Embodied Carbon of Mass Timber Buildings in the United States: A Systematic Review of Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) Evidence
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15377/2409-9821.2026.13.3Keywords:
Embodied carbon, Mass timber construction, Biogenic carbon accounting, Life cycle assessment (LCA), Global warming potential (GWP).Abstract
This review synthesizes peer-reviewed life-cycle assessment (LCA) studies evaluating the embodied carbon and global warming potential (GWP) of mid-rise mass-timber buildings in the United States. Prompted by regulatory changes in the 2021 International Building Code that permit taller timber construction, the review focuses on the policy, market, and environmental context. A rigorous, structured protocol incorporated comprehensive database searches, systematic screening, clearly defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and critical methodological appraisal. 30 peer-reviewed studies were identified that quantitatively assessed embodied carbon, GWP, and biogenic carbon flows in mass-timber systems, typically in comparison with reinforced concrete and steel alternatives.
The reviewed literature demonstrates that mass-timber buildings exhibit lower GWP than conventional construction systems. Reported reductions range from 10–20% to 20–60%, depending on system boundaries, functional units, and modeling assumptions. Representative findings indicate cradle-to-gate reductions of 19–41% and cradle-to-grave reductions of 34–51%. Greater reductions are observed when biogenic carbon storage and end-of-life (EOL) recovery or recycling credits are considered.
This review critically examines methodological variability across the evaluated studies. Principal sources of divergence include inconsistent system boundaries, heterogeneous functional units, non-standardized biogenic carbon accounting methods, and uncertain EOL scenarios. Regional factors, such as energy-grid composition, transportation, forest management, and climate conditions, further influence outcomes and limit direct comparability. The findings substantiate the embodied-carbon mitigation potential of mass-timber construction while underscoring the need for harmonized LCA methodologies, transparent reporting, region-specific data sets, and improved treatment of uncertainty to inform robust design and policy decisions.
Downloads
References
[1] Abed J, Rayburg S, Rodwell J, Neave M. A review of the performance and benefits of mass timber as an alternative to concrete and steel for improving the sustainability of structures. Sustainability. 2022; 14(9): 5570. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095570
[2] Kumar V, Ricco ML, Bergman RD, Nepal P, Poudyal NC. Environmental impact assessment of mass timber, structural steel, and reinforced concrete buildings based on the 2021 international building code provisions. Build. Environ. 2024; 251: 111195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111195
[3] Chen Z, Gu H, Bergman RD, Liang S. Comparative life-cycle assessment of a high-rise mass timber building with an equivalent reinforced concrete alternative using the Athena impact estimator for buildings. Sustainability. 2020; 12(11): 4708. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114708
[4] Liang S, Gu H, Bergman R, Kelley SS. Comparative life-cycle assessment of a mass timber building and concrete alternative. Wood Fiber Sci. 2020; 52(2): 217-29. https://doi.org/10.22382/wfs-2020-019
[5] Jolly R, Fairweather H, Rayburg S, Rodwell JD. Life cycle assessment and cost analysis of mid-rise mass timber vs. concrete buildings in Australia. Sustainability. 2024; 16: 56465. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156465
[6] Ilgın HE. Analysis of the main architectural and structural design considerations in tall timber buildings. Buildings. 2023; 14(1): 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14010043
[7] Tenório M, Ferreira R, Belafonte V, Sousa F, Meireis C, Fontes M, et al. Contemporary strategies for the structural design of multi-story modular timber buildings: a comprehensive review. Appl Sci. 2024;14(8): 3194. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14083194
[8] Safarik D, Miranda W. CTBUH special report. CTBUH J. 2020; (4): 12-21.
[9] Ahmed S, Arocho I. Mass timber building material in the US construction industry: determining the existing awareness level, construction-related challenges, and recommendations to increase its current acceptance level. Clean Eng Technol. 2020; 1: 100007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2020.100007
[10] Cover J. Mass timber: the new sustainable choice for tall buildings. Int J High-Rise Build. 2020; 9(1): 87-93.
