Next Article in Journal
Impact of Biochar Interlayer on Surface Soil Salt Content, Salt Migration, and Photosynthetic Activity and Yield of Sunflowers: Laboratory and Field Studies
Previous Article in Journal
The Role of E-Commerce in Promoting Sustainable Local Employment in Rural Areas: Evidence from China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Green Infrastructure and Adaptation to Climate Change in Marginal Areas: A Reference Scheme for Implementation Guidelines in Italy
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 12
10.3390/su17125644
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Livestock Buildings in a Changing World: Building Sustainability Challenges and Landscape Integration Management

by
Daniela Isola
*,
Stefano Bigiotti
* and
Alvaro Marucci
Department of Agriculture and Forest Sciences (DAFNE), University of Tuscia, Via S. Camillo de Lellis, 01100 Viterbo, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(12), 5644; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17125644
Submission received: 10 May 2025 / Revised: 8 June 2025 / Accepted: 11 June 2025 / Published: 19 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Challenges and Future Trends in Integrating Adaptation to Climate Change and Green Infrastructure in Planning Practice)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The awareness of global warming has boosted research on methods to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Livestock buildings, although essential for food production, represent a sustainability challenge due to their high maintenance energy costs, GHG emissions, and impact on the environment and rural landscapes. Since the environment, cultural heritage, and community identity deserve protection, research trends and current knowledge on livestock buildings, building sustainability, energy efficiency strategies, and landscape management were investigated using the Web of Science and Scopus search tools (2005–2025). Research on these topics was found to be uneven, with limited focus on livestock buildings compared to food production and animal welfare, and significant interest in eco-sustainable building materials. A total of 96 articles were selected after evaluating over 5400 records. The analysis revealed a lack of universally accepted definitions for building design strategies and their rare application to livestock facilities, where passive solutions and insulation prevailed. The application of renewable energy was rare and limited to rural buildings, as was the application of sustainable building materials to livestock, agriculture, and vernacular buildings. Conversely, increased attention was paid to the definition and classification of vernacular architecture features aimed at enhancing existing buildings and mitigating or facilitating the landscape integration of those that diverge most from them. Although not exhaustive, this review identified some knowledge gaps. More efforts are needed to reduce environmental impacts and meet the milestones set by international agreements. Research on building materials could benefit from collaboration with experts in cultural heritage conservation because of their command of traditional materials, durability-enhancing methods, and biodeterioration.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Many factors, such as population growth, increased income, and changes in diets and habits, have contributed to a rapid increase in the demand for and production of livestock products. This trend is expected to continue, since projections show that production demand will double by 2050 [1,2]. Globally, livestock occupies about 26% of ice-free land, with one-third of cropland being used for feed production [3]. This increasing demand leads to increasing resources and energy consumption in rural areas, which, alongside urban areas, contributes to climate change and global warming. Sectors such as food, water, health, ecosystems, human habitat, and infrastructure are among the most vulnerable to climate impacts [4]. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC 1771 U.N.T.S. 107; 1992), the Kyoto Protocol (2303 U.N.T.S. 162; 1997), and the Paris Agreement (TIAS 16-1104; 2015), represent the main global climate agreements aimed at reducing emissions and mitigating global warming. Since then, the measures aimed at reducing GHG emissions have progressively increased, involving different fields of application. The building and construction sector demonstrated its crucial role in mitigating global warming and in achieving sustainability. In fact, it accounted for approximately 39% of carbon dioxide emissions, 36% of global energy consumption [5], and 30% of total global waste [6]. The livestock sector should be included in global strategies, as it contributes 14.5% of global GHG emissions [2]. Like other types of buildings, those designed to house animals and livestock must enhance their overall performance, reduce energy consumption, and minimise environmental impact. These requirements become particularly relevant when considering the need for landscape integration, a characteristic intrinsic to such structures, especially in areas of high rural value where livestock buildings are often located. This necessity reflects not only the broader perspectives of agricultural area development but also the dynamics of “land-use trajectories” [7], which define and substantiate the unique, foundational relationship between the built environment and the natural landscape. It is precisely this relationship that this paper aims to explore in depth.
Since the beginning of human history, the choice of materials, regardless of their use, has always been based on their availability, abundance, and workability. Materials used for livestock shelters followed the same rule, justifying the diversity of materials used for this purpose at different latitudes. Among them, wood, stone, mud and clay bricks, and even woven reed, were used. Other features, such as size and design, were determined by animal needs and shaped by the ability of rural communities to develop practical solutions to environmental challenges. An example is the steeply pitched thatched roofs typical of Northern European constructions, designed to shed snow and rain efficiently. A significant change in animal husbandry took place in livestock production since the mid-20th century with the generation of “intensive” or “confinement” animal production, where animals came to be housed in specialised indoor environments [8,9]. This became possible thanks to the broadened material choice, the advancements in construction methods, and functional design. The Industrial Revolution marked a turning point, introducing materials like cast iron and, later, steel, which allowed for more durable (compared to wood beams) and larger structures. Concrete became a popular choice for flooring and walls due to its strength, durability, and low maintenance requirements. Later in the 20th century, the advent of prefabricated components and modern engineering techniques enabled faster construction and greater standardisation of shelter designs. Nevertheless, locally adapted practices considering specific environmental and cultural needs have ensured the persistence of traditional building techniques in many parts of the world, making traditional rural buildings a tangible symbol of a people’s cultural heritage [10,11,12].
The increased awareness of the risks entangled with global warming has led to great efforts in technological advances aimed at reducing energy consumption, increasing efficiency, and promoting reuse and recovery practices to mitigate environmental impact [13]. In the building sector, the emergence of innovative tools, design concepts, materials, and models has been accompanied by the introduction of several new technical terms that define or emphasise their main features or performance (e.g., sustainable buildings, passive buildings, green buildings, renewable materials, etc.) [14]. Although significant attention has been paid to urban constructions, rural environments also contribute to climate change through building emissions and animal production. Therefore, special attention should be paid to assessing which mitigation strategies can be applied in this context and to what extent. These are issues that involve technology and the active strategies that may be implemented within building structures. However, they also directly concern the physical consistency of the buildings themselves: their morphological type, spatial and functional layout, form, and the set of spatial attributes that, for obvious reasons, also determine their cadastral classification [15]. In this sense, the principles of sustainability that currently guide construction practices inevitably lead to transformations that affect both the built environment and the surrounding landscape, ultimately shaping the character of the entire territorial system [16].
Moreover, rural environments play a key role in biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration, and cultural heritage preservation [17]. The European Landscape Convention [18] (with comparable regulations in other countries) emphasises the contribution of landscapes to maintaining ecological balance, supporting sustainable development as part of cultural identity and human well-being. Farm buildings, essential to the sustainability of rural environment, serve both ecological functions and as key elements of the socioeconomic and cultural heritage that drive local development. Their unique design to support biological production, combined with their interactions with both indoor and outdoor environments, presents architectural and technical challenges distinct from other types of buildings [19,20]. In this context, the management of rural landscapes should find the right balance between rural architecture, serving as a spatial and functional response to local needs (e.g., production and living) [21], and its natural surroundings. Particularly, it should incorporate both territorial relationships and morphological and constructional characteristics with the landscape, representing the transformative possibilities for the pre-existing-built heritage in agricultural contexts [22]. This includes determining which structures to intervene on and, through typological analysis, classifying architectural elements to identify the characteristics and variables that contribute to the expression of territorial identity. Consequently, determine how to improve landscape integration [23], but also experimenting with practices and operational approaches aimed at ensuring the full sustainability of policies for the enhancement of rural areas [24].
Given these premises, livestock buildings represent the convergence centre of different lines of research which, despite formally pursuing different objectives, show points of connection that should be implemented to achieve these goals. The aim of this review is to assess the current knowledge and identify gaps regarding the major research trends in livestock buildings and materials, as well as the potential application of alternative solutions and materials to livestock buildings with respect to sustainability and landscape harmonisation. Additionally, it aims to suggest possible directions for interdisciplinary investigations involving life sciences.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Bibliometric Analysis to Identify the Major Research Trends in Livestock Buildings and Building Materials

Data mining on the major academic databases coupled with the use of mapping tools is receiving increasing attention for depicting and analysing research trends [25]. In this light, searches were performed in both Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus within the period of 20–30 January 2025, limiting the results to the last 20 years (2005- 2025) and research papers in English. The first search was performed using basic and nearly synonymous keywords (Kws) such as ‘livestock building’, ‘livestock housing’, and ‘farm buildings‘. Bibliographic data were extracted from WoS and Scopus and then processed using VOSviewer v. 2.0 (https://www.vosviewer.com/, accessed on 31 January 2025), an open-source and easy-to-use tool [26]. To achieve the most readable and clear Kw map, the visualisation options, such as the number of the displayed Kws and connections, were finely tuned. Generally, the lower limit for Kw repeats was increased to display up to 300 Kws, and the number of links was limited to 1000. No Thesaurus file (used to merge Kw counts of similar terms) was given because even diversity in Kws use could be of interest in depicting a trend. The map showing the most distinct cluster separation was selected. A similar workflow was used to build a co-occurrence map focused on ‘building materials’.

2.2. Research Trends in Sustainable Building Materials and Their Use in Rural Environments

To identify the most explored research trends in materials sustainability, the search for “building materials” was first refined by using “sustainable” and then using, alternatively, as a third keyword, “recycled,” “composites,” and “bio-based”. Searches were performed between 2 and 8 February 2025 in both WoS (all fields) and Scopus (title, abstract, keywords) covering the period of 2005–2025. To collect information on the materials entering the composition of recycled, composite, and bio-based materials, the bulk was refined by considering research articles written in English and purged from duplicate titles. The abstracts and, when not sufficiently informative, the relative full articles were independently reviewed by all authors. The numerical results of the most frequent components of recycled, composite, and bio-based materials were visualised separately for WoS and Scopus searches using Excel plotting tools (Version 2505). Further selection was performed using ‘rural’ and ‘vernacular’ alternately to select papers in which materials had been applied to non-urban constructions, while ‘livestock’, ‘barn’, ‘poultry’, ‘animal housing’, and ‘pigsty’ were used to collect research papers in which materials had been applied to buildings devoted to animal production.

