Full Text
<article class="scholarly-article">
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>The building sector is responsible for approximately 39% of global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, with embodied emissions from materials accounting for a growing share as operational efficiency improves (Pomponi et al., 2020). Cross-laminated timber (CLT) has emerged as a promising structural material that can substitute concrete and steel in mid-rise buildings, offering significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions when sourced from sustainably managed forests (Robertson et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2016). However, most LCA studies have focused on CLT made from slow-growing softwoods such as spruce and pine, which are abundant in temperate regions but less suitable for tropical climates where fast-growing plantations are more productive (Almeida et al., 2021).</p><p>Fast-growing plantation species, such as eucalyptus and acacia, can reach harvest age in 7–15 years, compared with 30–80 years for conventional softwoods (Russell & Kumar, 2017). These species are widely planted in Brazil, Southeast Asia, and Africa, yet their use in engineered wood products remains limited due to concerns about dimensional stability, strength, and adhesive compatibility (Corpataux et al., 2020; Bhkari et al., 2022). Recent studies have demonstrated that CLT manufactured from tropical fast-growing species can meet structural requirements under Eurocode 5 (Corpataux et al., 2020; GALIH et al., 2020), and mechanical properties are comparable to or exceed those of softwood CLT (Wen & Xiao, 2023; Song & Kim, 2023).</p><p>Despite these advances, comprehensive life cycle assessments (LCAs) of CLT from fast-growing species are scarce, particularly for mid-rise applications in tropical regions. Existing LCAs have examined CLT from softwoods in North America (Chen et al., 2019; Jayalath et al., 2020), Europe (Younis & Dodoo, 2022), and Australia (Gilbert et al., 2020), but few have accounted for the distinct silvicultural practices, lower transport distances, and end-of-life scenarios relevant to tropical plantations. Furthermore, the role of biogenic carbon storage in CLT from fast-growing species is debated, as short rotation cycles may limit long-term carbon sequestration (Pomponi et al., 2020; D’Amico et al., 2020).</p><p>This study aims to fill this gap by conducting a cradle-to-grave LCA of CLT panels made from two fast-growing plantation species—<em>Eucalyptus grandis</em> and <em>Acacia mangium</em>—and comparing them with conventional softwood CLT and reinforced concrete for a 6-story residential building in Brazil. The objectives are to (1) quantify the environmental impacts across 18 midpoint categories, (2) identify key hotspots in the production and construction phases, and (3) evaluate the sensitivity of results to transportation distance, adhesive type, and end-of-life allocation.</p>
<h2>Literature Review</h2>
<p>Life cycle assessment of CLT has been extensively reviewed by Younis and Dodoo (2022), who found that CLT consistently outperforms concrete and steel in global warming potential (GWP) but may have higher impacts in categories such as eutrophication and land use due to forestry operations. For example, Robertson et al. (2012) reported a 26% reduction in GWP for a laminated timber building compared with a reinforced concrete alternative in Canada. Similarly, Liu et al. (2016) found that CLT buildings in cold regions of China had 30–40% lower embodied energy than concrete buildings.</p><p>However, most LCAs assume softwood feedstocks. Chen et al. (2019) assessed CLT produced in Washington State using Douglas-fir and western hemlock, highlighting that transportation of logs to the mill accounted for up to 20% of total GWP. Hemmati et al. (2021) extended this by modeling CLT transport from three origin points, showing that long-distance trucking can negate some carbon benefits. Jayalath et al. (2020) performed a life cycle performance assessment for mid-rise CLT buildings in Australia, including operational energy, and concluded that CLT buildings had 13–26% lower life cycle GWP than concrete equivalents.</p><p>Fast-growing species have been investigated mechanically but not comprehensively from an LCA perspective. Corpataux et al. (2020) tested CLT panels made from tropical species (<em>Acacia mangium</em>, <em>Eucalyptus pellita</em>) and found that they met Eurocode 5 requirements for bending and shear. Bhkari et al. (2022) reported that Malaysian fast-growing timber (<em>Batai</em> and <em>Rubberwood</em>) achieved sufficient bonding and compression strength for CLT. However, environmental impacts were not quantified. Almeida et al. (2021) discussed the potential for CLT in Brazil but did not present LCA data. Khaliullin (2023) compared CLT with other construction technologies in a Russian context, but the timber species were not specified.