[11] Thigpen A, Masselink B. Sustainable value creation through mass timber development in North America. Cambridge (MA): Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2020.
[12] Nepal P, Johnston CM, Ganguly I. Effects on global forests and wood product markets of increased demand for mass timber. Sustainability. 2021; 13(24):13943. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413943
[13] Ahmed S, Dharmapalan V, Jin Z. A subject review on the use of mass timber in the US construction industry. In: Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress (CRC); 2024; United States. Reston (VA): American Society of Civil Engineers; 2024. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784485279.030
[14] Mirando A, Onsarigo L. A review of existing commercial mass timber buildings in the United States. In: Proceedings of the 59th Annual Associated Schools of Construction International Conference; 2023; United States.
[15] Wiegand E, Ramage M. The impact of policy instruments on the first generation of tall wood buildings. Build Res Inf. 2022; 50(3): 255-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2021.1905501
[16] Brandt K, Latta G, Camenzind D, Dolan J, Bender D, Wilson A, et al. Projected cross-laminated timber demand and lumber supply analysis. BioResources. 2021; 16(1): 862-81. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.16.1.862-881
[17] Adhikari S, Quesada H, Bond B, Hammett T. Potential of hardwood lumber in cross laminated timber in North America: a CLT manufacturer’s perspective. Mass Timber Constr J. 2020; 3(1):1-9.
[18] Blanchet P, Perez C, Cabral MR. Wood building construction: trends and opportunities in structural and envelope systems. Curr For Rep. 2024; 10(1): 21-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-023-00196-z
[19] Trabucco D, Perrucci G. Steel-timber hybrid buildings: a comparative life cycle assessment study of global warming potential impacts. Sustainability. 2025; 17(2): 718. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17020718
[20] Simões S. High-performance advanced composites in multifunctional material design: state of the art, challenges, and future directions. Materials. 2024; 17(23): 5997. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma17235997
[21] Duan Z, Huang Q, Zhang Q. Life cycle assessment of mass timber construction: a review. Build Environ. 2022; 221: 109320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2022.109320
[22] Mazzer S. Design and sustainability assessment of tall buildings structural systems (Thesis). University of Padua; 2024.
[23] Hammad MWA. Timber-steel-concrete hybrid connections. Sydney (AU): University of New South Wales; 2022.
[24] Shahnewaz M, Jackson R, Tannert T. Reinforced cross-laminated timber-concrete composite floor systems. Eng Struct. 2023; 291: 116395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.116395
[25] Santos FLDL, Santos HF, Costa LL, Lima VS, Cunha RDA, César SF. Mass timber as a tool to sustainable construction: a review. Rev Gest Soc Ambient. 2025; 19(3): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v19n3-007
[26] Quintana Gallo P, Carradine DM, Bazaez R. State of the art and practice of seismic-resistant hybrid timber structures. Eur J Wood Wood Prod. 2021; 79(1): 5-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00107-020-01556-3
[27] Premrov M, Žegarac Leskovar V. Innovative structural systems for timber buildings: a comprehensive review of contemporary solutions. Buildings. 2023; 13(7):1820. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13071820
[28] Buchanan A, Östman B. Fire safe use of wood in buildings. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2022. p. 278-89. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003190318
[29] Carrasco EVM, Guimarães AB, de Góes MB, Mantilla JNR. Durability and energy efficiency in mass timber buildings: a sustainable approach to modern construction. Rev Polít Públicas Cid. 2024; 13(2): e927. https://doi.org/10.23900/2359-1552v13n2-95-2024
[30] Li J, Meng Q, Lu H, Xu G. Improving building floor acoustics with innovative inorganic sound insulation coating. Buildings. 2024; 14(11): 3663. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14113663
[31] Azanaw GM. Timber-concrete composite structures: a comprehensive review of emerging trends, advanced modeling approaches, and future research frontiers for sustainable hybrid construction. Eng Appl Sci. 2025; 10(3): 62-74. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.eas.20251003.14
[32] Bao Y, Han Y, Xu Z, Lu W, Yue K, Lu B. Vibration performance of cross-laminated timber (CLT)-concrete composite floors considering the section thickness ratio between CLT panels and concrete slabs. Eng Struct. 2025; 340: 120783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2025.120783
[33] Xu Q, Wang M, Chen L, Harries KA, Song X, Wang Z. Mechanical performance of notched shear connections in CLT-concrete composite floor. J Build Eng. 2023; 70: 106364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2023.106364
[34] Malczyk R, Bita HM. Mass timber and cold-formed steel hybrid system: a new approach. Timber Engineering Inc.; 2021 Nov.