2.3. Bibliometric Analysis on Building Concepts and Possible Application in Rural Areas

Every action that aims to be effectively implemented must start with a clear definition of the areas of intervention. Given that the scientific (and commercial) scenario includes many terms referring to various strategies aimed, in one way or another, at reducing the factors responsible for climate change and mitigating its effects, the absence of widely shared definitions makes it imperative to clarify at least the key factors before determining how many of them can be applied to rural environments and constructions devoted to, or strictly associated with, livestock production. To address this, a systematic review was conducted using database repositories (i.e., WoS and Scopus). The search was limited to peer-reviewed research articles published between 2005 and 2025 (March) written in English. This language choice, despite the existence of some relevant national literature on the topic, was made to avoid overrepresenting research written in languages with which the authors are familiar, while also promoting transparency and allowing readers to verify the reported information. The search on WoS (all fields) and Scopus (title, abstract, keywords) was performed using building concepts, namely ‘nZEB’, ‘environmental building’, ‘sustainable building’, ‘green building’, ‘low-carbon building’, and ‘passive building’. In the latter case, an additional search was performed using alternative spellings for the building design concept: ‘passive house’ and ‘passivhaus’. RAWGraphs [27], a web-based open-source generator of customizable charts, was used to depict the research trends across two periods (i.e., 2005–2014 and 2015–2025), based on data obtained from Scopus because of its selectivity. Windows Excel was used to build a radar graph depicting the total research scores versus the scientific production of a selection of countries.
Further, the results on building design concepts were refined to look for definitions and key features, and then coupled with the Kws ‘rural’ and ‘vernacular’ to select papers focused on non-urban constructions, while ‘livestock’, ‘barn’, ‘poultry’, ‘animal housing’, and ‘pigsty’ were used to collect research papers focused on buildings devoted to animal production. Duplicate articles were removed. The collected data were discussed according to the aims of the review.

2.4. Rural Buildings and Landscape Integration

The management of rural buildings for their integration into the landscape aims to achieve a balance by paying attention to territorial relationships as well as the morphological and constructional characteristics of buildings and landscapes. The goal of this section is to provide an overview of the state of the art in the field of the typological and morphological analysis of rural architecture and provide a basis for mitigation strategies for landscape integration.
According to previous research focused on articles published within the period of 2005–2025 (March), different paired Kws were used to improve the search specificity. In detail, ‘rural settlement analysis’ + ‘farm building landscape’; ‘landscape quality’ + ‘farm buildings’ analysis’; ‘vernacular farm buildings’ + ‘landscape planning’; ‘rural settlement’ + landscape analysis’; and ‘farm buildings’ + ‘landscape integration’ were used. Differently from the other searches performed here, the Kw ‘livestock building’ was not applied, as it almost always returned no results. Instead, the more inclusive kw ‘farm buildings’ was used because it could include buildings devoted to animal production. Papers focused on typological–morphological building analysis were prioritised.
Below is reported the review synopsis illustrating the criteria used for article selection (Table 1) and the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1), which illustrates the number of studies collected, excluded, and included in the review.
Table 1. Review synopsis.
Table 1. Review synopsis.
Sect.ItemGoal Method Description
Scientific Paper CollectionFurther Selection PrinciplesUseSoftware
2.1Preliminary surveyWhich are the main research fields connected to livestock building? Kw search: ‘livestock building’, ‘livestock housing’NoneNumerical elaborationVos Viewer v. 2.0
Which are the main research fields connected to building materials? Kw search: ‘building materials’NoneNumerical elaborationVos Viewer v. 2.0
2.2Materials sustainability and livestock buildingsWhich materials could enter in the composition of new sustainable building materials?aKw search: ‘building materials’ + ‘sustainable’ + ‘recycled’; building materials’ + “sustainable’ + ‘composites’; ‘building materials’ + ‘sustainable’ + ‘bio-based’The nine most recurrent components of sustainable building materials were consideredNumerical elaboration and content reviewExcel (v. 2505)
Which new sustainable building materialshave been used in non-urban buildings (livestock, rural, vernacular)?bThe selected articles (2.2a) were refined by using the following Kws: ‘rural’, ‘vernacular’, ‘livestock’, ‘poultry’, ‘barn’ ‘animal housing’, and ‘pigsty’Only new materials applied to livestock, vernacular, and agricultural buildings were consideredContent reviewNone
2.3Building Design Concepts: Strategies for SustainabilityWhat are the main building design concepts developed and relative research trends over the last 20 years?aKw search: ‘nZEB’, ‘environmental building’, ‘sustainable building’, ‘green building’, ‘low-carbon building’, and ‘passive building’ (‘passive house’ and ‘passivhaus’).The seven most active countries in energy-saving strategy research were consideredNumerical elaborationRAWGraphs Excel (v. 2505)
What are the definitions and key factors characterising the abovementioned building design concepts?bThe selected articles (2.3a) were refined by using the following Kws: ‘definition’ and ‘characteristics’Priority was given to international official documents and to scientists affiliated with reference institutionsContent reviewNone
Which ones have been reported for livestock, rural, and vernacular buildings?cThe selected articles (2.3a) were refined by using the following Kws: ‘rural’, ‘vernacular’, ‘livestock’, ‘poultry’, ‘barn’ ‘animal housing’, and ‘pigsty’Energy saving strategies applied to rural buildings were consideredContent reviewNone
2.4Rural buildings and landscape integrationWhat is the present level of knowledge on typological and morphological methods to analyse rural architecture? Kw search: ‘rural settlement analysis’ + ‘farm building landscape’; ‘landscape quality’ + ‘farm buildings’ analysis’; ‘vernacular farm buildings’ + ‘landscape planning’; ‘rural settlement’ + landscape analysis’; ‘farm buildings’ + ‘landscape integration’Only papers focused on typological analysis of rural building were consideredContent reviewNone
Kw search should be intended as performed in both WoS and Scopus scientific databases. Sect. means section.
Sustainability 17 05644 g001
Figure 1. The PRISMA workflow showing the number of papers collected, removed, and excluded. Section 2.2, unified up to the screening step, is split into subtopics 2.2a and 2.2b. The rationale for the keywords used and the exclusion criteria is reported in Table 1. Subtopics 2.2a, 2.2b, 2.3b, 2.3c, and 2.4 refer to the goals evidenced in the Materials and Methods and Table 1. Table S1 reports the list of selected papers.
Figure 1. The PRISMA workflow showing the number of papers collected, removed, and excluded. Section 2.2, unified up to the screening step, is split into subtopics 2.2a and 2.2b. The rationale for the keywords used and the exclusion criteria is reported in Table 1. Subtopics 2.2a, 2.2b, 2.3b, 2.3c, and 2.4 refer to the goals evidenced in the Materials and Methods and Table 1. Table S1 reports the list of selected papers.
Sustainability 17 05644 g001

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Livestock Buildings Research Trends

Beyond the numerical differences recorded from the WoS and Scopus searches, possibly due to differences in the search algorithm and the number of indexed sources, both lead to quite similar clustering patterns. For convenience, here, was reported the Kw-based map achieved using the WoS search for “livestock building” (all fields), accounting for 7944 total records (Figure 2).
The bibliometric network represented here shows nodes and edges, where the nodes represent keywords, and the edges indicate the existence and the strength of relations between pairs of nodes. In general, scientific publications related to livestock buildings reflect different fields of expertise. The green cluster encompasses topics related to engineering (devoted to measuring) and computer science (devoted to modelling), with both focused on improving animal well-being through the improvement of indoor air quality (IAQ) and emissions control. Indeed, key parameters such as ‘ammonia’, ‘carbon dioxide’, ‘temperature’, ‘emissions’, and ‘methane’ occur repeatedly, similarly to those on the left (namely ‘model, ‘simulation, and ‘design’), possibly suggesting a connection between them. The closeness and, in some cases, the fusion of the green kw cloud with the blue network (livestock production performance, Figure 2) could indicate how the green Kw parameters could affect productivity performance according to common knowledge in animal production and welfare [28]. In the latter, two domains can be recognised, one focused on economic aspects (e.g., ‘quality’, ‘yield’, ‘performance’) and the other with a veterinary focus, represented by Kws such as ‘growth’, ‘health’, and ‘behaviour’. The role played by microorganisms is depicted in the yellow network, where the cited bacterial species (i.e., Salmonella sp. and Escherichia coli) underline the interest in the health of animals and workers, especially due to their increasing resistance to antibiotics [29]. Other Kws, such as ‘disease’, ‘vaccination’, ‘outbreak’, ‘epidemiology’, ‘seroprevalence’, and ‘PCR’ (polymerase chain reaction, a molecular diagnostic tool), highlight the interdisciplinary nature of this research field, which involves veterinarians, biologists, and medical doctors. The numerous and closely connected Kws comprising the red cluster reflect the theme of livestock management with respect to its impact on the environment, protected areas, and climate change. Conversely, the research field focused on climate change and mitigation strategies associated with materials (purple cluster, represented here by ‘life cycle assessment’, ‘greenhouse gases’, and mitigation-related keywords) is an underrepresented scientific field which deserves further attention.