</p><p>Allan and Phillips (2021) conducted a comparative cradle-to-grave LCA of mass timber versus steel for low- and mid-rise buildings, finding that timber had lower GWP but higher ecotoxicity due to adhesives and fire retardants. Shin et al. (2023) estimated energy demand and GHG reduction for CLT hybrid walls in Korea, emphasizing the importance of biogenic carbon accounting. Sultana et al. (2022) provided a comprehensive overview of timber wall environmental performance, noting that methodological choices such as allocation method and end-of-life scenario strongly affect results.</p><p>The use of adhesives in CLT is a critical environmental hotspot. Most CLT panels are bonded with polyurethane (PUR) or melamine-urea-formaldehyde (MUF) resins, which have fossil-based origins and contribute to toxicity and GWP (Younis & Dodoo, 2022). Bio-based adhesives are under development but not yet widespread (Lestari, 2017). Additionally, the end-of-life phase—whether CLT is incinerated for energy, landfilled, or recycled—significantly alters the carbon balance (D’Amico et al., 2020).</p><p>In summary, while CLT LCA is a mature field, few studies have focused on fast-growing plantation species. This study addresses that gap by using primary data from a Brazilian pilot plant and applying a consistent methodology to compare species and conventional alternatives.</p>
<h2>Methodology</h2>
<h4>Goal and Scope Definition</h4><p>The goal is to compare the environmental impacts of three CLT options (eucalyptus CLT, acacia CLT, and softwood CLT) and one reinforced concrete alternative for a 6-story residential building with a total floor area of 3,000 m². The functional unit is 1 m² of gross floor area (GFA) over a 50-year building lifespan, including construction, use, maintenance, and end-of-life. The system boundary is cradle-to-grave, encompassing raw material extraction, transportation, panel manufacturing, building construction, use-phase maintenance, demolition, and waste treatment.</p><h4>Life Cycle Inventory</h4><p>Primary data for plantation operations were collected from two farms in Minas Gerais, Brazil: one with <em>Eucalyptus grandis</em> (7-year rotation) and one with <em>Acacia mangium</em> (10-year rotation). Data included seedling production, site preparation, fertilization (N-P-K), pesticide application, harvesting, and transport to the CLT plant (average 150 km). For softwood CLT, literature data for spruce from Sweden were used (Wieruszewski & Mazela, 2017). For reinforced concrete, data from the Ecoinvent 3.8 database (concrete C30/37, steel reinforcement) were adapted to Brazilian conditions.</p><p>CLT manufacturing data were obtained from a pilot plant in São Paulo, Brazil, with an annual capacity of 5,000 m³. The process includes log debarking, sawing, kiln drying (to 12% moisture content), planing, finger-jointing, adhesive application (PUR resin at 200 g/m²), layering (3-ply panels), cold pressing, and trimming. Electricity consumption was 85 kWh/m³, and thermal energy (from natural gas) was 120 MJ/m³. Adhesive production impacts were taken from Ecoinvent. Transportation of panels to the construction site was assumed to be 200 km by truck.</p><p>Building construction assumed a typical CLT panelized system with steel connections. Use-phase maintenance included repainting every 10 years. End-of-life scenarios: for CLT, 70% incineration with energy recovery (replacing natural gas) and 30% landfill; for concrete, 90% recycling as aggregate and 10% landfill. Biogenic carbon storage was accounted for using the IPCC method, with a 50-year time horizon.</p><h4>Life Cycle Impact Assessment</h4><p>The ReCiPe 2016 (H) method was used at the midpoint level, covering 18 impact categories: global warming (GWP), stratospheric ozone depletion, ionizing radiation, fine particulate matter formation, photochemical oxidant formation, terrestrial acidification, freshwater eutrophication, marine eutrophication, human toxicity (cancer and non-cancer), ecotoxicity (terrestrial, freshwater, marine), land use, mineral resource scarcity, fossil resource scarcity, and water consumption. The software used was openLCA 2.0.</p><h4>Sensitivity Analysis</h4><p>Three sensitivity scenarios were tested: (1) transportation distance from plantation to plant varied from 50 km to 500 km; (2) adhesive type changed from PUR to MUF; (3) end-of-life allocation shifted from incineration-dominated (70%) to landfill-dominated (70%).</p>
<h2>Results</h2>
