Quantifying the greenhouse benefits of the use of wood products in two popular house designs in Sydney, Australia



As the average wood products usage per unit of floor area in Australia has decreased significantly over time, there is potential for increased greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation benefits through an increased use of wood products in buildings. This study determined the GHG outcomes of the extraction, manufacture, transport, use in construction, maintenance and disposal of wood products and other building materials for two popular house designs in Sydney, Australia.


The life cycle assessment (LCA) was undertaken using the computer model SimaPro 7.1, with the functional unit being the supply of base building elements for domestic houses in Sydney and its subsequent use over a 50-year period. The key data libraries used were the Australian Life Cycle Inventory library, the ecoinvent library (with data adapted to Australian circumstances where appropriate) and data for timber production from an Australian study for a range of Australian forestry production systems and wood products. Two construction variations were assessed: the original intended construction, and a “timber-maximised” alternative. The indicator assessed was global warming, as the focus was on GHG emissions, and the effect of timber production, use and disposal on the fate of carbon.

Results and discussion

The timber maximised design resulted in approximately half the GHG emissions associated with the base designs. The sub-floor had the largest greenhouse impact due to the concrete components, followed by the walls due to the usage of bricks. The use of a “timber maximised” design offset between 23 and 25 % of the total operational energy of the houses. Inclusion of carbon storage in landfill made a very significant difference to GHG outcomes, equivalent to 40–60 % of total house GHG emissions. The most beneficial options for disposal from a GHG perspective were landfill and incineration with energy recovery.


The study showed that significant GHG emission savings were achieved by optimising the use of wood products for two common house designs in Sydney. The switch of the sub-floor and floor covering components to a “wood” option accounted for most of the GHG savings. Inclusion of end of life parameters significantly impacted on the outcomes of the study.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15


  1. BIS Shrapnel (2008) Sawn timber in Australia 2008–2022. BIS Shrapnel Forestry Group, June 2008

  2. Buchanan AH, Levine SB (1999) Wood-based building materials and atmospheric carbon emissions. Environ Sci Pol 2:427–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Carre A (2011) A comparative life cycle assessment of alternative constructions of a typical Australian house design. Report prepared for Forests and Wood Products Australia, PNA147-0809. March 2011

  4. Carre A, Jones I, Bontinck P, Di-Mauro Hayes, G (2009) Extended environmental benefits of recycling (EEBR) Project, Final report. Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC), Sustainability Programs Division, New South Wales

  5. Cement Industry Federation (2005) Annual report on the Cement Industry Federation ("CIF") Greenhouse Energy Management System (“GEMS”) Program—Year Ended 30 June 2004, Manuka

  6. CIE (2007) Capitalising on the building sector’s potential to lessen the costs of a broad based GHG emissions cut. Report prepared for ASBEC Climate Change Task Group. Center for International Economics, September 2007

  7. CSIRO (2011) http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Flagships/Energy-Transformed-Flagship/AccuRate.aspx

  8. Department of Climate Change (2008) National Greenhouse Accounts (NGA) Factors. Commonwealth of Australia

  9. Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (DCCEE) (2010) Review of the NGER (Measurement) Determination. Discussion Paper, Commonwealth of Australia, August 2010

  10. Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (DCCEE) (2011). Australian National Greenhouse Accounts. National Inventory Report 2009. Vol. 3. The Australian Government Submission to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change April 2011

  11. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2008) National Pollutant Inventory. Emission estimation technique manual for combustion in boilers. Version 3.1. Commonwealth of Australia

  12. Dijkgraaf E, Vollebergh HRJ (2004) Burn or bury? A social cost comparison of final waste disposal methods. Ecol Econ 50:233–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dimova C (1998a) Life cycle inventory data production of Portland cement and concrete (Readymix) in Australia—Draft Report. CRC for Waste Management and Pollution Control and Centre for Design at. RMIT, Kensington

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dimova C (1998b) Life cycle inventory data production of steel tinplate in Australia. CRC for Waste Management and Pollution Control and Centre for Design at RMIT, Kensington

    Google Scholar 

  15. ecoinvent Centre (2007) ecoinvent data version 2.0, Overview and Methodology. ecoinvent Report No. 1. Dübendorf, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories

  16. El Hanandeh A, El-Zein A (2009) Strategies for the municipal waste management system to take advantage of carbon trading under competing policies: the role of energy from waste in Sydney. Waste Manage 29:2188–2194

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Gustavsson L, Joelsson A (2010) Life cycle primary energy analysis of residential buildings. Energ Buildings 42:210–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gustavsson L, Pingoud K, Sathre R (2006) Carbon dioxide balance of wood substitution: comparing concrete and woodframed buildings. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 11(3):667–691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hauschild M, Olsen SI, Hansen E, Schmidt A (2008) Gone…but not away—addressing the problem of long-term impacts from landfills in LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:547–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. HIA (Housing Industry Association) (2008) Housing 100 2006/07—Australia's largest home builders and residential developers. HIA Economics group, ACT