3.2. Building Materials Research Trends and Sustainable Building Materials

The data analysis performed using “building materials” as a Kw on Scopus led to over 69,000 records. The keyword analysis results led to a visual description of the major research fields and their connections (Figure 3).
In detail, the blue cluster includes diagnostic tools used to assess material damage, properties, and compositions, such as scanning electron microscopy (SEM), Fourier transform infrared (FTIR), x-ray diffraction (XRD), and contact angle, as well as some materials that are used in specific applications, such as ‘glass ceramic’, ‘ceramic materials’, ‘titanium dioxide’, ‘silicate’, and ‘silicon compounds’. The green cluster includes keywords associated with structural engineering. Indeed, it is characterised by two main focal points: one centred on ‘metals’, particularly ‘steel’ (e.g., ‘structural steel’, ‘steel construction’, ‘steel research’, and ‘fatigue testing’), and the other on ‘concrete’ (e.g., ‘reinforced concrete’, ‘concrete buildings’). The red cluster appears particularly tight, probably due to the considerable interest in sustainable building materials. ‘Compression strength’ represents the major centre of aggregation of the red cloud, located between sustainable themes (e.g., ‘sustainable development’, ‘global warming’, ‘energy efficiency’, and ‘recycling’; bottom) and new materials and properties (e.g., ‘fly ash’, ‘inorganic polymers’, ‘geopolymers’, ‘silicates, porosity’, and ‘water absorption’; top). Meanwhile ‘deterioration’ (namely the investigation field focused on the unwanted decay of materials) is marginalised. The spatial position of the yellow cluster (wood science and technology), placed between the “structural engineering” and “sustainable building materials” clouds, could indicate that woods and their derivates could be of interest in both fields; in other words, wood is at the boundary between traditional and sustainable building materials.
The preliminary search into sustainable building materials (i.e., “building materials” and ‘sustainable’) evidenced a small difference in the number of research articles and conference proceedings. This trend is particularly evident in Scopus, where recorded proceedings accounted for only 25% less than research articles. Meanwhile the most active countries in sustainable building materials in both repositories were China, India, and the USA. A refined search into sustainable construction materials evidenced three further items, namely ‘recycled’, ‘composites’, and ‘bio-based’. The search on recycled materials (total 1782/838; number of WoS/Scopus records) focused mainly on ‘steel’ (220/95), ‘glass’ (220/80), ‘concrete’ (1085/413), and ‘demolition waste’ (206/116). These results could be easily explained by the versatility of glass in recycling, being used, for example, as an aggregate in cement-based materials, in foam glass panels, and in ceramic manufacturing [30,31,32]. Steel, demolition waste, and concrete gained attention because of their generally high embodied carbon footprint [33].
Although some composites may include biologically sourced materials, the subsequent research was structured to distinguish between those sustainable choices including, or excluding, biological components. As shown in Figure 4, the most represented items on composites materials focus on concrete and its components (i.e., ‘cement’ and ‘aggregate’), since the cement industry is currently responsible for 5 to 8% of the global anthropogenic CO2 emissions per year [34,35]. Other components deserving attention are those that can be used to produce sustainable and functional products, including ‘plastic’, ‘slag’, ‘fly ash’, and ‘geopolymers’.
Otherwise, bio-based materials, along with the traditional focus on wood, indicate the growing interest in other biological sources like ‘bamboo’, ‘wool’, ‘hemp’, and ‘straw’. Plant-derived materials such ‘cellulose’ and ‘fibres’ and microorganisms (with the latter receiving just a few mentions) have been considered too. It is worth mentioning that most of the articles focus on bacteria and fungi, looking at them as a resource for self-healing concrete, biotechnological applications, and insulating material [36,37].
Sustainability 17 05644 g004
Figure 4. Scopus and WoS search results on sustainable building materials. The search was refined using ‘composite’ (top) and ‘bio-based’ (bottom). Coloured bubbles scale proportionally to the number of resulting records. The bubble size of ‘bio-based’ search results was tripled to improve readability.
Figure 4. Scopus and WoS search results on sustainable building materials. The search was refined using ‘composite’ (top) and ‘bio-based’ (bottom). Coloured bubbles scale proportionally to the number of resulting records. The bubble size of ‘bio-based’ search results was tripled to improve readability.
Sustainability 17 05644 g004

3.3. Building Design Research Trends and Concepts

Building design concepts play a relevant role because of their ability to address and solve actual needs, such as global warming. After a preliminary search, independent of the keywords used, the difference between the number of research papers and congress proceedings was found to be small (up to 30%) compared to other scientific sectors. Moreover, the most frequently mentioned types of ‘building’ were sustainable buildings (SB), green building (GB), passive building (PB), nZEB, low-carbon building (LCB), and environmental building (EB). Figure 5B, shows ‘green building’ and ‘sustainable building’ as the most represented research topics and that seven nations (blue area) are particularly active in this field, accounting for approximately 58% of the total scientific output in the period considered. Specifically, this small group of countries contributes to 45.4% and 83.4% of the research output for nZEB and LCB, respectively. Furthermore, Figure 5A shows which countries have been the most active in this field of research (three European, two American, and one each from Asia and Oceania) and the trends these studies have followed over the past twenty years. Although in the last decade all countries have seen an increase in scientific output, this trend is particularly evident for China.
Deepening searches on design concepts, it was possible to note for example the research onset and peaks. Some of them, such as ‘green building’, ‘sustainable building’, and ‘low-carbon building’, are still exhibiting growing interest. After reviewing the articles composing the reference dataset, those providing the most inclusive definition for each building design concept and relative key features were selected and are summarised in a general form in Table 2, giving priority to international official documents (e.g., EPA, EPBD) and to scientists affiliated with reference institutions (e.g., JCR European Commission, Passivhaus Institute). From this perspective, it was possible to note that there are no strict boundaries among the different building design concepts; indeed, they are often used interchangeably, even in the same article. This fact is so exacerbated and diffused that Berardi [38] looked “at the common denominator of the definitions of sustainable development” to establish the most reliable definition of sustainable building. With respect to other building design concepts, the sustainable building is the broadest one, including—along with high efficiency in the use of energy, water, and materials—reduced impacts on health and the environment throughout its life cycle. Additionally, sustainable buildings include social issues (e.g., access, education, inclusion, cohesion), economic considerations, and cultural perception and inspiration [38,39,40]. These last aspects differentiate SB from GB according to the EPA definition [41]. The strategy for energy efficiency known as the passive house (passivhaus) standard was published in 1988 by Adamson and Feist. Based on a set of building science principles, it aims to achieve a condition close to thermal stasis [42]. Conceived to reduce energy requirements in mid-European climates, it has recently found validity for all climates, primarily through building insulation envelope requirements [43].
LCB emerged less than 20 years ago, and despite the growing interest in this topic, there is still a lack of a shared and universally recognised definition [44]. The characterising elements include the reduced use of fossil energy, improved energy efficiency, and lower carbon dioxide emissions throughout the entire life cycle of building materials and manufacturing equipment [44]. Since the life cycle of buildings covers from material production to deconstruction and disposal [45], and over half of the embodied carbon in construction is associated with material consumption [46], an important strategy to mitigate buildings’ impact is using low-carbon building materials. These materials, despite their name, represent a key carbon mitigation solution for other building design strategies, nZEB included [47]. This type of building design concept was mentioned by the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 2010/31/EU (EPBD, recast; [48]) and described as a building with very high energy performance whose energy needs are covered by a very significant renewable energy source. The recast version adopted in 2024 (EU/2024/1275) enhances the energy performance requirements for new buildings, which should all be zero-emission buildings from January 2030 ([49]; http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1275/oj/eng, accessed 7 March 2025). However, beyond the same spoken acronym, written as two variants (nZEB and NZEB), two extended names are frequently used: namely the above-mentioned nearly zero-energy building and net zero-energy building; the latter concept was developed by the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) [50,51]. To date, there is no universally valid definition of nearly zero-energy buildings, nor a unique method to measure their performance [52,53,54]. Despite the various types of nZEB being later defined with respect to the quantity and type of renewable energy produced, several authors agree that generating renewable energy, even in excess, is not a sufficient parameter to define an nZEB [50].
The evolution of the building design concept has been followed by the assessment of international standards and ways to compare and measure building efficiency. From this perspective, the PassivHaus Institute (PHI), an independent research organisation established in Darmstadt (Germany) in 1996, developed the original PassivHaus principle into a formal performance-based energy standard and certification scheme [55]. Since then, several rating systems (generically called Green Building Rating Systems or GBRSs) have been developed by construction authorities, international organisations, and private consultancy companies due to regional or national policies and with different territorial use [56]. In 2016 it was estimated that about 600 green rating systems exist globally [57]. Among them the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, USA) rating system, even though it is not the sole US rating system, has acquired strength, with four levels of certification, because of its incentive-based policies to promote renewables and energy savings. Other rating systems include BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method, UK), the German DGNB (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen, Germany), and CASBEE (Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency, Japan). The most influential rating measure for obtaining certification is frequently, energy [58]. Other evaluation criteria that may contribute include site, indoor environment, land and outdoor environment, material, water, and innovation [58].
Table 2. Building design concepts, first appearance and peak mentions of term in research articles, and characterising features.
Table 2. Building design concepts, first appearance and peak mentions of term in research articles, and characterising features.
Term1st RecordResearch PeakKey FeaturesReferences
Sustainable Building1991 (WoS); 1996 (Scopus)2024 (WoS);
2024 (Scopus)		High efficiency in energy, water, and material use. Reduced impacts on health and the environment throughout its life cycle. Social and economic aspects are included[38,39,40]
Green Building1992 (WoS); 1990 (Scopus)2022 (WoS);
2024 (Scopus)		Maximised efficiency with which buildings and their sites use resources—energy, water, and materials. Minimises harm to the environment and improves the health of building occupants.[41]
Passive Building (Passivhaus, Passive House)1991 (WoS); 1979 (Scopus)2021 (WoS); 2023 (Scopus)Based on building science principles devoted to energy efficiency, such as solar orientation, high insulation, high-performance windows and doors, air-tight enclosures, andbalanced ventilation with energy recovery. It should also fulfil different energetic conditions *.[42,59]
Low-Carbon Building2010 (WoS); 2007 (Scopus)2024 (WoS);
2024 (Scopus)		Prioritised energy efficiency and renewable energy. Low-carbon materials used to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the entire life cycle of the building.[44,60]
Nearly Zero-Energy Building (nZEB)2008 (Scopus); 2011 (WoS)2021 (WoS);
2019 (Scopus)		Reduced energy needs (energy efficiency), renewable energy use (to cover needs nearly year-round), reduced GHG emissions.[49,61]
* These are set and controlled by the passive house institute in Darmstadt.
This widespread lack of linearity and uniqueness in the definition of building design concepts, along with differences in interpretation, and in measuring/rating methods for assessing building performance could be explained by the multiple competencies converging in the construction field, along with their own terminologies and in the influence of market forces.
For the same reasons, there is also a dense network of additional terms that further increase confusion regarding design concepts and their intended objectives. Perhaps the most evident case is that of ‘environmental building,’ for which over 300 total records have been documented (Scopus + WoS search all kinds of publications). This term, in fact, is used in a broad and indiscriminate manner to refer to something that deviates from common and impactful construction, without specifically defining its association with any of the recognised design concepts. This fact further highlights the severity of the phenomenon, and the urgency of actions aimed at finding a solution. As already evidenced by several authors, there is a need to use ”one language“ to improve clarity, convey actions, and optimise resources. From this perspective, considerable efforts are required, especially from engineers and architects due to their bridging position between national and international policies (after international agreements), the materials market, and citizens as end users.
Another aspect deserving attention is that research papers on building design concepts focus mainly on new buildings, while, in the EU, 85% of buildings were built before 2000, and among those, 75% have poor energy performance [49] (https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficient-buildings/energy-performance-buildings-directive_en, accessed on 7 March 2025), and similar conditions are expected worldwide. This means that, alongside new efficient, low-impact, sustainable buildings, there is a need to improve/refurbish existing constructions by reducing energy consumption through implementation and repair strategies. Building Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) plays a crucial role in this approach by evaluating the environmental and economic impact of materials, assigning costs in terms of CO2 emissions, energy consumption, and financial resources at each stage of the building life cycle. LCA promotes the reduction of environmental impact by conserving resources, extending the service life of materials, postponing replacement, and minimising waste in line with the principles of the circular economy [62].