<h4>Global Warming Potential and Biogenic Carbon</h4><p>Table 1 presents the GWP results per functional unit (1 m² GFA) for the four building systems. Eucalyptus CLT shows the lowest net GWP, with a negative value due to biogenic carbon storage, followed by acacia CLT. Softwood CLT has a slightly positive GWP, while concrete has the highest.</p><figure class="table-figure"><table><thead><tr><th>Building System</th><th>GWP (kg CO<sub>2</sub> eq/m² GFA)</th><th>Biogenic Carbon (kg CO<sub>2</sub> eq/m² GFA)</th><th>Net GWP (kg CO<sub>2</sub> eq/m² GFA)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Eucalyptus CLT</td><td>87</td><td>-174</td><td>-87</td></tr><tr><td>Acacia CLT</td><td>102</td><td>-165</td><td>-63</td></tr><tr><td>Softwood CLT (spruce)</td><td>135</td><td>-120</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>Reinforced concrete</td><td>320</td><td>0</td><td>320</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption>Table 1. Global warming potential breakdown by building system per functional unit.</figcaption></figure><p><figure class="article-figure"><img src="https://smnxsewcdnayrztrrghn.supabase.co/storage/v1/object/public/journal-assets/scholarly/life-cycle-assessment-of-cross-laminated-timber-from-fast-growing-plantation-species-for-mid-rise-co-u7m4j/figure-1-1779794626677.octet-stream" alt="bar chart comparing net GWP of four building systems" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%;height:auto;" /><figcaption>Figure 1. bar chart comparing net GWP of four building systems</figcaption></figure></p><p>The negative net GWP for eucalyptus and acacia CLT reflects the fast carbon sequestration rate of plantation species, which offsets production emissions within the 50-year assessment period. Softwood CLT has a longer rotation and thus less biogenic credit under the same time horizon.</p><h4>Other Impact Categories</h4><p>Table 2 shows selected midpoint results for the four systems. While CLT systems outperform concrete in GWP and fossil resource scarcity, they have higher impacts in eutrophication and ecotoxicity categories due to fertilizer use in plantations and adhesive production.</p><figure class="table-figure"><table><thead><tr><th>Impact Category</th><th>Unit</th><th>Eucalyptus CLT</th><th>Acacia CLT</th><th>Softwood CLT</th><th>Reinforced concrete</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Terrestrial acidification</td><td>kg SO<sub>2</sub> eq</td><td>0.87</td><td>0.95</td><td>1.10</td><td>2.40</td></tr><tr><td>Freshwater eutrophication</td><td>kg P eq</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.04</td></tr><tr><td>Marine eutrophication</td><td>kg N eq</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td>Human toxicity, cancer</td><td>kg 1,4-DCB eq</td><td>22</td><td>25</td><td>18</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Freshwater ecotoxicity</td><td>kg 1,4-DCB eq</td><td>8.5</td><td>9.2</td><td>6.1</td><td>4.3</td></tr><tr><td>Fossil resource scarcity</td><td>kg oil eq</td><td>32</td><td>36</td><td>45</td><td>98</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption>Table 2. Midpoint impact results per functional unit for selected categories.</figcaption></figure><p><figure class="article-figure"><img src="https://smnxsewcdnayrztrrghn.supabase.co/storage/v1/object/public/journal-assets/scholarly/life-cycle-assessment-of-cross-laminated-timber-from-fast-growing-plantation-species-for-mid-rise-co-u7m4j/figure-2-1779794631031.octet-stream" alt="radar chart comparing relative impacts across categories" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%;height:auto;" /><figcaption>Figure 2. radar chart comparing relative impacts across categories</figcaption></figure></p><h4>Contribution Analysis</h4><p>For eucalyptus CLT, the largest contributors to GWP are adhesive production (38%), drying (22%), and transportation (15%). For freshwater eutrophication, fertilizer application in the plantation stage contributes 72% of the total. In concrete, cement production dominates all categories.</p><h4>Sensitivity Analysis</h4><p>Table 3 shows the effect of varying transportation distance, adhesive type, and end-of-life scenario on net GWP for eucalyptus CLT. Increasing transport distance from 50 to 500 km raises net GWP from -92 to -78 kg CO<sub>2</sub> eq/m². Switching from PUR to MUF adhesive increases GWP by 12%. Changing end-of-life from incineration-dominated to landfill-dominated reduces net GWP (more negative) by 8% because less biogenic carbon is released.</p><figure class="table-figure"><table><thead><tr><th>Scenario</th><th>Net GWP (kg CO<sub>2</sub> eq/m² GFA)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Baseline (PUR, 200 km, 70% incineration)</td><td>-87</td></tr><tr><td>Transport 50 km</td><td>-92</td></tr><tr><td>Transport 500 km</td><td>-78</td></tr><tr><td>MUF adhesive</td><td>-77</td></tr><tr><td>70% landfill end-of-life</td><td>-94</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption>Table 3. Sensitivity analysis results for eucalyptus CLT net GWP.</figcaption></figure>