[35] Keipour N, Valipour HR, Bradford MA. Structural behaviour of steel-timber versus steel-concrete composite joints with flush end plate. Constr Build Mater. 2020; 262: 120885. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120885
[36] Mergos PE. Structural design of reinforced concrete frames for minimum amount of concrete or embodied carbon. Energy Build. 2024; 318: 114505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2024.114505
[37] Pearlmutter D, Theochari D, Nehls T, Pinho P, Piro P, Korolova A, et al. Enhancing the circular economy with nature-based solutions in the built urban environment: green building materials, systems and sites. Blue-Green Syst. 2020; 2(1): 46-72. https://doi.org/10.2166/bgs.2019.928
[38] Abdelsabour AH, Al Shall M, Fahmy M. From design to fabrication: developing a conceptual framework for parametric design in complex geometry construction. J Eng Sci. 2025; 53(5): 637-69.
[39] Marcazzani A. Framework for life cycle assessment (LCA) of nZEB buildings: a critical evaluation with a focus on insulation, recycled materials and end-of-life scenarios (thesis). Ferrara (IT): University of Ferrara; 2025.
[40] Haigh R, Li L. Decade review of modular construction systems in the building and construction industry: research trends toward the development and utilisation of timber materials within the context of a circular economy. Wood Mater Sci Eng. 2026; 2026: 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17480272.2025.2611132
[41] Hosamo H, Coelho GB, Buvik E, Drissi S, Kraniotis D. Building sustainability through a novel exploration of dynamic LCA uncertainty: overview and state of the art. Build Environ. 2024; 264: 111922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111922
[42] Chapagain A, Crovella P. Building sustainable futures: evaluating embodied carbon emissions and biogenic carbon storage in a cross-laminated timber wall and floor (honeycomb) mass timber building. Sustainability. 2025; 17(12): 5602. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17125602
[43] Ge S, O’Ceallaigh C, McGetrick PJ. A review of best international life cycle assessment (LCA) practices in wood construction: challenges for Ireland. Clean Environ Syst. 2025; 16: 100260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2025.100260
[44] Hemmati M, Messadi T, Gu H. Life cycle assessment of the construction process in a mass timber structure. Sustainability. 2023; 16(1): 262. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010262
[45] Hoxha E, Passer A, Mendes Saade M, Trigaux D, Shuttleworth A, Pittau F, et al. Biogenic carbon in buildings: a critical overview of LCA methods. Build Cities. 2020; 1(1): 504-24. https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.46
[46] Fischer H, Aichholzer M, Korjenic A. Ecological potential of building components in multi-storey residential construction: a comparative case study between an existing concrete and a timber building in Austria. Sustainability. 2023; 15(8): 6349. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086349
[47] Maurya S, Madan SK, Eds. Precast concrete technology: a catalyst for sustainable urbanization. In: International conference on green energy and sustainable technology; 2023. Cham: Springer.