3.4. Building Design Concepts Facing Livestock Buildings

Because of international agreements, livestock buildings should contribute to mitigating and reducing the effects of global warming and energy consumption. On the one hand, there is a need to lower emissions associated with animal production, while on the other, it is essential to maintain optimal environmental and logistical conditions for animals’ well-being. This latter aspect depends on energy consumption and, to some extent, on the materials used for livestock construction. In addition, considering the need to improve the sustainability of buildings (EPBD data), there is a crucial need to harmonise these structures with the environment and safeguard the identity and integrity of rural landscapes [63].
Accordingly, the data used for the alluvial graph was refined to identify cases related to ‘livestock buildings’ and, by extension, to ‘rural’ and ‘vernacular’ buildings. Less than one-third of the 631 total records were relevant to this research. Among these, the large majority were referred to rural and vernacular buildings, and no records were associated with ‘environmental buildings’ and ‘low-carbon buildings’, while ’green buildings’ were associated with livestock as a source for sheep wool, which was studied as sustainable insulating material [64]. Only 4% of records were instead focused on livestock buildings, of which 90% of records were associated with ‘passive building’ and the variant ‘passive house’, possibly indicating passive solutions as the most appropriate in this context.
The main concern of these articles is the prevention of overheating due to its severe consequences on animal welfare and production, as well as the involvement of multiple climatic areas. Indeed, beyond hot climatic areas, this issue affects some regions for 3–5 months per year, as in the case of the Mediterranean climate, but could also involve northern or colder regions due to climate change and intensive livestock farming [65]. In general, temperature, humidity, and ventilation are the primary parameters measured, while envelope insulation is one of the most important passive techniques, satisfying both cooling and heating needs. Several passive cooling techniques, including solar shading, shading design, green roofing, facade design, void design, wind towers, evaporative cooling, earth–air tunnels, and desiccant cooling, have been shown to be applicable to buildings in this context. However, each refurbishment instance should be assessed according to the budget, the geography, the building’s functional needs, and the kind of animal housing [66], as well as materials availability. The roof is fundamental for all livestock types (i.e., open, semi-confined, and confined). Indeed, it is crucial in passive cooling strategies, by preventing heat gain through a careful selection of roofing and insulating materials. Moreover, an appropriate roof design can promote natural ventilation and heat dispersal, as it is influenced by wind pressure variations and temperature differences between the indoor and outdoor environments [67]. There is a vast bibliography on the basic rules that should be applied from early phases of project design aimed at reducing overheating and improving natural ventilation. Among these, the building position, orientation (e.g., building the long axis perpendicular to the dominant summer wind [68]), shape, and width deserve mention, as well as the window position and dimensions and the roof design (even its interior shape could affect the “chimney effect”). Otherwise, when dealing with a pre-existing structure, it is necessary to mitigate major concerns. The case proposed by Tikul and Prachun [66] led to a reduction in the indoor temperature by up to 5 °C (previously 2 °C higher than outside) and a 60–70% humidity by changing the position of satellite buildings, housing size, roof shape (open ridge and ridge cap), and roofing material. Other works, mainly based on simulation, evidenced that it is possible to improve livestock cooling by modifying the envelopes (varying from traditional to new insulating materials), roof slope, type of shading system, or by changing the rotation of windows openings during the year [69,70,71,72,73,74], and establishing different methods to quantify passive/natural ventilation inside livestock buildings [75,76]. More demanding solutions, but valid and, in some cases, of high interest because potentially lead to increased biodiversity, include conductive (floor), evaporative cooling systems, green roofs, and tree plantations [77,78,79,80]. A smaller number of studies focus on cold climates, but also, as in this case, much attention is paid to the type of insulating material or its thickness [81,82,83]. In addition, in association with rural buildings, passive solutions such as Trombe walls and solar house solutions have been described [84,85].
The application of renewable energy systems is an effective way to improve the energy efficiency of buildings and reduce energy demand. Unfortunately, only 3.3% of studies (7 out of 207) focus on this item, including 4 on photovoltaics, 2 on ground source heat pumps, and 1 on biogas [86,87,88,89,90,91,92]. Even more relevant is the fact that all the studies refer to rural residential buildings, and they are mostly feasibility studies. This raises the question of the potential challenges that farmers may face in meeting the minimum requirements needed to install such systems with a favourable cost–benefit ratio (e.g., off-grid costs for photovoltaics).

