sustainable Raw Material Supply

The ”Ocolul Silvic de Regim Zetea” (OSR Zetea), a steward of over 25,000 hectares in local woodlands, engages in forest administration. This entity supplies FSC-certified raw materials for glamping construction, sourced exclusively from forest thinning activities, as only wood obtained from forest thinning or logs with a diameter of less than 20 cm is utilized. Additionally, it oversees forest regeneration and conducts timber extraction for various purposes. Since these biomass resources were previously utilized as firewood, there are no supplementary carbon emissions linked to this practice. Various tree species are recognized for their robust carbon sequestration capabilities, enabling them to absorb and retain significant amounts of CO₂ from the atmosphere. Norway spruce (Picea Abies) is prevalent in the study area and exhibits effective carbon absorption when managed appropriately. Thinning practices have the potential to enhance carbon sequestration capacity within stands by 15%, as demonstrated by studies conducted between 1975 and 2000 [60]. Although carbon sequestration rates diminish over time, young trees can sequester up to 55% of carbon within their initial 20 years of growth and the rest in the next 60–70 years. The harvestable lifespan of pine trees in the examined location ranges from 60 to 90 years [61]. Hardwoods, such as oak or beech, boast an average density of around 750–800 kg/m³, while softwoods, such as pine, tend to be closer to 500 kg/m³. Assuming hardwood consists of 800 kg/m³ of cellulose, hemicellulose, 25% lignin, and 10% water, each cubic meter of wood contains 350–400 kg of carbon, compared to 200–250 kg for softwood. When burned, hardwood emits 1280–1450 kg of CO₂, whereas softwood emits 780–900 kg of CO₂ [62]. Alternate estimates propose that 1 ton of wood absorbs 1700 kg of CO₂ from the atmosphere [63]. Researchers indicate that 1 cubic meter of timber materials could sequester approximately 1.564 tons of atmospheric CO₂ after factoring in logging, forest transport, and replanting activities, based on prevailing economic, climatic, and biogeographical conditions in the region [64]. During wood harvesting conducted by Kafor Company Ltd. (Varsag, Romania), a Reduced-Impact Logging Technique (RLT) was implemented to minimize soil disturbance and collateral damage to surrounding trees. This method involves the acquisition of specialized machinery for thinning and harvesting, namely a Harvester and a Forwarder, to optimize tree felling, reduce waste, and minimize energy consumption during harvesting operations. Remote-controlled machinery and innovative transportation units are utilized in this process. Carbon emissions from forest harvesting operations, including machinery use and processing, range from 20 to 40 kg of CO₂ per cubic meter of wood, according to Berg [48]. Transportation routes are predetermined using GPS-supported planning to minimize fuel consumption and emissions during log transportation by trucks from the forest to initial platforms and processing facilities. The carbon emissions associated with log transport in forests are estimated at 10 kg/m³ of harvested wood, with an average harvesting radius of up to 20 km [49] (Figure 2).

3.2.2. Raw Material Transport

In the span from OSR Zetea to the initial processing point at Selemen Holzbau Ltd. (Sub Cetate, Romania) and Kafor Company Ltd., the typical distance measures approximately 9.8 km or requires 20 min of travel time for logwood transportation. Given the utilization of EURO5 trucks with an average payload capacity of 25 tons, emissions fluctuate between 10.52 and 28.22 kg of CO₂ per transport, as per EN16258 2012 standards.

3.2.3. Production of Timber Building Components

As per calculations conducted during the conversion of logwood into timber components for glamping, an average of 1.45 tons of logs were required to yield 1 ton of net timber product. Based on this proportion, approximately 31.03% of logs are transformed into biofuel and utilized as thermal energy during the drying phase of timber products, while the remaining 68.96% of logs are utilized in glamping manufacturing in net terms. Technical steps and flowchart details are presented in Supplementary Figure S1, with Table 2 illustrating the volumes of raw materials utilized.

Table 2. GHG releases associated with manufacturing phase.

Product Stage—Sourcing	Units	Values	Related CO2 Emission in t/Yr. CO2 eq	Ratio in %	References
Supply of raw material—logging	T	25.87	0.3881	58.76	[48,49]
Transport under harvesting activities	T	21.56	0.1078	16.32	[48]
Reforestation	Pcs	50	0.0078	1.18	[49]
Raw material conveyance to timber production	T	21.56	0.03874	5.87	[50]
Raw material conveyance to the production of glamping		14.87	0.118	17.87	(EN16258 2012)
Total		14.87	0.6604	100

Table 2. GHG releases associated with manufacturing phase.