[48] Felmer Plominsky GE, Morales Vera RA, Astroza Eulufi RR, González I, Puettmann M, Wishnie M. A lifecycle assessment of a low-energy mass-timber building and mainstream concrete alternative in central Chile. Sustainability 2022; 14(3): 1249. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031249
[49] Zhu X, Jamal AS, Zhang M, Liu B, Shi J. Energy consumption, carbon emissions and cost analysis of accelerated curing: a case study of hybrid alkali-activated cement. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2025; 210: 115206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2024.115206
[50] Belaidi D, Lamichhane A, Pradhan S, Mohammadabadi M, Shmulsky R, Wang X. Effect of adhesives on bonding performance of softwood and hardwood plywood. For Prod J. 2025; 75(1): 16-25. https://doi.org/10.13073/FPJ-D-24-00044
[51] Fernando D. Life cycle assessment of constructing a one-storey house: comparing virgin and cascaded wood for construction (Thesis). Aalto University; 2025.
[52] Falegari S, Shirzadi Javid AA. Integrating building information modeling and life cycle assessment to analyze the role of climate and passive design parameters in energy consumption. Energy Environ. 2024; 35(4): 2087-106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958305X221145923
[53] Malu R. An overview of current developments in integrating BIM with LCA for sustainable construction. Authorea. September 25, 2024. https://doi.org/10.22541/au.172729808.85305495/v1
[54] Pierobon F, Huang M, Simonen K, Ganguly I. Environmental benefits of using hybrid CLT structure in midrise non-residential construction: an LCA-based comparative case study in the US Pacific Northwest. J Build Eng. 2019; 26: 100862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100862
[55] Nassar YF, El-Khozondar HJ, El-Osta W, Mohammed S, Elnaggar M, Khaleel M, et al. Carbon footprint and energy life cycle assessment of wind energy industry in Libya. Energy Convers Manag. 2024; 300: 117846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2023.117846
[56] Churkina G, Organschi A. Will a transition to timber construction cool the climate? Sustainability. 2022; 14: 4271. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074271
[57] Al-Shatnawi Z, Hachem-Vermette C, Lacasse M, Ziaeemehr B. Advances in cold-climate-responsive building envelope design: a comprehensive review. Buildings. 2024; 14(11): 3486. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14113486
[58] Thaneya AB, Gursel AP, Kane S, Miller SA, Horvath A. Assessing uncertainty in building material emissions using scenario-aware Monte Carlo simulation. Environ Res Infrastruct Sustain. 2024; 4(2): 025003. https://doi.org/10.1088/2634-4505/ad40ce
[59] Kovalenko V, Miniailo N, Barishenko O, Shevchuk L, Vasetskyi V, Bashko V, et al. Energy efficiency in the metallurgical sector: concept and evaluation metrics. Mod Probl Metall. 2025; (28): 248-70. https://doi.org/10.34185/1991-7848.2025.01.15
[60] Castañeda-Valdés A, Corvo F, Marrero-Águila R, Fernández-Domínguez A, Del Angel-Meraz E. The service life of reinforced concrete structures in an extremely aggressive coastal city: influence of concrete quality. Mater Struct. 2023; 56(1): 12. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-023-02100-4
[61] Ahmadi M, Abdollahzadeh E, Kashfi M, Khataei B, Razavi M. Life cycle assessment and performance evaluation of self-compacting concrete incorporating waste marble powder and aggregates. Materials. 2025; 18(13): 2982. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma18132982
[62] Penaloza D, Erlandsson M, Berlin J, Wålinder M, Falk A. Future scenarios for climate mitigation of new construction in Sweden: effects of different technological pathways. J Clean Prod. 2018; 187: 1025-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.285
[63] Li J, Zhao K. Sustainable development advantages of cross-laminated timber (CLT) and cross-laminated bamboo and timber (CLBT). Materials. 2025; 18(21): 4913. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma18214913
[64] Corradini G, Pierobon F, Zanetti M. Product environmental footprint of a cross-laminated timber system: a case study in Italy. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2019; 24(5): 975-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1541-x
[65] Puettmann M, Pierobon F, Ganguly I, Gu H, Chen C, Liang S, et al. Comparative LCAs of conventional and mass timber buildings in regions with potential for mass timber penetration. Sustainability. 2021; 13(24): 13987. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413987
[66] Robertson AB, Lam FC, Cole RJ. A comparative cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of mid-rise office building construction alternatives: laminated timber or reinforced concrete. Buildings. 2012; 2(3): 245-70. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings2030245
[67] Cowie AL, Berndes G, Bentsen NS, Brandão M, Cherubini F, Egnell G, et al. Applying a science-based systems perspective to dispel misconceptions about climate effects of forest bioenergy. GCB Bioenergy. 2021; 13(8): 1210-31. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12844