3.5. Rural Buildings, Landscape Integration, Sustainable Materials, and Future Directions

The preservation and improvement of rural landscapes is gaining attention from institutions. Of the 151 scientific papers that remained after duplicate removal, the main key themes in the methodological approaches, namely historical, spatial, and typological analysis, can be recognised [23]. A basic step for the valorisation of vernacular architecture is the reading and interpretation of the architectural type as an expression of the identity of the area [93,94,95,96], and as a functional result of daily life needs [21,97]. In addition, the evolutionary background of distributive and constructional transformations [98,99] and the physical–spatial and organisational traits intrinsic to different morphotypes [100] could be of interest for the assessment of vulnerabilities [101] and serve as the foundation for action planning. Visual quality has a particularly decisive value for minimising intervention and guiding planning decisions for rural areas [95]. This aspect becomes particularly important when considering that rural buildings have undergone significant changes with the historical transition from traditional agriculture to industrial society [102]. On the one hand, industrialisation after World War II marked a severe divergence between rural heritage and contemporary farm buildings [102,103,104], making the quantification of the level of consistency of contemporary buildings with the traditional typologies of interest [94,103,104]. On the other hand, all the visual and aesthetic aspects (e.g., their colour, form, lines, texture, scale, and spatial character) could be used to develop design criteria that could increase the probability of achieving building integration [105,106].
In this context, and considering previous evidence, it is reasonable to ask whether all the technological advancements made in recent decades to reduce energy costs and minimise the environmental impact of livestock buildings can be summed up with passive solutions and insulation. As evidenced by the building life cycle assessment (EN 15978, [45]), it is possible to lower environmental impact by using, for example, locally available materials, low-embodied-carbon materials, or reusable materials [107]. The broad dataset obtained after the search for sustainable building materials that are recycled/composite/bio-based (4130 reduced to 3302 after duplicate removal) was mainly composed of studies focused on new materials and their tested chemical, physical, and mechanical properties (e.g., permeability, flexural performance, compressive strength, flammability, and electrical resistivity). A vast range of materials can be recycled or repurposed, taking on a new form, a new use. Among these, waste from industrial processes, animal by-products (e.g., manure, eggshells, sheep wool, feathers), and discarded materials are particularly valued [108]. Among biologically sourced materials, wood plays a significant role not only due to its strong historical significance, both in traditional construction and cultural heritage [109], but also because of the various forms in which it is processed, either alone or in combination with other materials. Additionally, wood derivatives such as paper, cellulose, and lignin further expand its applications in sustainable building materials [110]. Among plant-based composites, bamboo and hemp occupy a relevant place, as evidenced by the number of studies collected (e.g., 3% featuring hemp in the title) and their growing research interest. Other plant fibres, including rice straw, coconut, jute, and Posidonia oceanica (L.) Delile, have also been used in composites [111,112,113]. In this regard, it is important to briefly reflect on the fundamental role played by Posidonia oceanica, a marine phanerogam, both in its living form and as necromass, with attention paid to its contribution to coastal protection from erosion when deposited as banquettes [114]. This note does not intend to criticise researchers seeking solutions to the waste problem but, rather, to highlight a regulatory and managerial system crash—at different levels and across different countries—in which, paradoxically, environmental destruction is allowed in the effort to protect nature.
Conversely, studies applying sustainable materials to livestock facilities are quite limited (0.09%), being represented by the proposal of Leso and colleagues [115], in which the “design for deconstruction” principle, a concept design based on material reusability, has been considered for a dairy cow house. The other case involves low-carbon concrete composed of fly ash and silica fume, tested for acidic corrosion and abrasion resistance for possible application on pigsty floors [116]. Papers focusing on rural contexts are more abundant; they mainly promote building sustainability along with low-cost traditional construction materials. In this sense, when cases involve catastrophic events, remote rural settlements, and/or developing countries, the use of low-carbon materials can also play a social role [117]. In an applicative context, relevant purposes include the use of Arundo donax L. stems, a plant also known as giant reed and traditionally used for fences and shelters. In one study, an 8 cm thick panel made up of natural lime plaster layers with an internal bearing structure of Arundo is proposed as a possible vertical partition wall in agricultural buildings [118]. Likewise, a simulation performed in a traditional building examined the use of spent coffee grounds to enhance plaster formulation and improve the thermal performance of heritage buildings [119].
Considering these applications, broader evaluations can be made, to both reduce the visual impact of the most recent buildings modifying their envelopes [106] and to reduce the environmental impact of buildings devoted to animal production. In this light, the surfaces that are less exposed to direct stress and wear could represent a starting point for new research. Indeed, various types of sandwich panels with low embodied carbon content have been developed for walls and roofs, along with sustainable alternatives for mortars and paints in masonry constructions [120,121]. A particularly interesting and cost-effective case, at least in Italy, is the use of white wall paints produced from marble scraps instead of expensive pigments, such as titanium dioxide [122].
These limited results, in contrast with the vast legislation aimed at promoting the cultural and ecological value of rural landscapes and the need to preserve vernacular farm buildings for ecological sustainability (represented in Europe by the European Landscape Convention and Natura 2000 habitats, with similar directives in force in the rest of the world), highlighted that much remains to be done. The strong connection between nature and cultural heritage is also highlighted by institutions like UNESCO and its Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, opening to opportunities for collaboration and synergy with other disciplines. This sector could indeed benefit from e expertise of cultural heritage professionals, because confident/experts, for example, in traditional building materials (now reconsidered as sustainable) and their characterisation. Indeed, as demonstrated in the co-occurrence pattern assessment performed on building materials, the tools used to assess building material damage, properties, and composition, such as SEM, FTIR, and XRD, are regularly employed in cultural heritage conservation [123,124,125,126,127]. Moreover, their main goal is to enhance material durability for future generations. Thus, protective materials and procedures continue to be introduced. Some strengthening techniques, like bacteria-mediated stone consolidation, stem from cultural heritage conservation and remain active fields of research [128,129]. In addition, they have expertise in biodeterioration, as all materials, organic and inorganic, natural and synthetic, are inevitably prone to decay [130]. Otherwise, from the early searches conducted to outline the research trends regarding livestock buildings and building materials, it became evident that biological topics were of little importance except when bacteria and fungi are proposed for self-healing and self-cleaning purposes or as building biomass, such as mycelium (about 1% each).
Nature reclaims its space, with microorganisms leading the process through surface colonisation. Presently, even in extreme environments, they drive nutrient cycling and organic matter decomposition, maintaining ecological balance [131,132]. There is a vast bibliography documenting biological damage to materials such as stone, wood, brick, mortar, ceramics, glass, wool, parchment, and mosaics [133,134,135], as well as modern construction materials like wallpaper, laminated wood, gypsum, solar panels, paints, concrete, insulation material, plastics, rubber sealants, and epoxy resins [136,137,138,139]. For this reason, it is of utmost importance to address the knowledge gap on the biodeterioration and durability of new materials, especially bio-based products and composites, where the presence of organic biomass may increase their bioreceptivity, making them potentially vulnerable to biological attacks [140]. Further efforts are also required to investigate the climatic and environmental ranges in which new materials can be effectively used.
Greater transparency regarding the processes or products applied to ensure the durability of new materials against, for example, fungi and insects is also required. This responsible approach, in contrast to certain aggressive commercial strategies, could help reduce user suspicion towards new materials. In recent decades, cultural heritage efforts have focused on controlling biodeterioration through improved preventive protocols and eco-friendly direct methods aligned with Biocidal Products Regulation n. 528/2012/UE [127,128,141,142,143]. Developing sustainable protocols and products to inhibit or delay biological growth is also crucial for engineered building materials, ensuring durability, human and animal safety, and cost-effectiveness. Similarly, it would be useful to proceed with the practical testing of eco-sustainable materials to reduce the impact on the rural landscape, once sufficient information has been gathered to define the available strategies and materials.