Product Stage—Sourcing	Units	Values	Related CO2 Emission in t/Yr. CO2 eq	Ratio in %	References
Supply of raw material—logging	T	25.87	0.3881	58.76	[48,49]
Transport under harvesting activities	T	21.56	0.1078	16.32	[48]
Reforestation	Pcs	50	0.0078	1.18	[49]
Raw material conveyance to timber production	T	21.56	0.03874	5.87	[50]
Raw material conveyance to the production of glamping		14.87	0.118	17.87	(EN16258 2012)
Total		14.87	0.6604	100

Within the participating SMEs, a Supply Chain Coordination System (SCCS) is implemented, offering comprehensive oversight of the production process. This system monitors inventory levels, tracks production advancement, and optimizes order fulfillment across all involved SMEs. Internally utilized by SMEs, this digital framework centralizes and administers manufacturing equipment, facilitates real-time communication and data exchange, and furnishes insights that inform decision making, minimize raw material requirements, enhance energy efficiency, and curtail overall CO₂ emissions. Leveraging Predictive Analytics (PA) based on collected data, the objective is to anticipate potential supply chain disruptions, dynamically track demand fluctuations, or address issues related to quantities or qualities. These manufacturing methodologies significantly contribute to a substantial reduction in CO₂ emissions.

The Supplementary Materials, as detailed in the Section 2, possess distinct CO₂ emission metrics, enabling the computation of total manufacturing impacts for each stage autonomously. Establishing a Digital Twin (DT) during glamping design, with subsequent adaptations stored in a shared cloud infrastructure, yields various advantages. It enables stakeholders to simulate and optimize production scenarios before sub-element manufacturing, thereby minimizing inefficient raw material usage and waste production, while also pre-empting potential risks during final assembly.

The glamping production process integrates cutting-edge machinery renowned for precision and efficiency across diverse woodworking operations and includes the following. 1. Computer Numerical Control (CNC) Routers. 2. Automated Panel Saws equipped with advanced software and sensors to optimize large panel cutting into precise dimensions, thereby reducing waste and enhancing productivity. 3. Digital Wood Joinery Machines utilizing sophisticated algorithms to craft intricate and sophisticated wood joinery, enhancing both structural integrity and aesthetic appeal. 4. Automated Edge Banding Machines that apply and trim edge materials to wood panels, ensuring seamless and high-quality finishes with efficiency. 5. Automated Wood Finishing Systems employing robotics and advanced sprayers for precise and consistent application of coatings, paints, and finishes to wood surfaces, among other innovations. By subjecting external panels and lumber to autoclaving, the lifespan of glamping structures can be extended by up to 50 years. Detailed production technology workflows for glamping are illustrated comprehensively in Supplementary Figure S2.

Each step of the manufacturing process’ carbon output was assessed separately.

• The timber production is predefined in sizes, thickness and in numbers at Selemen Holzbau Ltd., the related carbon emissions are generated from the operation of chainsaws and heavy machinery used in this process reaching 0.625 t CO₂ eq. calculated for one glamping unit.
• Sectioning performed by Selemen Holzbau Ltd. is responsible for segmenting timber into smaller sections to facilitate subsequent processing, with machinery emitting 0.028 metric tons of CO₂ equivalent during timber preparation for glamping.
• Edging performed by Casarbor Ltd. (Covasna, Romania) involves removing irregularities from the sides of timber sections to achieve uniform dimensions, emitting 0.023 t CO₂ eq. if powered by non-renewable sources.
• Polishing or smoothing the timber surfaces at Casarbor Ltd. often involves the use of mechanical sanders or planers; the carbon emissions related to this step are estimated to be 0.018 t CO₂ eq. for each glamping structure.
• Applying paint to timber surfaces performed by Casarbor Ltd. requires energy-intensive processes, such as mixing, spraying, and drying, and the related emissions reach 0.014 t CO₂ eq.
• Casarbor Ltd. conducts the autoclaving process on exterior lumber and panel elements, which is a crucial step in prolonging the lifespan of the glamping structures, with a corresponding carbon emission of 0.150 metric tons of CO₂ equivalent.
• The fabrication of auxiliary parts and components, including metallic fixtures, polymers, thermal insulators, glazing, and internal finishing materials, is undertaken by Witz Chairs Ltd. (Bucharest, Romania), Wood Management Ltd. (London, UK) and Spiral Ltd. (Singapore) are responsible for producing components used in kitchens and bathrooms, respectively. The fabrication process involves energy utilization, which results in emissions of up to 0.25 metric tons of CO₂ equivalent per glamping unit.
• To manufacture the entire list of components, the related carbon emission achieves 1.1098 t CO₂ eq. (Table 3).
• A notable proportion of timber material (31.05%) undergoes a reduction in volume during the processes conducted by Wood Management Ltd., Sprial Wood Ltd., and Witz Chairs Ltd. Following timber processing, the production of sub-elements occurs at Casarbor Ltd., adhering to predetermined dimensions and specifications. Sub-components are then transported, covering an average distance of 124 km. The conveyance is divided into two shipments: one for timber and another for auxiliary parts and components, fulfilling the raw material needs for constructing a single glamping unit (Supplementary Figure S3). The WTW emission value amounted to 0.118 metric tons of CO₂ equivalent.

Table 3. Carbon emission related to the manufacturing of wooden construction materials.