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hyder Consulting (2010) Comparative Greenhouse Gas Life Cycle Assessment of Wollert Landfill. Report prepared for Hanson Landfill Services and the City of Whittlesea. Melbourne, VIC, Australia

  22. Lippke B, Oneil E, Harrison R, Skog K, Gustavsson L, Sathre R (2011) Life cycle impacts of forest management and wood utilisation on carbon mitigation; knowns and unknowns. Carbon Mitig 2(3):303–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Manfredi S, Christensen TH (2009) Environmental assessment of solid waste landfilling technologies by means of LCA-modeling. Waste Man 29:32–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. May B, England JR, Raison JR, Paul KI (2011) Cradle-to-gate inventory of wood production from Australian softwood plantations and native hardwood forests: embodied energy, water use and other inputs. Forest Ecol Manage 264:37–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. McLennan Magasanik Associates (1991) Energy usage in timber framing. Report to the National Association of Forest Industries, Australia

  26. McLennan Magasanik Associates (2010) Climate change and the resource recovery and waste Sectors. A report prepared for the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, April 2010

  27. Penman T, Law B, Ximenes F (2010) A proposal for accounting for biodiversity in life cycle assessment. Biodiver Conserv 19:3245–3254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Perez-Garcia J, Lippke B, Briggs D, Wilson JB, Boyer J, Meil J (2005) The environmental performance of renewable building materials in the context of residential construction. Wood Fiber Sci 37:3–17

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Petersen AK, Solberg B (2004) GHG emissions and costs over the life cycle of wood and alternative flooring materials. Clim Chang 64:143–167

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. ROU (2006) Life cycle inventory and life cycle assessment for windrow composting systems. Recycled Organics Unit, University of New South Wales. Report prepared for the Department of Environment and Conservation NSW

  31. Salazar J, Meil J (2009) Prospects for carbon-neutral housing: the influence of greater wood use on the carbon footprint of a single-family residence. J Clean Prod 17(17):1563–1571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sathre RJ, O’Connor J (2010) Meta-analysis of greenhouse gas displacement factors of wood product substitution. Environ Sci Pol 13:104–114

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Strezov L, Herbertson J (2006) A life cycle perspective on steel building materials. Australian Steel Institute, Newcastle

    Google Scholar 

  34. Tucker S, Tharumarajah A, May B, England J, Paul K, Hall M, Mitchell P, Rouwette R, Seo S, Syme M (2009) Life cycle inventory of Australian forests and wood products. FWPA Report, Project No. PNA008-0708

  35. UNEP (2007) Buildings and climate change: status, challenges and opportunities. United Nations Environment Program, http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx0916xPA-BuildingsClimate.pdf

  36. Upton B, Miner R, Spinney M (2006) Energy and GHG impacts of substituting wood products for non-wood alternatives in residential construction in the United States. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Technical Bulletin No. 925, November 2006

  37. US EPA (2006) Solid waste management and greenhouse gases. A life cycle assessment of emissions and sinks, 3rd Edition, September 2006

  38. US EPA (2011) Reducing GHG emissions through recycling and composting. EPA 910-R-11-003. May 2011 http://www.epa.gov/region10/pdf/climate/wccmmf/Reducing_GHGs_through_Recycling_and_Composting.pdf

  39. Ximenes FA, Gardner WD (2005) Production and use of forest products in Australia. Forest Resources Research—NSW Department of Primary Industries Technical Paper No. 71

  40. Ximenes FA, Gardner WD, Cowie A (2008a) The decomposition of wood products in landfills in Sydney, Australia. Waste Manage 28(11):2344–2354

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Ximenes FA, Kapambwe M, Keenan R (2008b) Timber use in residential construction and demolition. BEDP Environ Design Guide, November, PRO36

  42. Wang X, Padgett JM, De la Cruz FB, Barlaz MA (2011) Wood biodegradation in laboratory-scale landfills. Environ Sci Technol 45(16):6864–6871

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references


The NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change provided the financial support required to undertake this study. The authors would like to thank Masterton Homes (Mr. Garry Mercer and Mr. Leigh Thompson), for their willingness to participate in the project and patience in providing all the required data. We thank Paul Brooks (NSW DPI) for his assistance with the data collection. Robert Porter (Bradnams), Noel Keating (Canterbury Windows and Doors), Patricia Summer (Bunnings Warehouse) and Wayne Breenan (SteelinHome) provided valuable additional information. The authors are grateful to Mirella Blasi for her assistance with the paper editing, and to Professor Annette Cowie (University of New England) and Mr. Stephen Mitchell (NSW Timber Development Association) for their very helpful comments and suggestions.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabiano A. Ximenes.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Barbara Nebel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ximenes, F.A., Grant, T. Quantifying the greenhouse benefits of the use of wood products in two popular house designs in Sydney, Australia. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18, 891–908 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0533-5

Download citation


  • Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG)
  • Wood
  • House
  • Carbon
  • LCA
  • Landfill