4. Conclusions

Although limited to the English language and constrained by the investigated keywords, this review identified contexts deserving further exploration, areas for improvement, and potential new synergies. One of the major concerns recorded is the absence of a shared unique technical language and unified energetic strategies. This multiplicity is further amplified by the methods used to measure achieved efficiency improvements, often making the results difficult to compare. This generates confusion and uncertainty in customers, leading to delays in adopting a disciplinary approach to designing effective and sustainable solutions, as well as in achieving the planned milestones set in international agreements.
Livestock buildings remain an underexplored but significant research area, both in terms of the need to improve energy efficiency and the use of sustainable materials, as well as for their cultural identity value for vernacular architecture, which must be preserved. A wide range of recycled, bio-based, and locally sourced materials exists, yet their application in livestock facilities remains critically underexplored, revealing a disconnect between the production of innovative materials and their application in real buildings. In this light, it could be useful investigate the environmental limits of the applicability of new materials, starting from temperature and relative humidity in relation to potential biodeterioration concerns. In addition, there is also a need to ensure the landscape integration of new structures. Building envelopes could represent an interesting area of research to improve both energy efficiency and landscape integration, for which the use of traditional and new sustainable materials deserves attention. In this context, particular attention is paid to wood, which represents a key material bridging cultural heritage, bioarchitecture, and sustainable landscape integration.
In the preservation of vernacular architecture, engineers and architects can rely on the knowledge of some cultural heritage specialists, as they are experts in traditional materials (recently rediscovered as sustainable), in prolonging the service life of historical artefacts, and in biodeterioration. This last aspect is often overlooked in testing new materials.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su17125644/s1, Table S1. Selected papers. Based on Table 1, grey tones are used to improve reading of sections (e.g., a,b,c) and to highlight studies retrieved from reference list of included articles (Figure 1).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: A.M. and S.B.; Data Curation: D.I.; Funding Acquisition: A.M.; Investigation: D.I. and S.B.; Methodology: D.I. and S.B.; Project Administration: A.M.; Supervision: A.M. and S.B.; visualisation: D.I.; Writing—Original Draft: D.I.; Writing—Review and Editing: D.I., S.B. and A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was carried out at the Agritech National Research Center and received funding from the European Union Next-Generation EU (PIANO NAZIONALE DI RIPRESA E RESILIENZA (PNRR) MISSIONE 4 COMPONENTE 2, INVESTIMENTO 1.4—D.D. 103217/06/2022, CN 00000022). The APC was funded by the European Union Next-Generation EU and Agritech National Research Center.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article and Supplementary Materials.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Gerber, P.J.; Steinfeld, H.; Henderson, B.; Mottet, A.; Opio, C.; Dijkman, J.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G. Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock: A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities; Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2013; Available online: https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/i3437e (accessed on 2 February 2025).
  2. Rojas-Downing, M.M.; Nejadhashemi, A.P.; Harrigan, T.; Woznicki, S.A. Climate change and livestock: Impacts, adaptation, and mitigation. Clim. Risk Manag. 2017, 16, 145–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Steinfeld, H.; Gerber, P.; Wassenaar, T.; Castel, V.; Rosales, M.; de Haan, C. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options; Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  4. Sarkodie, S.A.; Strezov, V. Economic, social and governance adaptation readiness for mitigation of climate change vulnerability: Evidence from 192 countries. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 656, 150–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Santamouris, M.; Vasilakopoulou, K. Present and future energy consumption of buildings: Challenges and opportunities towards decarbonisation. e-Prime-Adv. Elect. Eng. Electron. Energy 2021, 1, 100002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hertwich, E.G.; Ali, S.; Ciacci, L.; Fishman, T.; Heeren, N.; Masanet, E.; Ashgari, F.N.; Olivetti, E.; Paulik, S.; Tu, Q.; et al. Material efficiency strategies to reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with buildings, vehicles, and electronics—A review. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 043004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Maialetti, M.; Ciaschini, C.; Quaranta, G.; Salvia, R.; Scarpitta, D.; Bigiotti, S.; Chelli, F.M.; Salvati, L. Investigating ‘Land-Use Trajectories’ in Mediterranean Rural Areas with Official Statistics and a Multiway Factor Analysis. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fraser, D. Farm animal production: Changing agriculture in a changing culture. In Food Animal Husbandry and the New Millennium; Serpell, J.A., Parsons, T.D., Eds.; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 2001; pp. 175–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gunderson, R. The metabolic rifts of livestock agribusiness. Organ. Environ. 2011, 24, 404–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Drozdz-Szczybura, M. Traditional farms as element of rural areas landscape identity. IOP Con Ser. Mate Sci. Eng. 2019, 471, 082009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Vázquez-Torres, M.D.R.; Castillo-Reyes, A.R.; Morales Ortega, J.A.; Montero-Urrusquieta, R.Á. Vernacular architecture as heritage. J. Arch. Design 2020, 4, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Parlato, M.C.; Valenti, F.; Porto, S.M. Sustainable promotion of traditional rural buildings as built heritage attractions: A heritage interpretation methodology applied in south Italy. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Orsini, F.; Marrone, P. Approaches for a low-carbon production of building materials: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 241, 118380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rheude, F.; Kondrasch, J.; Röder, H.; Fröhling, M. Review of the terminology in the sustainable building sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 286, 125445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Salvucci, G.; Scarpitta, D.; Maialetti, M.; Rontos, K.; Bigiotti, S.; Sateriano, A.; Muolo, A. Measuring Data Quality from Building Registers: A Case Study in Italy. Geographies 2024, 4, 596–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bigiotti, S.; Costantino, C.; Patriarca, A.; Mancini, G.; Provolo, G.; Recanatesi, F.; Ripa, M.N.; Marucci, A. Energy Efficiency and Environmental Sustainability in Rural Buildings: A Life Cycle Assessment of Photovoltaic Integration in Poultry Tunnels—A Case Study in Central Italy. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 5094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Plieninger, T.; Bieling, C. Resilience-based perspectives to guiding high-nature-value farmland through socioeconomic change. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. ELC, European Landscape Convention, Europe Council. The Proceedings of the Seminars Are Published in the Council of Europe’s “European Spatial Planning and Landscape” Series. 2000. Available online: http://www.coe.int/EuropeanLandscapeConvention (accessed on 2 February 2025).
  19. Picuno, P. Use of traditional material in farm buildings for a sustainable rural environment. Int. J. Sust. Built Env. 2016, 5, 451–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Picuno, P. Farm buildings as drivers of the rural environment. Front. Built Environ. 2022, 8, 693876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Picuno, P. Vernacular farm buildings in landscape planning: A typological analysis in a southern Italian region. J. Agric. Eng. 2012, 43, e20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Costantino, C.; Bigiotti, S.; Marucci, A.; Gulli, R. Long-Term Comparative Life Cycle Assessment, Cost, and Comfort Analysis of Heavyweight vs. Lightweight Construction Systems in a Mediterranean Climate. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bigiotti, S.; Santarsiero, M.L.; Del Monaco, A.I.; Marucci, A. A Typological Analysis Method for Rural Dwellings: Architectural Features, Historical Transformations, and Landscape Integration: The Case of “Capo Due Rami”, Italy. Land 2025, 14, 374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bigiotti, S.; Costantino, C.; Marucci, A. Decision-Making Tools for Sustainable Recovery of Rural Villages: Planning Policies and Implementation Strategies for Valorizing Small Communities in Inner Areas Under the Next Generation EU Programme. In WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment; Syngellakis, S., Ed.; WIT Press: Ashurst, UK, 2024; Volume 262, pp. 479–494. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lundberg, L. Bibliometric mining of research directions and trends for big data. J. Big Data 2023, 10, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wong, D. VOSviewer. Tech. Serv. Q. 2018, 35, 219–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mauri, M.; Elli, T.; Caviglia, G.; Uboldi, G.; Azzi, M. RAWGraphs: A Visualisation Platform to Create Open Outputs. In Proceedings of the 12th Biannual Conference on Italian SIGCHI, Cagliari, Italy, 18–20 September 2017; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 28:1–28:5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gebregeziabhear, E.; Ameha, N.; Zeit, D.; Dawa, D. The effect of stress on productivity of animals: A review. J. Biol. Agric. Healthc. 2015, 5, 165–172. [Google Scholar]
  29. Sobur, M.A.; Sabuj, A.A.M.; Sarker, R.; Rahman, A.T.; Kabir, S.L.; Rahman, M.T. Antibiotic-resistant Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. associated with dairy cattle and farm environment having public health significance. Vet. World 2019, 12, 984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Andreola, F.; Barbieri, L.; Lancellotti, I.; Leonelli, C.; Manfredini, T. Recycling of industrial wastes in ceramic manufacturing: State of art and glass case studies. Ceram. Int. 2016, 42, 13333–13338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Harrison, E.; Berenjian, A.; Seifan, M. Recycling of waste glass as aggregate in cement-based materials. Environ. Sci. Ecotechnol. 2020, 4, 100064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. da Silva, R.C.; Puglieri, F.N.; de Genaro Chiroli, D.M.; Bartmeyer, G.A.; Kubaski, E.T.; Tebcherani, S.M. Recycling of glass waste into foam glass boards: A comparison of cradle-to-gate life cycles of boards with different foaming agents. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 771, 145276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Purnell, P. The carbon footprint of reinforced concrete. Adv. Cem. Res. 2013, 25, 362–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Farfan, J.; Fasihi, M.; Breyer, C. Trends in the global cement industry and opportunities for long-term sustainable CCU potential for Power-to-X. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 217, 821–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Cheng, D.; Reiner, D.M.; Yang, F.; Cui, C.; Meng, J.; Shan, Y.; Liu, Y.; Tao, S.; Guan, D. Projecting future carbon emissions from cement production in developing countries. Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 8213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Luo, J.; Chen, X.; Crump, J.; Zhou, H.; Davies, D.G.; Zhou, G.; Zhang, N.; Jin, C. Interactions of fungi with concrete: Significant importance for bio-based self-healing concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 164, 275–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Alaux, N.; Vašatko, H.; Maierhofer, D.; Saade, M.R.M.; Stavric, M.; Passer, A. Environmental potential of fungal insulation: A prospective life cycle assessment of mycelium-based composites. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2024, 29, 255–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Berardi, U. Clarifying the new interpretations of the concept of sustainable building. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2013, 8, 72–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Akadiri, P.O.; Chinyio, E.A.; Olomolaiye, P.O. Design of a sustainable building: A conceptual framework for implementing sustainability in the building sector. Buildings 2012, 2, 126–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Beyond Foundations: Mainstreaming Sustainable Solutions to Cut Emissions from the Buildings Sector; United Nations Environment Programme: Nairobi, Kenya, 2023; p. 100. [Google Scholar]
  41. EPA Green Building Strategy. EPA-100-F-08-073. 2008. Available online: https://archive.epa.gov/greenbuilding/web/pdf/greenbuilding_strategy_nov08.pdf (accessed on 5 March 2025).
  42. Klingenberg, K. Passive House (Passivhaus). In Sustainable Built Environments; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 327–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Schnieders, J.; Eian, T.D.; Filippi, M.; Florez, J.; Kaufmann, B.; Pallantzas, S.; Paulsen, M.; Reyes, E.; Wassouf, M.; Yeh, S.C. Design and realisation of the Passive House concept in different climate zones. Energy Effic. 2020, 13, 1561–1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zhou, Y.; Fu, S. Low-carbon building evaluation index system based on hierarchical analysis method. J. Comput. Met. Sci. Engineer 2024, 24, 879–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. EN 15978:2011; Sustainability Assessment of Construction Works—Assessment of Environmental Performance of Buildings—Calculation Method. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