Manufacturing Phase	Volume	Values	Related CO2 Releases in t/yr. CO2 eq.	Ratio (%)	Input References
Timber cutting	t	21.56	0.6252	56.34	[47]
Sectioning	pcs	504	0.0283	2.55	[65]
Edging	pcs	504	0.0235	2.12	[65]
Polishing	t	504	0.0182	1.64	[35]
Painting	t	504	0.0145	1.31	[35]
Autoclaving	t	14.87	0.150	13.52	[35]
Components and sub-components	t	0.386	0.25	22.53	[35]
Net wood material for assembly	t	14.87	0.9598	100

Table 3. Carbon emission related to the manufacturing of wooden construction materials.

Manufacturing Phase	Volume	Values	Related CO2 Releases in t/yr. CO2 eq.	Ratio (%)	Input References
Timber cutting	t	21.56	0.6252	56.34	[47]
Sectioning	pcs	504	0.0283	2.55	[65]
Edging	pcs	504	0.0235	2.12	[65]
Polishing	t	504	0.0182	1.64	[35]
Painting	t	504	0.0145	1.31	[35]
Autoclaving	t	14.87	0.150	13.52	[35]
Components and sub-components	t	0.386	0.25	22.53	[35]
Net wood material for assembly	t	14.87	0.9598	100

In a typical glamping unit measuring 42 square meters in net area, which offers ample living space, including a terrace, designed to accommodate families or groups of friends, comprising three rooms and accommodating four to six individuals, the entirety of the furnishings, doors, windows, and partitions are constructed from timber. The cumulative volume of wood utilized amounted to 23.55 cubic meters and was estimated to weigh 14,486 kg. Supplementary components weighed 386 kg, and a total of 36.832 metric tons of CO₂ were sequestered, as delineated in Table 4.

Table 4. Volumes of wood incorporated to glamping and CO₂ sequestration impact.

Type of Sub-Component	Wood Volume Integration (m3)	Incorporated Wood Weight in t	Captured CO2 e eq.	Input References
Laminated spruce beams	0.13	0.93	0.200	[35,66]
Dual beams	0.18	0.99	0.282	[35,66]
Spruce lumber	0.42	0.231	0.657	[35,67]
Spruce slats	0.99	0.545	1.548	[35,66]
Interior panelling	2.08	1.144	3.253	[35,68]
Pine lumber	0.42	0.231	0.657	[35,69]
Pine slats	2.56	1.408	4.004	[35,66]
Upper outer panelling	1.11	0.006	1.736	[35,66]
Lower exterior panelling	0.65	0.003	1.017	[35,69]
18 mm panels	1.65	0.939	2.576	[35,69]
Tri-layer panel 32 mm	3.36	3.830	5.255	[35,69]
Tri-layer panel 16 mm	2.41	1.205	3.769	[35,68]
Massive wood furniture	0.75	0.420	1.173	[35,70]
Doors and windows	0.56	0.314	0.876	[35,70]
OSB panels	5.63	3.656	8.798	[35,71]
Round elements 80 mm	0.66	0.363	1.032	[35,72]
Total	23.55	14.486	36.832

Table 4. Volumes of wood incorporated to glamping and CO₂ sequestration impact.

Type of Sub-Component	Wood Volume Integration (m3)	Incorporated Wood Weight in t	Captured CO2 e eq.	Input References
Laminated spruce beams	0.13	0.93	0.200	[35,66]
Dual beams	0.18	0.99	0.282	[35,66]
Spruce lumber	0.42	0.231	0.657	[35,67]
Spruce slats	0.99	0.545	1.548	[35,66]
Interior panelling	2.08	1.144	3.253	[35,68]
Pine lumber	0.42	0.231	0.657	[35,69]
Pine slats	2.56	1.408	4.004	[35,66]
Upper outer panelling	1.11	0.006	1.736	[35,66]
Lower exterior panelling	0.65	0.003	1.017	[35,69]
18 mm panels	1.65	0.939	2.576	[35,69]
Tri-layer panel 32 mm	3.36	3.830	5.255	[35,69]
Tri-layer panel 16 mm	2.41	1.205	3.769	[35,68]
Massive wood furniture	0.75	0.420	1.173	[35,70]
Doors and windows	0.56	0.314	0.876	[35,70]
OSB panels	5.63	3.656	8.798	[35,71]
Round elements 80 mm	0.66	0.363	1.032	[35,72]
Total	23.55	14.486	36.832

3.3. Building Phase

3.3.1. Conveyance to the Construction Site

The coordination of glamping production involved local SMEs within a radius of 124 km, aiming to minimize carbon emissions, as evidenced by the process records. Two scenarios were considered for construction sites: transportation within the domestic market and abroad. Given the central geographical location of the glamping manufacturing site in Romania, prefabricated components can be delivered to any construction site within a 280 km radius in the country. Overseas transportation averaged 1783 km based on the companies’ actual experiences. For domestic locations, the associated carbon emissions for these processes amount to 0.230 t CO₂ eq., while the global average for transportation-related emissions is 1276 t CO₂ eq. [52].

