Under review — the register is reading the literature and will publish a conclusion once directional evidence has been indexed.
The published record broadly agrees with this. The evidence is still too thin to lean on for a decision.
This sentence is generated from the same numbers shown below — consensus share, confidence band and the number of indexed studies. Open any section to see exactly how it was reached.
Version 14 · WI-EV v1.2.0 · last swept 2026-10-14
57
0–100, rule-based
Low confidence
Too few, too old or too conflicting sources to specify from.
100%
6 support · 0 contradict · 18 relevant – no direction · 6 directional
24
2001–2026
Confidence is limited most by volume of evidence (4/30).
Nothing here is hidden — it is folded, so the answer stays readable. Open any section to see exactly how the numbers were produced.
6 directional studies, weighted by grade.
Mean evidence grade 49/100 across the pool.
100% of weighted directional evidence agrees.
71% published in peer-reviewed venues.
Median publication year 2023.
75% resolvable by DOI and independently checkable.
No direct contradictions in the indexed pool. That is not the same as agreement — it can also mean too few directional studies have been published to disagree yet.
| Year | Published | Cumulative | Support | Contradict | Consensus |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0% |
| 2012 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0% |
| 2016 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0% |
| 2018 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 100% |
| 2021 | 5 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 100% |
| 2022 | 2 | 11 | 2 | 0 | 100% |
| 2023 | 2 | 13 | 2 | 0 | 100% |
| 2024 | 3 | 16 | 3 | 0 | 100% |
| 2025 | 5 | 21 | 4 | 0 | 100% |
| 2026 | 3 | 24 | 6 | 0 | 100% |
A Summary of Life‐cycle Assessment Focusing on Embodied Carbon of Steel, Timber, and Concrete
2026 · Life Cycle Driven Structures · doi:10.1002/9781394300556.ch02
The title concerns embodied carbon of timber, steel, and concrete but states no comparative finding.
Stance not stated in abstract
Judged from abstract
Grade D · 0 citations
Not peer-reviewed
William Horan, David Styles, Song Ge et al. · 2026 · Building and Environment · doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2026.115158
Timber-frame walls have a positive mean greenhouse gas displacement factor, predominantly contributed by module A.
Supports
Judged from abstract
Grade C · 0 citations
Peer-reviewed
Șerban Chivulescu, Gheorghe Raul Radu, Diana Pitar et al. · 2026 · Annals of Forest Research · doi:10.15287/afr.2026.4342
The review identifies timber substitution as a significant climate-mitigation opportunity.
Supports
Judged from abstract
Grade C · 0 citations
Peer-reviewed
Maryam Jafari, Hugo Caruso, Luca Sgambi · 2025 · IABSE Congress Reports · doi:10.2749/ghent.2025.2423
Replacing part of the concrete structure with CLT frames reduced the building's embodied greenhouse-gas emissions.
Supports
Judged from abstract
Grade D · 0 citations
Not peer-reviewed
Habert, Guillaume, Pittau, Francesco, Arrigoni, A. et al. · 2025 · DataCite MDS · doi:10.3929/ETHZ-B-000370482
The study investigates replacing conventional materials with timber but reports no life-cycle assessment result.
Stance not stated in abstract
Judged from abstract
Grade D · 0 citations
Not peer-reviewed
SPOLAOR, FABIOLA, Moreno, Bruno, neri, elena et al. · 2025 · Science of the Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2025.179030
The abstract discusses engineered timber mitigation and methodological limitations without reporting a comparative greenhouse gas result.
Stance not stated in abstract
Judged from abstract
Grade D · 0 citations
Not peer-reviewed
Mingjiao Liu · 2025 · Journal of Architectural Research and Development · doi:10.26689/jard.v9i3.10648
Wood reduced whole-life greenhouse-gas emissions versus steel and concrete, but cradle-to-gate emissions were not separately established.
Stance not stated in abstract
Judged from abstract
Grade C · 2 citations
Peer-reviewed
Maryam Jafari · 2025 · International Multidisciplinary Research Journal · doi:10.47722/imrj.2001.38
The study compares CLT, concrete, and steel slabs but the truncated abstract reports no greenhouse-gas outcome.
Stance not stated in abstract
Judged from abstract
Grade B · 1 citations
Peer-reviewed
Vaibhav Kumar, Marco Lo Ricco, R. Bergman et al. · 2024 · Building and Environment · doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111195
The title indicates a comparative building impact assessment but reports no directional greenhouse-gas result.
Stance not stated in abstract
Judged from abstract
Grade B · 55 citations
Peer-reviewed
Life Cycle Assessment and Cost Analysis of Mid-Rise Mass Timber vs. Concrete Buildings in Australia
Riley Jolly, Holly Fairweather, Scott Rayburg et al. · 2024 · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16156465
The cradle-to-cradle assessment objective is described, but no comparative global-warming result is provided.
Stance not stated in abstract
Judged from abstract
Grade B · 13 citations
Peer-reviewed
H. Eslami, Alireza Yaghma, L. B. Jayasinghe et al. · 2024 · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26083
Full text: The stage-by-stage results in Fig. 14a show lower production/construction-stage GWP for the timber house; the full cradle-to-grave comparison also finds substantially lower GWP. — “The GWP of the concrete building is 77.1% higher than the timber building.”
Supports
Judged from full text
Grade B · 17 citations
Peer-reviewed
Life Cycle Assessment of the Construction Process in a Mass Timber Structure
Mahboobeh Hemmati, Tahar Messadi, Hongmei Gu · 2023 · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16010262
The study assesses construction emissions for mass timber but provides no comparison with mineral structural alternatives.
Stance not stated in abstract
Judged from abstract
Grade B · 16 citations
Peer-reviewed
Giacomo Di Ruocco, Angela Gaita · 2023 · Buildings · doi:10.3390/buildings13071722
The study investigates timber carbon storage during pre-use phases without reporting a comparison against mineral structural materials.
Stance not stated in abstract
Judged from abstract
Grade B · 5 citations
Peer-reviewed
Myllyviita T, Hurmekoski E, Kunttu J · 2022 · doi:10.1186/s13021-022-00205-x
Full text: Most modeled Nordic wood-frame buildings had lower manufacturing-stage fossil GHG emissions than comparable concrete/steel buildings, though results varied and some cases increased emissions. — “The majority of DFs were positive, implying decreasing fossil GHG emissions when a wooden house is built instead of an alternative house based on a greater use of concrete and steel.”
Supports
Judged from full text
Grade C · 1 citations
Peer-reviewed
O. Hegeir, T. Kvande, H. Stamatopoulos et al. · 2022 · Buildings · doi:10.3390/buildings12050573
The cradle-to-gate comparison is described, but the truncated abstract provides no comparative emissions finding.
Stance not stated in abstract
Judged from abstract
Grade C · 36 citations
Not peer-reviewed
W. Hawkins, S. Cooper, S. Allen et al. · 2021 · doi:10.1016/J.ISTRUC.2020.12.013
The title identifies an embodied-carbon comparison among concrete, steel, and timber structures without stating its outcome.
Stance not stated in abstract
Judged from abstract
Grade C · 97 citations
Not peer-reviewed
Julie Hansted Andersen, Nana Lin Rasmussen, Morten Ryberg · 2021 · Energy and Buildings · doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111604
CLT had lower whole-life global warming impact, but the study does not report a cradle-to-gate finding.
Stance not stated in abstract
Judged from abstract
Grade A · 125 citations
Peer-reviewed
Cindy X. Chen, Francesca Pierobon, S. Jones et al. · 2021 · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su14010144
The abstract motivates comparing mass timber and concrete but is truncated before any emissions result or system boundary.
Stance not stated in abstract
Judged from abstract
Grade B · 73 citations
Peer-reviewed
Roynon, Jonathan, University of Bath, Ibell, Tim et al. · 2021 · DataCite MDS · doi:10.15125/BATH-00908
The dataset compares embodied carbon of concrete, steel, and timber structures but states no comparative outcome.
Stance not stated in abstract
Judged from abstract
Grade D · 2 citations
Not peer-reviewed
Whole‐life embodied carbon in multistory buildings: Steel, concrete and timber structures
Jim Hart, Bernardino D’Amico, Francesco Pomponi · 2021 · Journal of Industrial Ecology · doi:10.1111/jiec.13139
The study compares whole-life embodied carbon across structural materials, but the abstract provides no directional result.
Stance not stated in abstract
Judged from abstract
Grade A · 219 citations
Peer-reviewed
Kalt, Gerald · 2018 · Carbon Management · doi:10.1080/17583004.2018.1469948
Full text: The analysis assigns lower production and end-of-life GHG emissions to wood buildings than functionally equivalent conventional buildings, estimating positive material-substitution savings. — “The default value assumed in the above calculations (100 kg CO 2 -eq./m 2 gross floor space) is considered a good estimate for typical savings from material substitution.”
Supports
Judged from full text
Grade C · 0 citations
Peer-reviewed
Fernando Martínez Soriano, Oscar Liébana Carrasco, Natalia González Pericot et al. · 2016 · International Journal of Sciences: Basic and applied research
The study benchmarks cross-laminated timber against concrete reinforcement but provides no emissions result.
Stance not stated in abstract
Judged from abstract
Grade C · 0 citations
Peer-reviewed
Adam Blake Robertson, Frank Lam, Raymond J. Cole · 2012 · Buildings · doi:10.3390/buildings2030245
The cradle-to-site-gate timber and concrete designs are compared, but the truncated abstract reports no outcome.
