Carbon Footprint Variability in Engineered Wood Products for Timber Buildings: A Systematic Review of Carbon Accounting Methodologies

Yi Qian, Tharaka Gunawardena (), Priyan Mendis and Lu Aye
Additional contact information
Yi Qian: Department of Infrastructure Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia
Tharaka Gunawardena: Department of Infrastructure Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia
Priyan Mendis: Department of Infrastructure Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia
Lu Aye: Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Group, Department of Infrastructure Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia

Sustainability, 2025, vol. 17, issue 11, 1-34

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

Keywords: carbon accounting; engineered wood product; timber building; carbon footprint; sustainable construction (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/11/4804/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/11/4804/ (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:17:y:2025:i:11:p:4804-:d:1663146

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 ().