3.3.2. Incorporation into Glamping

The LCA methodology offered a comprehensive insight into the carbon footprint of glamping construction, pinpointing areas for potential emissions reduction through measures such as material optimization, enhanced energy efficiency, waste minimization, and the integration of renewable energy sources. Casarbor Ltd. estimated the on-site plastic waste generation at 1.5 m³ per glamping assembly. Regarding doors and windows, the 50 mm triple-layered glass emitted approximately 20–60 kg CO₂/m² depending on various factors [73]; our study considered 40 kg CO₂/m², resulting in 378.4 kg CO₂ emissions for the 9.46 m² of glamping openings. Construction energy consumption was quantified at 180 kWh, multiplied by 281 g CO₂ eq./kWh to reflect Romania’s projected emissions for 2023 [74] and totaling 0.05058 t CO₂ eq. Water usage was negligible and thus excluded. Glamping construction included 10 cm of wall insulation, 14 cm under the roof, and 14 cm in the floor for continental types, amounting to 19.12 m³ and 9.65 m³ of stone wool insulation with a total CO₂ emission of 1866 t. For Mediterranean types, 4 cm wall insulation, 10 cm under the roof, and 10 cm in the floor were employed, resulting in 1.119 t of CO₂ eq. emissions [75]. Ironwork usage contributed 0.153 t CO₂ eq. based on an average of 10 kg of iron per glamping [76]. Roofing accounted for 0.720 t CO₂ eq. emissions considering a 58 m² roof area. The wooden furniture in glamping sequestered rather than emitted GHGs. The integration of solar panels reduced carbon emissions by 0.42 t CO₂ eq./kWp [77]; thus, the 3 kWp PV capacity in glamping resulted in 1.26 t CO₂ eq. emissions. Detailed glamping assembly emissions are presented in Table 5, while the top view plan is depicted in Figure 3.

Table 5. Carbon emission related to the construction/assembly process.

Building Stage	Units	Values	Related CO2 Emission in t/yr. CO2 eq	Ratio in %	Input References
Conveyance to local building site	1 pcs glamping	21.56	0.230	4.58	[47]
Conveyance to international building site	1 pcs glamping	504	1.276	25.41	[65]
Plastic waste resulted from construction	m3	1.5	0.375	7.47	[65]
Doors and windows installation	m2	9.46	0.378	7.53	[35]
Consumed energy during construction	kWh	180	0.050	1.00	[35]
Water supply installation	T	14.87	0.150	2.99	[35]
Electricity installation	T	0.386	0.250	4.98	[35]
Inside insulation—Mediterranean Type	m2	28.77	0.095	1.89	[78]
Outside insulation—Mediterranean Type	m2	28.77	0.652	12.99	[78]
Inside insulation—Continental Type	m2	28.77	0.102	2.03	[78]
Outside insulation—Continental Type	m2	28.77	0.860	17.13	[78]
Ironwork installation	Kg	10	0.153	3.05	[79]
Roof installation	m2	58	0.720	14.34	[80]
Furniture installation	Pcs	1	−0.420	−8.36	[35]
Renewable technology installation			0.42	2.99	[81]
Total min			3.268
Total max			5.021	100

Table 5. Carbon emission related to the construction/assembly process.

Building Stage	Units	Values	Related CO2 Emission in t/yr. CO2 eq	Ratio in %	Input References
Conveyance to local building site	1 pcs glamping	21.56	0.230	4.58	[47]
Conveyance to international building site	1 pcs glamping	504	1.276	25.41	[65]
Plastic waste resulted from construction	m3	1.5	0.375	7.47	[65]
Doors and windows installation	m2	9.46	0.378	7.53	[35]
Consumed energy during construction	kWh	180	0.050	1.00	[35]
Water supply installation	T	14.87	0.150	2.99	[35]
Electricity installation	T	0.386	0.250	4.98	[35]
Inside insulation—Mediterranean Type	m2	28.77	0.095	1.89	[78]
Outside insulation—Mediterranean Type	m2	28.77	0.652	12.99	[78]
Inside insulation—Continental Type	m2	28.77	0.102	2.03	[78]
Outside insulation—Continental Type	m2	28.77	0.860	17.13	[78]
Ironwork installation	Kg	10	0.153	3.05	[79]
Roof installation	m2	58	0.720	14.34	[80]
Furniture installation	Pcs	1	−0.420	−8.36	[35]
Renewable technology installation			0.42	2.99	[81]
Total min			3.268
Total max			5.021	100