[68] Scouse A, Kelley SS, Liang S, Bergman R. Regional and net economic impacts of high-rise mass timber construction in Oregon. Sustain Cities Soc. 2020; 61: 102154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102154
[69] Gustavsson L, Haus S, Lundblad M, Lundström A, Ortiz CA, Sathre R, et al. Climate change effects of forestry and substitution of carbon-intensive materials and fossil fuels. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2017; 67: 612-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.056
[70] Gao Z, Yu C, Xia E, Zhu X, Hong Y, Wang L. Unraveling the timber supply chain in the belt and road region: analyzing embodied timber flows and industrial interconnections. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2025; 215: 108138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108138
[71] Allan K, Phillips AR. Comparative cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of low and mid-rise mass timber buildings with equivalent structural steel alternatives. Sustainability. 2021; 13(6): 3401. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063401
[72] Gu C. Life cycle assessment (LCA) on mass timber and traditional institutional buildings (Thesis). University of New Brunswick; 2023.
[73] Hemmati M, Messadi T, Gu H, Hemmati M. LCA operational carbon reduction based on energy strategies analysis in a mass timber building. Sustainability. 2024; 16(15): 6579. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156579
[74] Lippke B, Puettmann ME. Life-cycle carbon from waste wood used in district heating and other alternatives. For Prod J. 2013; 63(1-2): 12-23. https://doi.org/10.13073/FPJ-D-12-00093
[75] Dodoo A, Gustavsson L, Sathre R. Carbon implications of end-of-life management of building materials. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2009; 53(5): 276-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.12.007
[76] Gan VJ, Deng M, Tse K, Chan C, Lo IM, Cheng JC. Holistic BIM framework for sustainable low carbon design of high-rise buildings. J Clean Prod. 2018; 195: 1091-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.272
[77] Ximenes F, Björdal C, Cowie A, Barlaz M. The decay of wood in landfills in contrasting climates in Australia. Waste Manag. 2015; 41: 101-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.03.032
[78] Hafner A, Schäfer S. Comparative LCA study of different timber and mineral buildings and calculation method for substitution factors on building level. J Clean Prod. 2017; 167: 630-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.203
[79] Liang S, Gu H, Bergman R. Environmental life-cycle assessment and life-cycle cost analysis of a high-rise mass timber building: a case study in Pacific Northwestern United States. Sustainability. 2021; 13(14): 7831. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147831
[80] Younis A, Dodoo A. Cross-laminated timber for building construction: a life-cycle-assessment overview. J Build Eng. 2022; 52: 104482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104482
[81] Green M, Taggart J. Tall wood buildings: design, construction and performance. Basel: Birkhäuser; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783035618860
[82] Himes A, Busby G. Wood buildings as a climate solution. Dev Built Environ. 2020; 4: 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2020.100030
[83] Sathre R, O’Connor J. Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas displacement factors of wood product substitution. Environ Sci Policy. 2010; 13(2): 104-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.12.005
[84] Iqbal A. Developments in tall wood and hybrid buildings and environmental impacts. Sustainability. 2021; 13(21): 11881. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111881
[85] Lin L, Trabucco D, Perrucci G. End-of-life scenarios for mass timber: assumptions, limitations and potentials—a literature review. Appl Sci. 2025; 15(3): 1208. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15031208
[86] Munir Q, Abdulkareem M, Horttanainen M, Kärki T. A comparative cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of geopolymer concrete produced from industrial side streams in comparison with traditional concrete. Sci Total Environ. 2023; 865: 161230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.161230
[87] Kumar V, Ricco ML, Bergman RD, Nepal P, Poudyal NC. Data and bills of materials for buildings designed for mass timber, structural steel, and reinforced concrete based on the 2021 international building code provisions. Data Brief. 2024; 55: 110641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2024.110641
[88] Bergman R, Puettmann M, Taylor A, Skog KE. The carbon impacts of wood products. For Prod J. 2014; 64(7-8): 220-31. https://doi.org/10.13073/FPJ-D-14-00047
[89] Brandner R. Production and technology of cross laminated timber (CLT): a state-of-the-art report. Bath (UK): University of Bath; 2013.