Stance not stated in abstract
Judged from abstract
Grade B · 238 citations
Peer-reviewed
2001 · Fuel and Energy Abstracts · doi:10.1016/s0140-6701(01)80682-2
The title compares wood and concrete greenhouse gas balances but reports no directional result.
Stance not stated in abstract
Judged from abstract
Grade D · 0 citations
Peer-reviewed
Greenhouse gas implications of mobilizing agricultural biomass for energy: a reassessment of global potentials in 2050 under different food-system pathways
The study concerns mobilizing agricultural biomass for energy under food-system pathways, not structural material substitution.
Classifier · WI-EV v1.2.0 · 2026-10-12
doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab6c2e
Can we make it? Prospective Life Cycle Assessment of building structures
No wood-domain term (wood, timber, lumber, softwood, hardwood, cladding or a species name) in title or abstract.
Wood-domain rule · WI-EV v1.2.0 · 2026-10-12
Greenhouse Gas Life Cycle Emissions Assessment Model (GLEAM) Model Documentation
No wood-domain term (wood, timber, lumber, softwood, hardwood, cladding or a species name) in title or abstract.
Wood-domain rule · WI-EV v1.2.0 · 2026-10-12
doi:10.66816/tp2557174
The Life-Cycle Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Life-Cycle Costs of E-Waste Management in Thailand
No wood-domain term (wood, timber, lumber, softwood, hardwood, cladding or a species name) in title or abstract.
Wood-domain rule · WI-EV v1.2.0 · 2026-10-12
doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-960294/v1
Life Cycle Analysis of Bipv Façades - Dynamic Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Along the Life Cycle
No wood-domain term (wood, timber, lumber, softwood, hardwood, cladding or a species name) in title or abstract.
Wood-domain rule · WI-EV v1.2.0 · 2026-10-12
doi:10.2139/ssrn.4793729
Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services
No wood-domain term (wood, timber, lumber, softwood, hardwood, cladding or a species name) in title or abstract.
Wood-domain rule · WI-EV v1.2.0 · 2026-10-12
doi:10.3403/30227173
Comparison of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction of timber, concrete, and steel check dams in Akita, Japan: An input-output analysis.
The comparison concerns check dams rather than buildings.
Classifier · WI-EV v1.2.0 · 2026-10-12
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0316153
Decision making process assisted by life cycle assessment: greenhouse gas emission
No wood-domain term (wood, timber, lumber, softwood, hardwood, cladding or a species name) in title or abstract.
Wood-domain rule · WI-EV v1.2.0 · 2026-10-12
doi:10.12972/susb.20170022
Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services
No wood-domain term (wood, timber, lumber, softwood, hardwood, cladding or a species name) in title or abstract.
Wood-domain rule · WI-EV v1.2.0 · 2026-10-12
doi:10.3403/30227173u
The use of substitution in attributional life cycle assessment
No wood-domain term (wood, timber, lumber, softwood, hardwood, cladding or a species name) in title or abstract.
Wood-domain rule · WI-EV v1.2.0 · 2026-10-12
doi:10.1080/20430779.2011.637670
Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of blended cement concrete including carbonation and durability
No wood-domain term (wood, timber, lumber, softwood, hardwood, cladding or a species name) in title or abstract.
Wood-domain rule · WI-EV v1.2.0 · 2026-10-12
doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0614-0
Stance classification is automated and reviewed against each record's own abstract; it is a reading of the literature, not a measurement. The Evidence Score is a rule-based function of indexed metadata under method WI-EV v1.2.0 and does not constitute proof of the statement.
Each claim keeps a permanent URL and a version number. Cite the version you read — earlier conclusions stay visible in the revision history above.
WoodIntel. (2026). Substituting timber for mineral structural materials reduces the cradle-to-gate greenhouse gas emissions of a building. (Evidence Engine WI-EV v1.2.0, claim version 14). Retrieved 2026-10-14, from https://woodintel.io/evidence/wood-carbon-substitution-benefit
@misc{woodintel_wood_carbon_substitution_benefit_2026,
title = {Substituting timber for mineral structural materials reduces the cradle-to-gate greenhouse gas emissions of a building.},
author = {{WoodIntel}},
year = {2026},
note = {Evidence Engine WI-EV v1.2.0, claim version 14, accessed 2026-10-14},
url = {https://woodintel.io/evidence/wood-carbon-substitution-benefit}
}curl https://woodintel.io/api/public/v1/evidence?claim=wood-carbon-substitution-benefit
Returns the score, the indexed studies with stance and grade, the contradictions, the timeline and the full revision history. Open under CC BY 4.0 — API documentation.