  46. Giesekam, J.; Barrett, J.; Taylor, P.; Owen, A. The greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation options for materials used in UK construction. Energy Build. 2014, 78, 202–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wiik, M.K.; Fufa, S.M.; Andresen, I. Design strategies for low embodied carbon in building materials. In Embodied Carbon in Buildings: Measurement, Management, and Mitigation; Pomponi, F., De Wolf, C., Moncaster, A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 323–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. EPBD EU. Directive 2010/31/EU, European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the Energy Performance of Buildings (Recast); Official Journal of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2010; pp. 13–35. [Google Scholar]
  49. EPBD EU. Directive 2024/1275/EU European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 on the Energy Performance of Buildings (Recast). Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/1275/oj/eng (accessed on 7 March 2025).
  50. Crawley, D.; Pless, S.; Torcellini, P. Getting to Net Zero (No. NREL/JA-550-46382); National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2009.
  51. Pless, S.; Torcellini, P. Net-Zero Energy Buildings: A Classification System Based on Renewable Energy Supply Options (No. NREL/TP-550-44586); National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2010.
  52. ECEEE. Net Zero Energy Buildings: Definitions, Issues and Experience; European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ECEEE): Stockholm, Sweden, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  53. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. D’Agostino, D. Assessment of the progress towards the establishment of definitions of Nearly Zero Energy Buildings (nZEBs) in European Member States. J. Build. Eng. 2015, 1, 20–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Schoenefeldt, H.; Nightingale, A.; Ringrose, J.; Seaman, R.; Willett, S.; Ashdown, S.; Bowers, K.; Gandhi, N.; Waterson, T.; Hayward, T.; et al. Interrogating the Technical, Economic and Cultural Challenges of Delivering the PassivHaus Standard in the UK. 2014. Available online: http://www.kent.ac.uk/architecture/conference/2014 (accessed on 12 March 2025).
  56. Fletcher, L.K. Green construction costs and benefits: Is national regulation warranted. Nat. Resour. Environ. 2009, 24, 18. [Google Scholar]
  57. Vierra, S. Green Building Standards and Certification Systems; National Institute of Building Sciences: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; 62p. [Google Scholar]
  58. Papoyan, A.; Zhan, C.; Li, G.; Han, X. Analysis of the current state of green buildings in the Russian Federation. Open House Int. 2022, 47, 152–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Peper, S.; Feist, W. Energy Efficiency of the Passive House Standard: Expectations Confirmed by Measurements in Practice; Passive House Institute: Darmstadt, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  60. Kibert, C.J.; Fard, M.M. Differentiating among low-energy, low-carbon and net-zero-energy building strategies for policy formulation. Build. Res. Inf. 2012, 40, 625–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. D’Agostino, D.; Mazzarella, L. What is a Nearly zero energy building? Overview, implementation and comparison of definitions. J. Build. Eng. 2019, 21, 200–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kylili, A.; Ilic, M.; Fokaides, P.A. Whole-building Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of a passive house of the sub-tropical climatic zone. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2017, 116, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Bigiotti, S.; Costantino, C.; Santarsiero, M.L.; Marucci, A. A Methodological Approach for Assessing the Interaction Between Rural Landscapes and Built Structures: A Case Study of Winery Architecture in Tuscany, Italy. Land 2025, 14, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Parlato, M.C.; Valenti, F.; Midolo, G.; Porto, S.M. Livestock wastes sustainable use and management: Assessment of raw sheep wool reuse and valorization. Energies 2022, 15, 3008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Arcidiacono, C. Engineered solutions for animal heat stress abatement in livestock buildings. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR J. 2018, 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  66. Tikul, N.; Prachum, S. Passive cooling strategies for cattle housing on small farms: A case study. Maejo Int. J. Sci. Tech. 2022, 16, 25–39. [Google Scholar]
  67. Firfiris, V.K.; Martzopoulou, A.G.; Kotsopoulos, T.A. Passive cooling systems in livestock buildings towards energy saving: A critical review. Ener Build. 2019, 202, 109368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Meschner, T.M.; Veenhuizen, M.A. Livestock Housing Ventilation: Natural Ventilation Design and Management for Dairy Housing. Ohio State University Ext: Columbus, OH, USA, 1998; pp. 113–119. [Google Scholar]
  69. Merritt, S.; Kelly, R.; Moakes, S. Organic Poultry Production for Meat; Little, T., Ed.; Organic Research Center Wales; 2009; pp. 1–37. Available online: https://www.organicresearchcentre.com/manage/authincludes/article_uploads/poultry%20guide%20english.pdf (accessed on 13 March 2025).
  70. Ogunjimi, L.A.O.; Ogunwande, G.A.; Osunade, J.A. Thermal comfort status in a naturally ventilated tropical livestock building: Combined effect of orientation and amount of opening on rabbit production. Ife J. Technol. 2010, 19, 77–80. [Google Scholar]
  71. Menconi, M.E.; Grohmann, D. Optimization of sustainable buildings envelopes for extensive sheep farming through the use of dynamic energy simulation. J. Agric. Eng. 2013, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Vox, G.; Maneta, A.; Schettini, E. Evaluation of the radiometric properties of roofing materials for livestock buildings and their effect on the surface temperature. Biosyst. Eng. 2016, 144, 26–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. De Masi, R.F.; Ruggiero, S.; Tariello, F.; Vanoli, G.P. Passive envelope solutions to aid design of sustainable livestock buildings in Mediterranean climate. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 311, 127444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Li, Y.; Allacker, K.; Feng, H.; Heidari, M.D.; Pelletier, N. Net zero energy barns for industrial egg production: An effective sustainable intensification strategy? J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 316, 128014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Wu, W.; Zhai, J.; Zhang, G.; Nielsen, P.V. Evaluation of methods for determining air exchange rate in a naturally ventilated dairy cattle building with large openings using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Atm. Environ. 2012, 63, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Gilkeson, C.A.; Thompson, H.M.; Wilson, M.C.T.; Gaskell, P.H. Quantifying passive ventilation within small livestock trailers using Computational Fluid Dynamics. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2016, 124, 84–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Georg, H. Green roofing against dairy cow summer heat stress. Landtechnik 2007, 62, 346–347. [Google Scholar]
  78. Sultan, M.; Miyazaki, T.; Mahmood, M.H.; Khan, Z.M. Solar assisted evaporative cooling based passive air-conditioning system for agricultural and livestock applications. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2018, 13, 693–703. [Google Scholar]
  79. Harrouz, J.P.; Al Assaad, D.; Orabi, M.; Ghali, K.; Ouahrani, D.; Ghaddar, N. Modeling and optimization of poultry house passive cooling strategies in semiarid climates. Int. Energy Res. 2021, 45, 20795–20811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. De Souza, M.A.; De Sousa, F.C.; Da Silva, A.L.; Soares, T.C.; Oliveira, C.P.; Vigoderis, R.B.; da Costa Baêta, F.; Ferreira Tinôco, I.D.F. Effect of Green Roofs on the Thermal Environment of Prototype Broiler Houses. AgriEngineering 2025, 7, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Wang, Y.; Zheng, W.; Shi, H.; Li, B. Optimising the design of confined laying hen house insulation requirements in cold climates without using supplementary heat. Biosyst. Eng. 2018, 174, 282–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Wang, Y.; Li, B.; Zheng, W. Optimum insulation thickness for the sandwich structure livestock buildings external envelopes in different climate regions of China. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2020, 13, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Costantino, A.; Calvet, S.; Fabrizio, E. Identification of energy-efficient solutions for broiler house envelopes through a primary energy approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 312, 127639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Chel, A.; Nayak, J.K.; Kaushik, G. Energy conservation in honey storage building using Trombe wall. Energy Build. 2008, 40, 1643–1650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Zhu, Y.; Zhang, T.; Ma, Q.; Fukuda, H. Thermal performance and optimizing of composite trombe wall with temperature-controlled DC fan in winter. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Massé, D.I.; Talbot, G.; Gilbert, Y. On farm biogas production: A method to reduce GHG emissions and develop more sustainable livestock operations. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 2011, 166, 436–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Oree, V.; Anatah, H.K. Investigating the feasibility of positive energy residential buildings in tropical climates. Energy Effic. 2017, 10, 383–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hu, X.; Xiang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Lin, Q.; Wang, W.; Wang, H. Active–passive combined energy-efficient retrofit of rural residence with non-benchmarked construction: A case study in Shandong province, China. Energy Rep. 2021, 7, 1360–1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Chang, H.; Hou, Y.; Lee, I.; Liu, T.; Acharya, T.D. Feasibility study and passive design of nearly zero energy building on rural houses in Xi’an, China. Buildings 2022, 12, 341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Sang, J.; Liu, X.; Liang, C.; Feng, G.; Li, Z.; Wu, X.; Song, M. Differences between design expectations and actual operation of ground source heat pumps for green buildings in the cold region of northern China. Energy 2022, 252, 124077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Sun, T.; Shan, M.; Rong, X.; Yang, X. Estimating the spatial distribution of solar photovoltaic power generation potential on different types of rural rooftops using a deep learning network applied to satellite images. Appl. Energy 2022, 315, 119025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Liu, X.; Zuo, Y.; Yin, Z.; Liang, C.; Feng, G.; Yang, X. Research on an evaluation system of the application effect of ground source heat pump systems for green buildings in China. Energy 2023, 262, 125374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Van Hoof, J.; Van Dijken, F. The historical turf farms of Iceland: Architecture, building technology and the indoor environment. Build. Environ. 2008, 43, 1023–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Lešková, A.; Vaishar, A. The typology of countryside architectonical forms in South-Moravia, a region of Czechia. AUC Geogr. 2023, 58, 214–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Özhancı, E.; Yılmaz, H. 2019. Visual assessment of rural landscape with different characters. Forestist 2019, 69, 44–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Kaya, M.E.; Kaya, H.S.; Terzi, F.; Tolunay, D.; Alkay, E.; Bektaş Balçik, F.; Güler Tozluoğlu, E.; Serdar Yakut, S.E. The landscape identity of rural settlements. Urbani Izziv 2024, 35, 136–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Peña-Huaman, F.; Sifuentes-Rivera, D.; Yarasca-Aybar, C. Architectural typology of rural housing in Jaen, Peru. Built Herit. 2022, 6, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Wang, Q.; Liu, W.; Mao, L. Spatial Evolution of Traditional Village Dwellings in Heilongjiang Province. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Örteş, Ş.A.; Sağlık, C.H.; Saydamer Yaşar, A. On the trail of traditional Turkish neighbourhood and houses: Analysis of the rural settlement of Sadağı in Orhaneli. Int. J. Arch. Herit. 2024, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Gökçen, D.; Özbayraktar, M. Integrating space syntax and system dynamics for understanding and managing change in rural housing morphology: A case study of traditional village houses in Düzce, Türkiye. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2024, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Čurović, Ž.; Čurović, M.; Spalević, V.; Janic, M.; Sestras, P.; Popović, S.G. Identification and evaluation of landscape as a precondition for planning revitalization and development of mediterranean rural settlements—Case study: Mrkovi Village, Bay of Kotor, Montenegro. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Torreggiani, D.; Tassinari, P. Landscape quality of farm buildings: The evolution of the design approach in Italy. J. Cult. Herit. 2012, 13, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Maino, E.; Benni, S.; Torreggiani, D.; Barbaresi, A.; Tassinari, P. A quantitative physiognomic analysis of contemporary farm buildings to improve awareness in rural planning. Trans. ASABE 2016, 59, 509–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Benni, S.; Carfagna, E.; Torreggiani, D.; Maino, E.; Bovo, M.; Tassinari, P. Multidimensional measurement of the level of consistency of farm buildings with rural heritage: A methodology tested on an Italian case study. