Carbon Footprint Variability in Engineered Wood Products for Timber Buildings: A Systematic Review of Carbon Accounting Methodologies DOI Open Access
Yi Qian, Tharaka Gunawardena, Priyan Mendis

et al.

Sustainability, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: 17(11), P. 4804 - 4804

Published: May 23, 2025

Engineered wood products (EWPs) and timber buildings are increasingly recognised for their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by storing biogenic carbon replacing emission-intensive materials. This article systematically evaluates the footprint (CF) of EWPs during production stage (A1–A3), identifies key sources variability, extracts quantitative emission reduction metrics. Based on a review 63 peer-reviewed studies, CF values vary widely, from −40 1050 kg CO2eq m−2 12 759 m−3 EWPs, due inconsistent system boundaries, functional units, factor assumptions. Median CFs were 165.5 169.3 m−3, respectively. Raw material extraction (50.7%), manufacturing (37.1%), transport (12.2%) dominant contributors. A mitigation matrix was developed, showing reductions: 20% via optimisation, 24–28% through low-density timber, 76% renewable energy, 11% sawmill efficiency, 75% air drying, up 92% with reclaimed timber. The geographic skew toward Europe North America underscores need region-specific data. findings provide actionable benchmarks strategies support accounting, modelling, climate policy more sustainable construction.

Language: Английский

Carbon Footprint Variability in Engineered Wood Products for Timber Buildings: A Systematic Review of Carbon Accounting Methodologies DOI Open Access
Yi Qian, Tharaka Gunawardena, Priyan Mendis

et al.

Sustainability, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: 17(11), P. 4804 - 4804

Published: May 23, 2025

Engineered wood products (EWPs) and timber buildings are increasingly recognised for their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by storing biogenic carbon replacing emission-intensive materials. This article systematically evaluates the footprint (CF) of EWPs during production stage (A1–A3), identifies key sources variability, extracts quantitative emission reduction metrics. Based on a review 63 peer-reviewed studies, CF values vary widely, from −40 1050 kg CO2eq m−2 12 759 m−3 EWPs, due inconsistent system boundaries, functional units, factor assumptions. Median CFs were 165.5 169.3 m−3, respectively. Raw material extraction (50.7%), manufacturing (37.1%), transport (12.2%) dominant contributors. A mitigation matrix was developed, showing reductions: 20% via optimisation, 24–28% through low-density timber, 76% renewable energy, 11% sawmill efficiency, 75% air drying, up 92% with reclaimed timber. The geographic skew toward Europe North America underscores need region-specific data. findings provide actionable benchmarks strategies support accounting, modelling, climate policy more sustainable construction.

Language: Английский

Citations

0