3.4. Operation Phase

• The utilization phase encompasses the ecological repercussions linked with the routine utilization or functioning of the glamping establishment, covering the impacts of guests residing in the facility, including resource utilization and waste production. The glamping facility is designed to be accessible throughout non-peak seasons as well, for a minimum of 220 days annually, resulting in 2.47 tons per year of CO₂ emissions, constituting 65% of all operation-related emissions.
• The term “upkeep” denotes the continual attention and maintenance required to ensure the durability and proper functioning of the glamping site. This encompasses 31 h of servicing, equating to one hour per week of operation, to preserve the structural integrity of the accommodations, sustain the heating, lighting, and water supply systems, and rectify any damages.
• Rectification involves addressing any defects or damages that arise during the course of glamping; for instance, repairing a damaged window or roof in a glamping structure would entail associated environmental impacts, with an estimated emission of 0.06 tons per year of CO₂.
• In glamping, replacement refers to replacing a component or the entire product due to irreparable damage, obsolescence, or the end of its useful life. This practice has linked environmental consequences that are expected to result in 0.02 t/yr. of CO₂ emissions.
• Refurbishment involves improving or upgrading a product to extend its useful life or improve its performance. This can include repainting, retrofitting, or upgrading systems. The environmental effects in this case are associated with 0.024 t/yr. CO₂ releases and are associated with applied materials, energy demand, and the footprint of all municipal waste generated by refurbishing.
• Functional energy consumption pertains to the energy utilized throughout the functioning phase of the glamping installations, encompassing the energy necessary for heating, providing domestic hot water, illumination, and other activities aimed at ensuring guest comfort and operational efficacy. The ecological repercussion of energy utilization is approximated to amount to 0.504 tons/year of CO₂ emissions, with 0.407 tons/year of CO₂ eq. being offset by the proprietor’s photovoltaic system and storage, thereby resulting in a net energy utilization-related carbon emission of merely 0.097 tons per year of CO₂ eq.
• Operational water utilization encompasses the water utilized during the functioning of the glamping site, which is required for guest amenities, sanitation, landscaping, and other operational undertakings. The environmental impact associated with clean water and wastewater amounts to an estimated 0.052 tons per year of CO₂ eq. The aggregate operation-related carbon emission totals 3.657 tons/year of CO₂ eq., as delineated in Table 6.

Table 6. CO₂ emission estimation on glamping operation.

Operation Stages	Method of Measurement	Units	Values	Related CO2 Emission in t/yr.	Ratio in %	Input References
Use/Application stage	Municipal waste generated, number of overnights	t/yr.	0.66	1.122	29.5	[82,83]
Number of overnights and persons	Overnights/capita	t of CO2/nights/ capita	0.0063	1.356	35.6	[84]
Maintenance	Service hours	hr/yr.	325	0.162	4.3	[85]
Repair	CO2 emission of replacement parts	t eq CO2e	0.0015	0.06	1.6	[35,86]
Renovation	Involved materials	t/yr.	0.0012	0.024	0.6	[35]
Replacement	Replacement parts	t/yr.	0.0010	0.02	0.5	[35]
Operational energy use		kWh	169	0.047	1.2
-Specific energy use for space heating	Energy consumption	kWh/m2	1060	0.298	7.8	[87]
-Energy demand for hot water preparation	Energy use	kWh/yr.	440	0.124	3.2	[13]
-Specific energy use for lighting	Energy consumption	kWh/yr.	125	0.035	0.9	[35]
-Specific electricity generated by the PV system	Energy generation	kWh/yr.	1449	0.407	10.7	[35]
Overall energy consumption	Energy balance	kWh/yr.	345	0.097	2.5	[88]
Operational Water Use		m3			0.0
-Drinking water	Annual consumption of drinking water	l/yr.	13200	0.026	0.7	[89,90]
-Waste water	Annual generation of used water	l/yr.	12600	0.025	0.7	[35,91]
Total				3.804	100

Table 6. CO₂ emission estimation on glamping operation.

Operation Stages	Method of Measurement	Units	Values	Related CO2 Emission in t/yr.	Ratio in %	Input References
Use/Application stage	Municipal waste generated, number of overnights	t/yr.	0.66	1.122	29.5	[82,83]
Number of overnights and persons	Overnights/capita	t of CO2/nights/ capita	0.0063	1.356	35.6	[84]
Maintenance	Service hours	hr/yr.	325	0.162	4.3	[85]
Repair	CO2 emission of replacement parts	t eq CO2e	0.0015	0.06	1.6	[35,86]
Renovation	Involved materials	t/yr.	0.0012	0.024	0.6	[35]
Replacement	Replacement parts	t/yr.	0.0010	0.02	0.5	[35]
Operational energy use		kWh	169	0.047	1.2
-Specific energy use for space heating	Energy consumption	kWh/m2	1060	0.298	7.8	[87]
-Energy demand for hot water preparation	Energy use	kWh/yr.	440	0.124	3.2	[13]
-Specific energy use for lighting	Energy consumption	kWh/yr.	125	0.035	0.9	[35]
-Specific electricity generated by the PV system	Energy generation	kWh/yr.	1449	0.407	10.7	[35]
Overall energy consumption	Energy balance	kWh/yr.	345	0.097	2.5	[88]
Operational Water Use		m3			0.0
-Drinking water	Annual consumption of drinking water	l/yr.	13200	0.026	0.7	[89,90]
-Waste water	Annual generation of used water	l/yr.	12600	0.025	0.7	[35,91]
Total				3.804	100

3.5. End-of-Life Phase

The final stage in the life cycle of wooden glamping structures encompasses various elements concerning carbon emissions and sustainability. To dismantle or demolish a wooden glamping structure, its components must undergo disassembly and removal. Energy consumption during deconstruction tasks, involving equipment operation, necessitates two days of labor by four individuals and 5 kWh of electricity, resulting in carbon emissions with an environmental impact of 0.014 t/yr. CO₂ eq. under typical conditions.