[90] Millaniyage KP, Wallis L, Kotlarewski N. Decomposition of wood in landfills: review of literature. Hobart, Australia: University of Tasmania; 2024.
[91] Pichette G, Blanchet P, Essoua Essoua GG, Breton C. Environmental product declaration (EPD) usage in early building design stages: review of effects on the environmental life cycle of a multi-residential building. BioResources. 2023; 18(4): 8134-50. https://doi.org/10.15376/biores.18.4.8134-8150
[92] Sandanayake M, Lokuge W, Zhang G, Setunge S, Thushar Q. Greenhouse gas emissions during timber and concrete building construction: a scenario-based comparative case study. Sustain Cities Soc. 2018; 38: 91-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.12.017
[93] Ahn N, Bjarvin C, Riggio M, Muszynski L, Schimleck L, Pestana C, et al. Envisioning mass timber buildings for circularity: life cycle assessment of a mass timber building with different end-of-life (EOL) and post-EOL options. In: Proceedings of the 13th world conference on timber engineering (WCTE 2023); 2023; Oslo, Norway. Available from: https://doi.org/10.52202/069179-0466
[94] Pan Y, Tannert T, Kaushik K, Xiong H, Ventura CE. Seismic performance of a proposed wood-concrete hybrid system for high-rise buildings. Eng Struct. 2021; 238: 112194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112194
[95] Nepal P, Prestemon JP, Ganguly I, Kumar V, Bergman RD, Poudyal NC. The potential use of mass timber in mid- to high-rise construction and the associated carbon benefits in the United States. PLoS One. 2024; 19(3): e0298379. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0298379
[96] Puettmann M, Bergman R, Oneil E. Cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of North American cellulosic fiberboard production. CORRIM Final Report. Seattle (WA): University of Washington; 2016. p. 1-66.
[97] Kayo C, Oka H, Komata H, Goh CS. Future projections of global wood carbon flow and stock and climate change mitigation potential considering waste wood recycling. Biomass Bioenergy. 2025; 201: 108156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2025.108156
[98] Ahmed S, Arocho I. Mass timber building material in the U.S. construction industry: determining the existing awareness level, construction-related challenges, and recommendations to increase its current acceptance level. Clean Eng Technol. 2020; 1: 100007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2020.100007
[99] Padilla-Rivera A, Amor B, Blanchet P. Evaluating the link between low carbon reduction strategies and its performance in the context of climate change: a carbon footprint of a wood-frame residential building in Quebec, Canada. Sustainability. 2018; 10(8): 2715. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082715
[100] Safarik D, Elbrecht J, Miranda W. State of tall timber 2022. CTBUH J. 2022; 2022: 22-31.
[101] D’Amico B, Pomponi F, Hart J. Global potential for material substitution in building construction: the case of cross laminated timber. J Clean Prod. 2021; 279: 123487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123487
[102] Ascione F, Esposito F, Iovane G, Faiella D, Faggiano B, Mele E. Sustainable and efficient structural systems for tall buildings: exploring timber and steel-timber hybrids through a case study. Buildings. 2024;14(2): 524. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14020524
[103] Truitt P. Potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the construction sector. Washington (DC): US Environmental Protection Agency; 2009. p. 12.
Downloads
Published
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Piyush Khairnar, Banan Alzoubi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All the published articles are licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (CC BY-NC 4.0) which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.
