文献类型：期刊文献

英文题名：Life Cycle Assessment with Carbon Footprint Analysis in Glulam Buildings: A Review

作者：Liu, Ruijing[1,2] Yao, Lihong[1,2] Gong, Yingchun[3] Wang, Zhen[1,2]

第一作者：Liu, Ruijing

通信作者：Yao, LH[1];Yao, LH[2]

机构：[1]Inner Mongolia Agr Univ, Coll Mat Sci & Art Design, Hohhot 010018, Peoples R China;[2]Russia Mongolia Imported Wood Proc & Utilizat Engn Technol Res Ctr, Hohhot 010018, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, Peoples R China;[3]Chinese Acad Forestry, Res Inst Wood Ind, Beijing 100091, Peoples R China

年份：2025

卷号：15

期号：12

外文期刊名：BUILDINGS

收录：;EI(收录号：20252618679641);Scopus(收录号：2-s2.0-105009076089);WOS:【SCI-EXPANDED(收录号:WOS:001516159100001)】；

基金：This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 32360356.

语种：英文

外文关键词：glulam buildings; life cycle assessment; sustainability; carbon footprint disparities

摘要：This study provides a bibliometric analysis of life cycle assessments (LCAs) to explore the sustainability potential of mass timber buildings, focusing on glulam. The analysis highlights regional differences in carbon footprint performance within the ISO 14040 and EN 15978 frameworks. LCA results from representative countries across six continents show that wood buildings, compared to traditional materials, have a reduced carbon footprint. The geographical distribution of forest resources significantly influences the carbon footprint of glulam production. Europe and North America demonstrate optimal performance metrics (e.g., carbon sequestration), attributable to advanced technology and investment in long-term sustainable forest management. Our review research shows the lowest glulam carbon footprints (28-70% lower than traditional materials) due to clean energy and sustainable practices. In contrast, Asia and Africa exhibit systemic deficits, driven by resource scarcity, climatic stressors, and land-use pressures. South America and Oceania display transitional dynamics, with heterogeneous outcomes influenced by localized deforestation trends and conservation efficacy. Glulam buildings outperformed concrete and steel across 11-18 environmental categories, with carbon storage offsetting 30-47% of emissions and energy mixes cutting operational impacts by up to 67%. Circular strategies like recycling and prefabrication reduced end-of-life emissions by 12-29% and cut construction time and costs. Social benefits included job creation (e.g., 1 million in the EU) and improved well-being in wooden interiors. To further reduce carbon footprint disparities, this study emphasizes sustainable forest management, longer building lifespans, optimized energy mixes, shorter transport distances, advanced production technologies, and improved recycling systems. Additionally, the circular economy and social benefits of glulam buildings, such as reduced construction costs, value recovery, and job creation, are highlighted. In the future, prioritizing equitable partnerships and enhancing international exchanges of technical expertise will facilitate the adoption of sustainable practices in glulam buildings and advance decarbonization goals in the global building sector.