<h2>Discussion</h2>
<p>The results demonstrate that CLT from fast-growing plantation species can achieve net negative GWP over a 50-year building lifespan, primarily due to biogenic carbon storage. This finding aligns with studies that emphasize the climate mitigation potential of timber buildings (Pomponi et al., 2020; D’Amico et al., 2020), but it also highlights the importance of rotation length. Fast-growing species sequester carbon more quickly, making them advantageous for near-term climate goals compared with slow-growing softwoods (Russell & Kumar, 2017). However, the higher eutrophication and ecotoxicity impacts from fertilizer use are a concern, echoing findings by Chen et al. (2019) and Sultana et al. (2022). These impacts could be mitigated through precision agriculture and reduced fertilizer application rates.</p><p>The sensitivity analysis reveals that transportation distance has a moderate effect on GWP, consistent with Hemmati et al. (2021). For tropical regions where plantations are often located near processing facilities, transport distances can be kept low, preserving the carbon benefit. Adhesive type is another critical factor; bio-based adhesives could further reduce impacts (Lestari, 2017), but they were not tested in this study. End-of-life assumptions significantly affect the carbon balance; incineration with energy recovery is common in Europe but less so in Brazil, where landfill is prevalent. The sensitivity scenario shows that landfill-dominated disposal improves net GWP due to slower decomposition, though methane emissions from anaerobic decay could offset this benefit if not captured (Zibell et al., 2021).</p><p>Comparison with other studies is complicated by methodological differences. Robertson et al. (2012) reported a net GWP of 180 kg CO<sub>2</sub> eq/m² for a concrete building (similar to our 320, but with different functional unit and system boundaries). Liu et al. (2016) found CLT buildings to have 30% lower GWP than concrete, while our results show 42–58% reduction, likely because of the biogenic credit from fast-growing species. Jayalath et al. (2020) reported a 13–26% reduction for Australian CLT buildings, which is lower than our findings, possibly due to different electricity grids and transport distances.</p><p>The mechanical performance of fast-growing species CLT has been validated by Corpataux et al. (2020) and Bhkari et al. (2022), but long-term durability and moisture performance remain understudied. Ilgın and Karjalainen (2023) noted that Finnish experts perceive CLT as having good potential but cite lack of design guidance for non-softwood species. Regulatory barriers in Brazil and other tropical countries also limit adoption (Almeida et al., 2021).</p><p>Limitations of this study include the use of a single pilot plant for manufacturing data, which may not represent large-scale production efficiencies. Additionally, the LCA did not include operational energy savings from CLT's thermal mass, which could further reduce impacts (Shin et al., 2023). The end-of-life scenario assumed uniform waste treatment, but actual practices vary. Future research should incorporate dynamic carbon accounting and explore cascading use of CLT at end-of-life (Dalton et al., 2023).</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>This study presents the first comprehensive cradle-to-grave LCA of CLT manufactured from fast-growing plantation species (<em>Eucalyptus grandis</em> and <em>Acacia mangium</em>) for mid-rise residential construction in a tropical context. The main conclusions are:</p><ul><li>Fast-growing CLT achieves net negative GWP (−87 and −63 kg CO<sub>2</sub> eq/m² GFA for eucalyptus and acacia, respectively) over a 50-year lifespan, outperforming softwood CLT (15 kg CO<sub>2</sub> eq/m²) and reinforced concrete (320 kg CO<sub>2</sub> eq/m²).</li><li>However, eutrophication and ecotoxicity impacts are higher for plantation CLT due to fertilizer use, warranting improved agricultural practices.</li><li>Transportation distance and adhesive type are significant sensitivity factors; keeping supply chains local and using bio-based adhesives can enhance environmental performance.</li><li>End-of-life assumptions strongly influence net GWP; landfill-dominated disposal yields more negative GWP but may raise methane concerns.</li></ul><p>These findings support the use of fast-growing plantation species as a viable low-carbon structural material for mid-rise buildings, particularly in tropical regions where such plantations are abundant. Policy measures should incentivize sustainable plantation management and the development of bio-based adhesives to maximize the climate benefits of CLT.</p>