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. García-Moruno, L.; Parejo, M.J.M.; Blanco, J.H.; Casares, S.L. Analysis of lines and forms in buildings to rural landscape integration. Spanish J. Agric. Res. 2010, 833–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Hernández, J.; López-Casares, S.; Montero, M.J. Methodological analysis of the relationship between building envelope and surroundings in rural areas to improve the landscape integration. Inf. Constr. 2013, 65, 497–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Das, O.; Restás, Á.; Shanmugam, V.; Sas, G.; Försth, M.; Xu, Q.; Jiang, L.; Hedenqvist, M.S.; Ramakrishna, S. Demystifying low-carbon materials. Mat. Circ. Econ. 2021, 3, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Fedorik, F.; Zach, J.; Lehto, M.; Kymäläinen, H.R.; Kuisma, R.; Jallinoja, M.; Illikainen, K.; Alitalo, S. Hygrothermal properties of advanced bio-based insulation materials. Energy Build. 2021, 253, 111528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Canto-Reyes, D.; Bartolo-Pérez, P.; Zaragoza, R.; Medina-Esquivel, R.A.; Acosta, M. From mayan heritage to modern material: Chaká wood as transparent biocomposite for sustainable building. Constr. Build. Mat. 2025, 459, 139800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Dorieh, A.; Pahlavan, F.; Hájková, K.; Hýsek, Š.; Pour, F.M.; Fini, E.H. Advancing Sustainable Building Materials: Reducing Formaldehyde Emissions in Medium Density Fiber Boards with Lignin Nanoparticles. Adv. Sust. Syst. 2024, 8, 2400102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Olacia, E.; Pisello, A.L.; Chiodo, V.; Maisano, S.; Frazzica, A.; Cabeza, L.F. Sustainable adobe bricks with seagrass fibres. Mechanical and thermal properties characterization. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 239, 117669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Kuqo, A.; Mai, C. Mechanical properties of lightweight gypsum composites comprised of seagrass Posidonia oceanica and pine (Pinus sylvestris) wood fibers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 282, 122714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Soussi, N.; Ammar, M.; Mokni, A.; Mhiri, H. Thermophysical properties and energy efficiency of a sustainable construction materials produced from local natural waste. Energy Rep. 2024, 12, 2283–2296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Boudouresque, C.F.; Pergent, G.; Pergent-Martini, C.; Ruitton, S.; Thibaut, T.; Verlaque, M. The necromass of the Posidonia oceanica seagrass meadow: Fate, role, ecosystem services and vulnerability. Hydrobiologia 2016, 781, 25–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Leso, L.; Conti, L.; Rossi, G.; Barbari, M. Criteria of design for deconstruction applied to dairy cows housing: A case study in Italy. Agron. Res. 2018, 16, 794–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Nochaiya, T.; Suriwong, T.; Julphunthong, P. Acidic corrosion-abrasion resistance of concrete containing fly ash and silica fume for use as concrete floors in pig farm. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 16, e01010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Cheng, H.; Liu, J.P.; Wang, D.; Zhou, W.; Hu, R.R.; Liu, D.L. Eco-friendly vernacular rural housing in western China: A case study of a reconstruction project after 2008 Sichuan earthquake. Appl. Mechan Mater. 2011, 99, 638–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Barreca, F.; Fichera, C.R. Wall panels of Arundo donax L. for environmentally sustainable agriculture buildings: Thermal performance evaluation. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2013, 11, 1353–1357. [Google Scholar]
  119. Lombardo, L.; Campisi, T.; Saeli, M. Spent coffee grounds-based thermoplaster system to improve heritage building energy efficiency: A Case Study in Madonie Park in Sicily. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Kassab, R.; Sadeghian, P. A comparative study on the mechanical properties of sandwich beams made with PET FRP facings and varied recycled PET cores. Compos. Struct. 2024, 344, 118340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Mahpour, A.R.; Ardanuy, M.; Ventura, H.; Rosell, J.R.; Claramunt, J. Mechanical properties and durability of biobased fabric-reinforced lime composites intended for strengthening historical masonry structures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 414, 134916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Marras, G.; Carcangiu, G.; Meloni, P.; Careddu, N. Circular economy in marble industry: From stone scraps to sustainable water-based paints. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 325, 126768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Moropoulou, A.; Zendri, E.; Ortiz, P.; Delegou, E.T.; Ntoutsi, I.; Balliana, E.; Becerra, J.; Ortiz, R. Scanning microscopy techniques as an assessment tool of materials and interventions for the protection of built cultural heritage. Scanning 2019, 2019, 5376214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Edwards, H.G.; Vandenabeele, P.; Colomban, P. Raman Spectroscopy in Cultural Heritage Preservation; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Magdy, M. A Concise Look into Contact Angle Measurements in Heritage Characterization. Adv. Res. Conserv. Sci. 2024, 5, 54–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Pelosi, C.; Di Stasio, F.; Lanteri, L.; Zuena, M.; Sardara, M.; Sodo, A. The “Restoration of the Restoration”: Investigation of a Complex Surface and Interface Pattern in the Roman Wall Paintings of Volsinii Novi (Bolsena, Central Italy). Coatings 2024, 14, 408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Isola, D.; Capobianco, G.; Tovazzi, V.; Pelosi, C.; Trotta, O.; Serranti, S.; Lanteri, L.; Zucconi, L.; Spizzichino, V. Biopatinas on Peperino Stone: Three Eco-Friendly Methods for Their Control and Multi-Technique Approach to Evaluate Their Efficacy. Microorganisms 2025, 13, 375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Tiano, P.; Biagiotti, L.; Mastromei, G. Bacterial bio-mediated calcite precipitation for monumental stones conservation: Methods of evaluation. J. Microbiol. Methods 1999, 36, 139–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Benedetti, F.; Atanasio, P.; Buccini, L.; Kratter, M.; Mura, F.; Passeri, D.; Rossi, M.; Trippetta, F.; Rinaldi, T. Bioconsolidation strategies for carbonate lithologies: Effectiveness and mechanisms in calcarenite, travertine, and marble. Sci. Total Environ. 2025, 971, 179092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Toreno, G.; Zucconi, L.; Caneva, G.; Meloni, P.; Isola, D. Recolonization dynamics of marble monuments after cleaning treatments: A nine-year follow-up study. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 912, 169350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Gadd, G.M. Geomycology: Geoactive Fungal Roles in the Biosphere. In The Fungal Community: Its Organization and Role in the Ecosystem; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017; p. 121. [Google Scholar]
  132. Isola, D.; Scano, A.; Orrù, G.; Prenafeta-Boldú, F.X.; Zucconi, L. Hydrocarbon-contaminated sites: Is there something more than Exophiala xenobiotica? New insights into black fungal diversity using the long cold incubation method. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Gutarowska, B.; Pietrzak, K.; Machnowski, W.; Milczarek, J.M. Historical textiles—A review of microbial deterioration analysis and disinfection methods. Text. Res. J. 2017, 87, 2388–2406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Pinto, A.C.; Palomar, T.; Alves, L.C.; da Silva, S.H.M.; Monteiro, R.C.; Macedo, M.F.; Vilarigues, M.G. Fungal biodeterioration of stained-glass windows in monuments from Belém do Pará (Brazil). Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2019, 138, 106–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Isola, D.; Lee, H.J.; Chung, Y.J.; Zucconi, L.; Pelosi, C. Once upon a Time, There Was a Piece of Wood: Present Knowledge and Future Perspectives in Fungal Deterioration of Wooden Cultural Heritage in Terrestrial Ecosystems and Diagnostic Tools. J. Fungi 2024, 10, 366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Ferrari, C.; Santunione, G.; Libbra, A.; Muscio, A.; Sgarbi, E.; Siligardi, C.; Barozzi, G.S. Review on the influence of biological deterioration on the surface properties of building materials: Organisms, materials, and methods. Int. J. Des. Nat. Ecodyn. 2015, 10, 21–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Shirakawa, M.A.; Zilles, R.; Mocelin, A.; Gaylarde, C.C.; Gorbushina, A.; Heidrich, G.; Giudice, M.C.; Del Negro, G.M.B.; John, V.M. Microbial colonization affects the efficiency of photovoltaic panels in a tropical environment. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 157, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Dyer, T. Biodeterioration of Concrete; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017; p. 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Prenafeta-Boldú, F.X.; Medina-Armijo, C.; Isola, D. Black fungi in the built environment—The good, the bad, and the ugly. In Viruses, Bacteria and Fungi in the Built Environment; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2022; pp. 65–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Sanmartín, P.; Miller, A.Z.; Prieto, B.; Viles, H.A. Revisiting and reanalysing the concept of bioreceptivity 25 years on. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 770, 145314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Molina, M.T.; Cano, E.; Ramírez-Barat, B. Protective coatings for metallic heritage conservation: A review. J. Cult. Herit. 2023, 62, 99–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Isola, D.; Bartoli, F.; Casanova Municchia, A.; Lee, H.J.; Jeong, S.H.; Chung, Y.J.; Caneva, G. Green biocides for the conservation of hypogeal mural paintings raised from Western and Eastern traditions: Evaluation of interference on pigments and substrata and multifactor parameters affecting their activity. J. Cult. Herit. 2023, 61, 116–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Bartoli, F.; Hosseini, Z.; Graziani, V.; Zuena, M.; Venettacci, C.; Della Ventura, G.; Totora, L.; Sodo, A.; Caneva, G. In Situ Evaluation of New Silica Nanosystems as Long-Lasting Methods to Prevent Stone Monument Biodeterioration. Coatings 2024, 14, 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 05644 g002
Figure 2. The VOSviewer map based on the WoS search (livestock building) resulting in 7944 total records. L. is the abbreviation of livestock. The colours in the legend represent the main research areas associated with the corresponding keyword clusters.
Figure 2. The VOSviewer map based on the WoS search (livestock building) resulting in 7944 total records. L. is the abbreviation of livestock. The colours in the legend represent the main research areas associated with the corresponding keyword clusters.
Sustainability 17 05644 g002
Sustainability 17 05644 g003
Figure 3. VOSviewer map based on Scopus search (building materials) resulting in 69,355 total records and considering at least 120 mentions for each keyword. Colours in the legend represent the main research areas associated with the corresponding keyword clusters.
Figure 3. VOSviewer map based on Scopus search (building materials) resulting in 69,355 total records and considering at least 120 mentions for each keyword. Colours in the legend represent the main research areas associated with the corresponding keyword clusters.
Sustainability 17 05644 g003
Sustainability 17 05644 g005
Figure 5. Research items within the last two decades based on Scopus search (limited to title, abstract, and keywords). (A) The research flux of the most active countries in producing research articles, namely Germany (GER), Canada (CAN), Australia (AUS), Italy (ITA), United Kingdom (UK), United States of America (USA), and China (CHN). The items on which the research was focused are environmental building (EB), passive building (PB), nearly zero-energy building (nZEB), sustainable building (SB), and green building (GB). (B) Total scientific production (orange area) with respect to the most active countries in the field (blue).
Figure 5. Research items within the last two decades based on Scopus search (limited to title, abstract, and keywords). (A) The research flux of the most active countries in producing research articles, namely Germany (GER), Canada (CAN), Australia (AUS), Italy (ITA), United Kingdom (UK), United States of America (USA), and China (CHN). The items on which the research was focused are environmental building (EB), passive building (PB), nearly zero-energy building (nZEB), sustainable building (SB), and green building (GB). (B) Total scientific production (orange area) with respect to the most active countries in the field (blue).
Sustainability 17 05644 g005
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Isola, D.; Bigiotti, S.; Marucci, A. Livestock Buildings in a Changing World: Building Sustainability Challenges and Landscape Integration Management. Sustainability 2025, 17, 5644. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17125644

AMA Style

Isola D, Bigiotti S, Marucci A. Livestock Buildings in a Changing World: Building Sustainability Challenges and Landscape Integration Management. Sustainability. 2025; 17(12):5644. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17125644

Chicago/Turabian Style

Isola, Daniela, Stefano Bigiotti, and Alvaro Marucci. 2025. "Livestock Buildings in a Changing World: Building Sustainability Challenges and Landscape Integration Management" Sustainability 17, no. 12: 5644. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17125644

APA Style

Isola, D., Bigiotti, S., & Marucci, A. (2025). Livestock Buildings in a Changing World: Building Sustainability Challenges and Landscape Integration Management. Sustainability, 17(12), 5644. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17125644

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop