Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Mass Timber and Concrete Residential Buildings: A Case Study in China

Cindy X. Chen, Francesca Pierobon, Susan Jones, Ian Maples, Yingchun Gong and Indroneil Ganguly
Additional contact information
Cindy X. Chen: Population Research Center, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97201, USA
Francesca Pierobon: School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
Susan Jones: College of Built Environments, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
Ian Maples: Atelierjones LLC, Seattle, WA 98101, USA
Yingchun Gong: Institute of Wood Industry, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091, China
Indroneil Ganguly: School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA

Sustainability, 2021, vol. 14, issue 1, 1-17

Abstract: As the population continues to grow in China’s urban settings, the building sector contributes to increasing levels of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Concrete and steel are the two most common construction materials used in China and account for 60% of the carbon emissions among all building components. Mass timber is recognized as an alternative building material to concrete and steel, characterized by better environmental performance and unique structural features. Nonetheless, research associated with mass timber buildings is still lacking in China. Quantifying the emission mitigation potentials of using mass timber in new buildings can help accelerate associated policy development and provide valuable references for developing more sustainable constructions in China. This study used a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach to compare the environmental impacts of a baseline concrete building and a functionally equivalent timber building that uses cross-laminated timber as the primary material. A cradle-to-gate LCA model was developed based on onsite interviews and surveys collected in China, existing publications, and geography-specific life cycle inventory data. The results show that the timber building achieved a 25% reduction in global warming potential compared to its concrete counterpart. The environmental performance of timber buildings can be further improved through local sourcing, enhanced logistics, and manufacturing optimizations.

Keywords: mass timber; embodied carbon; climate change; carbon reduction; building footprint; built environment; forest products; life cycle analysis (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/1/144/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/1/144/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2021:i:1:p:144-:d:709870

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().