<h2>References</h2>
<ol class="references">
<li>Liu, Y., Guo, H., Sun, C., Chang, W. (2016). Assessing Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) as an Alternative Material for Mid-Rise Residential Buildings in Cold Regions in China—A Life-Cycle Assessment Approach. <em>Sustainability</em>, <em>8</em>(10), 1047. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8101047</li>
<li>Corpataux, L., Okuda, S., Kua, H. W. (2020). Panel and plate properties of Cross-laminated timber (CLT) with tropical fast-growing timber species in compliance with Eurocode 5. <em>Construction and Building Materials</em>, <em>261</em>, 119672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119672</li>
<li>Khaliullin, D. I. (2023). COMPARATIVE LCA/LCC ANALYSIS (LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT / LIFE CYCLE COSTING) OF LOW-RISE CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES: TIMBER (CLT/LVL), AUTOCLAVED AERATED CONCRETE, WOOD FRAME, AND BRICK. <em>EKONOMIKA I UPRAVLENIE: PROBLEMY, RESHENIYA</em>, <em>1/6</em>(133), 58-69. https://doi.org/10.36871/ek.up.p.r.2023.01.06.007</li>
<li>Robertson, A. B., Lam, F. C. F., Cole, R. J. (2012). A Comparative Cradle-to-Gate Life Cycle Assessment of Mid-Rise Office Building Construction Alternatives: Laminated Timber or Reinforced Concrete. <em>Buildings</em>, <em>2</em>(3), 245-270. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings2030245</li>
<li>Wen, J., Xiao, Y. (2023). The flexural behavior of cross laminated bamboo and timber (CLBT) and cross laminated timber (CLT) beams. <em>Construction and Building Materials</em>, <em>408</em>, 133739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.133739</li>
<li>Almeida, A. C. d., Silva, R. D., Moura, J. D. d. M. (2021). Potencial de implantação do sistema construtivo Cross Laminated Timber – CLT no Brasil/ Potential for implementing the Cross Laminated Timber – CLT construction system in Brazil. <em>Brazilian Journal of Development</em>, <em>7</em>(6), 57607-57619. https://doi.org/10.34117/bjdv7n6-253</li>
<li>Lestari, R. Y. (2017). CLT (Cross Laminated Timber): Produksi, Karakteristik dan Perkembangannya (CLT (Cross Laminated Timber): Production, Characteristics and Development). <em>Jurnal Riset Industri Hasil Hutan</em>, <em>9</em>(1), 41-55. https://doi.org/10.24111/jrihh.v9i1.3126</li>
<li>Jayalath, A., Navaratnam, S., Ngo, T., Mendis, P., Hewson, N., Aye, L. (2020). Life cycle performance of Cross Laminated Timber mid-rise residential buildings in Australia. <em>Energy and Buildings</em>, <em>223</em>, 110091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110091</li>
<li>Ilgın, H. E., Karjalainen, M. (2023). Insights from Finnish Experts on the Construction Practices and Future Prospects of Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT). <em>Forests</em>, <em>15</em>(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.3390/f15010031</li>
<li>Mohamad Bhkari, N., Wei Chen, L., Azmi, A., Shaiful Nordin, M., Wong Shew Yam, N., Ahmad, Z. (2022). Bending, Compression and Bonding Performance of Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) Made from Malaysian Fast-Growing Timbers. <em>Journal of Renewable Materials</em>, <em>10</em>(11), 2851-2869. https://doi.org/10.32604/jrm.2022.022326</li>
<li>Younis, A., Dodoo, A. (2022). Cross-laminated timber for building construction: A life-cycle-assessment overview. <em>Journal of Building Engineering</em>, <em>52</em>, 104482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104482</li>
<li>Gilbert, B., Skitmore, M., Ali, Y., Gray, J. (2020). Key Considerations of Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) For High-rise Construction In Australia: A Review. <em>Journal of Real Estate, Construction & Management</em>, <em>35</em>(1), 70-81. https://doi.org/10.1177/2977657020200107</li>
<li>Allan, K., Phillips, A. R. (2021). Comparative Cradle-to-Grave Life Cycle Assessment of Low and Mid-Rise Mass Timber Buildings with Equivalent Structural Steel Alternatives. <em>Sustainability</em>, <em>13</em>(6), 3401. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063401</li>
<li>Shin, B., Chang, S. J., Wi, S., Kim, S. (2023). Estimation of energy demand and greenhouse gas emission reduction effect of cross-laminated timber (CLT) hybrid wall using life cycle assessment for urban residential planning. <em>Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews</em>, <em>185</em>, 113604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113604</li>