When materials from dismantled glamping structures are transported to recycling, reuse, or disposal facilities, they generate carbon emissions attributable to transportation [92]. According to the current assessment, a truck may carry up to 15 t of goods over an average distance of 50 km, resulting in 0.036 t/yr. of CO₂ emissions.

The waste processing phase involves recycling the wood from disassembled glamping structures, a process that emits carbon as the wood is repurposed into new products. It is crucial to segregate and repurpose construction materials, including wooden and metal elements, glass from windows and doors, and insulation materials [93]. When timber products are recycled and repurposed, the carbon stored in them diminishes potential CO₂ emissions [50]. Repurposing wooden glamping components offers long-term benefits by sequestering carbon for extended periods. It was determined that each unit produced 0.1 t/yr. CO₂ eq. of emissions due to processing and modification to adapt old components for new purposes. Overall, recycling materials compared to manufacturing new ones can substantially mitigate carbon impact.

Carbon emissions associated with disposal arise when wood waste is sent to landfills or incinerators. Landfills emit methane, a potent GHG, during the breakdown of organic materials, like wood. According to Guillaume et al., incinerating 1 ton of wood waste releases 0.9 to 1.56 t CO₂ into the atmosphere [63]. Promoting sustainable disposal practices, such as composting or utilizing wood waste for energy generation, is crucial (Table 7).

Table 7. Carbon emission assessment at the end-of-life of the glamping life cycle.

End-of-Life Stages	Units	Values	Related CO2 Releases in t/yr. CO2 eq.	Ratio in %	Input References
Deconstruction/Disassembly	t	14.87	0.014	1.01	[35]
Conveyance	t	14.87	0.036	2.61	[51]
Waste Management: Reuse/Recycle	t	14.87	0.100	7.25	[50]
Disposal	t	14.87	1.23	89.13	[63]
Total		14.87	1.38	100

Table 7. Carbon emission assessment at the end-of-life of the glamping life cycle.

End-of-Life Stages	Units	Values	Related CO2 Releases in t/yr. CO2 eq.	Ratio in %	Input References
Deconstruction/Disassembly	t	14.87	0.014	1.01	[35]
Conveyance	t	14.87	0.036	2.61	[51]
Waste Management: Reuse/Recycle	t	14.87	0.100	7.25	[50]
Disposal	t	14.87	1.23	89.13	[63]
Total		14.87	1.38	100

3.6. The Final Carbon Balance of Glamping

In the evaluation of wooden glamping structures’ LCA, the objective was to pinpoint avenues leading to minimal carbon footprints, mitigating these emissions through regional procurement, employing optimal manufacturing methodologies, and engaging diverse stakeholders, all aimed at fostering a favorable environmental footprint during the operational lifespan and extending longevity through second-life approaches or circular economy principles in the end-of-life phase. An all-encompassing strategy incorporating these aspects contributes to curbing the environmental impact of glamping structures. Findings indicate that in the total carbon output, glamping production and manufacturing contribute between 8.11% and 9.52% of carbon emissions, with construction in domestic regions accounting for up to 42.46%, encompassing all auxiliary element-related emissions integrated into glamping. In contrast, a wooden single-family house registers around 102 t/CO₂ total emissions [13], whereas glamping records approximately 10 t/CO₂. Comparative data reveal that the embodied carbon ceiling for single-family dwellings stands at 0.65 t CO₂ e/m² [13] for optimal performance, while large residential structures store considerably less carbon, ranging between 0.2 and 0.25 t CO₂ e/m². In the case of wood-based glamping, this metric reaches 0.595 t CO₂e/m² [94] of carbon storage. Evidently, streamlined supply chains, glamping prefabrication, and swift assembly substantially reduce CO₂ emissions. The current examination underscores the pivotal role of local or regional value chains in climate change mitigation, with this ratio escalating by 10% for glamping sites located abroad. Over a span of up to 50 years, operational stages yield carbon emissions ranging between 32.44% and 38.14%. Additionally, as depicted in

Table 8. Overall carbon emissions related to the LCA.

LCA Stages	Values (t)	Related CO2 Emission in t/m3. CO2 eq.	Ratio Min (%)	Ratio Max (%)
Production stage—sourcing	21.56	0.6604	5.5847	6.5567
Production stage—manufacturing	14.489	0.9598	8.1166	9.5292
Buliding phase—min	14.872	3.2680		32.4457
Building phase—max	15.272	5.0210	42.4602
Operation phase	14.872	3.8040	32.1686	37.7673
End-of-life stage	14.872	1.3800	11.6700	13.7011
Total		10.0722	100	100

, the end-of-life phase and associated options necessitate 11.76–13.83% of carbon emissions (Figure 4).

The primary discovery of this exhaustive examination reveals that glamping facilities function as reservoirs for carbon rather than contributors to its accumulation. When constructed in a local tourist enclave, the sequestration of 36.832 metric tons of CO₂ by the timber utilized in a single glamping structure effectively surpasses the emissions of 9.97 metric tons of carbon attributed to their entire life cycle. Nevertheless, if the glamping venture extends beyond borders (factoring in an average distance exceeding 1700 km), emissions remain as modest as 11.72%. Consequently, there exists a net reduction in atmospheric carbon levels, offering a favorable contribution to endeavors aimed at mitigating climate change.