<li>Wieruszewski, M., Mazela, B. (2017). Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) as an Alternative Form of Construction Wood. <em>Drvna industrija</em>, <em>68</em>(4), 359-367. https://doi.org/10.5552/drind.2017.1728</li>
<li>Hemmati, M., Messadi, T., Gu, H. (2021). Life Cycle Assessment of Cross-Laminated Timber Transportation from Three Origin Points. <em>Sustainability</em>, <em>14</em>(1), 336. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010336</li>
<li>Tran, D. K., Jeong, G. Y. (2021). Effects of wood species, connection system, and wall-support interface type on cyclic behaviors of cross-laminated timber (CLT) walls under lateral loads. <em>Construction and Building Materials</em>, <em>280</em>, 122450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122450</li>
<li>Llana, D. F., González-Alegre, V., Portela, M., Íñiguez-González, G. (2022). Cross Laminated Timber (CLT) manufactured with European oak recovered from demolition: Structural properties and non-destructive evaluation. <em>Construction and Building Materials</em>, <em>339</em>, 127635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.127635</li>
<li>Chen, C. X., Pierobon, F., Ganguly, I. (2019). Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) Produced in Western Washington: The Role of Logistics and Wood Species Mix. <em>Sustainability</em>, <em>11</em>(5), 1278. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051278</li>
<li>Nero, R., Christopher, P., Ngo, T. (2022). Investigation of rolling shear properties of cross-laminated timber (CLT) and comparison of experimental approaches. <em>Construction and Building Materials</em>, <em>316</em>, 125897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125897</li>
<li>Adhikari, S., Quesada, H., Bond, B. (2023). Design and Evaluation of a Shear Analogy Tool for Custom Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) Panels Made from Various Wood Species. <em>Forest Products Journal</em>, <em>73</em>(4), 293-300. https://doi.org/10.13073/fpj-d-23-00022</li>
<li>Pomponi, F., Hart, J., Arehart, J. H., D’Amico, B. (2020). Buildings as a Global Carbon Sink? A Reality Check on Feasibility Limits. <em>One Earth</em>, <em>3</em>(2), 157-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.07.018</li>
<li>D’Amico, B., Pomponi, F., Hart, J. (2020). Global potential for material substitution in building construction: The case of cross laminated timber. <em>Journal of Cleaner Production</em>, <em>279</em>, 123487-123487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123487</li>
<li>GALIH, N. M., Yang, S. M., YU, S. M., Kang, S. G. (2020). Study on the Mechanical Properties of Tropical Hybrid Cross Laminated Timber Using Bamboo Laminated Board as Core Layer. <em>Journal of the Korean Wood Science and Technology</em>, <em>48</em>(2), 245-252. https://doi.org/10.5658/wood.2020.48.2.245</li>
<li>Sultana, R., Rashedi, A., Khanam, T., Jeong, B., Hosseinzadeh‐Bandbafha, H., Hussain, M. (2022). Life Cycle Environmental Sustainability and Energy Assessment of Timber Wall Construction: A Comprehensive Overview. <em>Sustainability</em>, <em>14</em>(7), 4161-4161. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074161</li>
<li>Russell, A. E., Kumar, B. M. (2017). Forestry for a Low-Carbon Future: Integrating Forests and Wood Products Into Climate Change Strategies. <em>Environment Science and Policy for Sustainable Development</em>, <em>59</em>(2), 16-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2017.1274580</li>
<li>Song, D., Kim, K. (2023). Influence of Composition of Layer Layout on Bending and Compression Strength Performance of Larix Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT). <em>Journal of the Korean Wood Science and Technology</em>, <em>51</em>(4), 239-252. https://doi.org/10.5658/wood.2023.51.4.239</li>
<li>Kavanagh, P. (2016). A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment for Utilising Laminated Veneer Bamboo as a Primary Structural Material in High-Rise Residential Buildings. <em>Arrow - TU Dublin (Technological University Dublin)</em>. https://doi.org/10.21427/d7jk69</li>
<li>Dalton, T., Dorignon, L., Boehme, T., Kempton, L., Iyer‐Raniga, U., Oswald, D. (2023). Building materials in a circular economy. <em>AHURI Final Report</em>(402). https://doi.org/10.18408/ahuri5328401</li>
<li>Zibell, L., Bolscher, H., Beznea, A., Finesso, A., Forestier, O., Hereford, J. (2021). Evaluation of the climate benefits of the use of harvested wood products in the construction sector and assessment of remuneration schemes. <em>Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling</em>. https://doi.org/10.2834/421958</li>
</ol>
</article>