In this sense, the main hypothesis of the research was validated, namely, the incorporation of wood in glamping structures results in a significant net carbon sequestration effect after excluding the carbon emissions associated with manufacturing and construction, and the entire glamping life cycle has at least 25 metric tons of CO₂ in one glamping structure. The secondary hypothesis was that sustainable sourcing of raw materials can minimize CO₂ emissions. In the value chain analyzed in this paper, the raw material was harvested from a local forest, eliminating long-distance transportation, while emissions related to the replantation were also taken into consideration, and the total emissions were estimated to be 0.66 metric tons of CO₂/m³ harvested wood in comparison with other results, e.g., 1.46 metric tons of CO₂/m³ harvested wood with conventional logging approaches [95]. Timber production is coupled with low-carbon emission design principles and innovative production capacities, achieving 0.95 metric tons of CO₂/m³ manufactured wood, in comparison with 1.04 to 1.32 metric tons of CO₂/m³ manufactured wood [96], which contributes substantially to the carbon sequestration potential of wooden glamping structures.

4. Discussion

The findings of this study on carbon capture and storage in wood-based glamping structures complete a research gap but also align with and extend on previous studies [13] while introducing novel insights and innovations in the assessment of environmental impacts in the FBI and eco-tourism accommodations [37].

This study’s findings corroborate earlier research emphasizing the carbon sequestration potential of wood in construction materials [62,69]. Consistent with studies by Petrovic and Quintana-Gallardo [13,97], our results calculated the carbon capture and carbon storage capacities along the footprint of the glamping manufacturing and construction activities [13,98]. Our paper demonstrates the substantial carbon storage capacity of timber incorporated in glamping structures, namely, 595 kg CO₂e/m² carbon storage in glamping, contributing significantly and precisely to the estimation of the carbon mitigation efforts. Furthermore, Casarbor Ltd. annually orchestrates reforestation initiatives, integrating into its business model the redirection of revenue generated from the sale of voluntary carbon sequestration credits, which are earned through glamping sales, towards reforestation efforts.

The carbon footprint calculation was detailed well, and it was found that only 6.5% of overall emissions were related to sourcing, including the replantation of forests. Due to the newly implemented regional value chain and innovative industrial equipment, the footprint related to the manufacturing of the glamping structure was radically decreased to 8–9.5%. If we take into account that the carbon footprint of the production stage of wooden construction is usually 30% during the production stage, the case of glamping realized a significant mitigation measure [13]. Contrary to this, the construction stage includes about 32–42% of the total carbon footprint, as it is calculated that the glamping structure is transported and constructed in different sites from 280 km up to 1783 km from the manufacturing site. These aspects were not taken into consideration in every other assessment. The use stage is responsible for 32 to 38% of the total carbon footprint, significantly less than other wooden structures, as glamping is a touristic structure and not residential. Last but not least, in the end-of-life stage, all minor steps were taken into consideration, such as deconstruction, the transport of materials from the touristic spot, reuse/recycling and/or disposal, and the meaning a carbon footprint of 11.6–13.7% out of the total footprint. The relatively high ratio under the end-of-life stage occurred because glamping is not reused in the middle of nature, which could be sometimes under the jurisdiction of nature conservation or other limitations.

The above-detailed methodological approach can be applied in many other circumstances to estimate the carbon capture and storage capacities for wood industrial stakeholders and eco-tourism-related players. Furthermore, in line with previous assessments looking for solutions on emission mitigation [99,100], our analysis reaffirms the importance of local and regional value chains for wood industries and the benefits of glamping as a more sustainable lodging option compared to traditional facilities [101].

The innovation of this study lies in its comprehensive quantitative assessment and direct comparison of carbon sequestration against emissions specific to wood incorporation in glamping structures. Prior studies have highlighted the carbon sequestration potential of wood and the eco-friendly attributes of glamping, yet few have quantitatively compared the net carbon impact in this context. Our study fills this gap by employing a rigorous life cycle assessment methodology, accurately measuring the actual carbon sequestration in wood while juxtaposing it against emissions generated throughout the glamping structure’s life cycle. This innovation provides empirical evidence and a quantifiable understanding of the net environmental impact, bridging a critical research gap.

The quantitative findings from this research hold profound implications for sustainable construction practices and policy formulation within the building sector for eco-tourism customers. By demonstrating a clear surplus of carbon sequestration over emissions in wood-based glamping structures, our study advocates for the promotion of sustainable forestry management and the use of wood in construction as a viable strategy for carbon mitigation. These findings present actionable insights for policymakers, stakeholders, and the construction industry, encouraging the adoption of wood-based sustainable structures to achieve carbon neutrality and combat climate change effectively [37,101].

While aligning with prior research on the benefits of wood and glamping in eco-tourism, this study innovates by quantitatively demonstrating the net positive impact of wood incorporation in glamping structures. The novel comparison of carbon sequestration and emissions offers concrete evidence supporting the viability of wood-based sustainable constructions in mitigating climate change, offering a significant contribution to the body of knowledge of sustainable construction practices within the tourism sector.

While the above-analyzed research provides valuable insights into the carbon sequestration potential of wood incorporation in glamping structures, there are several aspects that warrant further investigation to strengthen our understanding of the environmental impacts and sustainability implications of such practices. One key area for future research is the long-term effectiveness of carbon offset through reforestation efforts associated with wood-based industries. While reforestation has the potential to sequester carbon and mitigate emissions, there is a need for more comprehensive studies to assess the scalability, sustainability, and overall impact of reforestation initiatives on carbon balance and ecosystem health. Additionally, the analysis could benefit from a more robust consideration of the broader environmental impacts beyond carbon, such as biodiversity conservation, water resource management, and soil health. Furthermore, future research should explore the socio-economic implications of wood-based industries, including the equitable distribution of benefits and potential trade-offs with other land uses. By addressing these research gaps and weaknesses, future studies can provide a more holistic understanding of the sustainability challenges and opportunities associated with wood incorporation in glamping structures, ultimately informing more informed decision making and policy development in the field of sustainable construction and eco-tourism.

5. Conclusions

Given that carbon emissions stem not solely from the acquisition of raw materials and the fabrication of glamping units but also from operational and end-of-life stages, it is imperative to adopt a comprehensive perspective to grasp the wider landscape of environmental sustainability. Processes such as timber harvesting, cutting, refining, finishing, painting, crafting auxiliary components, and determining the net wood volume for assembly all contribute collectively to the carbon impact of wooden products.

According to the results, the main sources of GHG emissions were the construction stage, showing that the FBI sector can significantly reduce its emissions with local sourcing, regional value chains, and the application of innovative technologies. In this sense, the use of innovative, digitalized, and energy-efficient equipment, and renewable energy sources, all present potential for mitigating the environmental footprint. These practices demonstrate a proactive approach to carbon mitigation and offer valuable insights into sustainable construction practices.

The research emphasizes the significant role of transportation in influencing the carbon footprint of glamping structures. The distance between manufacturing sites and construction locations has a considerable impact on emissions, underscoring the importance of optimizing transportation routes and minimizing travel distances to reduce carbon emissions. Therefore, by prioritizing the decision to employ local and sustainable materials, locally produced products have major benefits towards sustainability and climate neutrality.

This study reveals a noteworthy carbon sequestration potential associated with the use of wood in glamping structures. The wood used in these structures acts as a carbon sink, sequestering a substantial amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, thereby offsetting a significant portion of the carbon emissions generated throughout the glamping life cycle.

Within the realm of sustainable forestry and wood product creation, the imperative lies in managing and reducing carbon emissions throughout timber processing endeavors. Embracing sustainable practices diminishes the sector’s ecological footprint and meets the escalating consumer demand for eco-friendly and low-carbon merchandise. Thus, while carbon emissions persist as a challenge in timber processing, they also present an avenue for the industry to foster innovation, enhance efficiency, and prioritize environmental stewardship.

The surplus carbon sequestration emerges as a method of carbon offsetting. Essentially, the carbon emissions generated during manufacturing, construction, and utilization are counterbalanced by the carbon stored in the wooden elements. Various entities can leverage this carbon offset to diminish their overall carbon footprint and fulfill sustainability objectives.

Sustainable sourcing and management entails optimizing environmental advantages, ensuring that the wood utilized in glamping structures originates from responsibly managed forests [102]. In this instance, sourcing wood from thinning activities, during which trees sequester the most CO₂ in their initial growth stages [103], exemplifies best practices. By perpetuating a continuous cycle of carbon sequestration, sustainable forestry methods advocate for ethical tree harvesting and reforestation [104].

Carbon-positive design (CPD): The aforementioned LCA showcases the potential of employing carbon-positive design principles, aiming to sequester more carbon than is emitted during the life cycle of a structure. Such designs prioritize carbon storage and underscore the utilization of environmentally sound materials, aligning with global endeavors to combat climate change [105].

The research delves into often-overlooked considerations regarding end-of-life implications in carbon footprint evaluations [106]. By scrutinizing deconstruction, transportation, reuse/recycling, and disposal phases, this study underscores the significance of responsible waste management practices in curtailing the environmental impact of glamping structures.

The educational value of glamping is noteworthy, as it can heighten awareness regarding the importance of sustainable construction in climate mitigation efforts. Showcasing to guests and the general populace [19] the potential of wooden glamping structures to sequester carbon underscores the criticality of selecting building materials with minimal carbon footprints [107,108].

In essence, the excess carbon sequestration of wood utilized in glamping structures relative to their emissions represents a notable and beneficial environmental influence. It underscores how, when meticulously planned and executed with regard to environmental implications, sustainable construction processes can contribute to carbon neutrality and even carbon negativity. This scenario serves as a testament to the significance of integrating sustainability principles into building and design choices across diverse sectors.