Science Supporting 

the Economic and 

Environmental Benefits 

of Using Wood and 

Wood Products in Green 

Building Construction

Michael A. Ritter

Kenneth Skog

Richard Bergman

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Forest

Products

Laboratory

General 

Technical

Report

FPL–GTR–206
December 2011

Ritter, Michael A.; Skog, Kenneth; Bergman, Richard. 2011. Science 

Supporting the Economic and Environmental Benefits of Using Wood and 

Wood Products in Green Building Construction. General Technical Report 

FPL-GTR-206. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 9 p.

A limited number of free copies of this publication are available to the 

public from the Forest Products Laboratory, One Gifford Pinchot Drive, 

Madison, WI 53726–2398. This publication is also available online at 

www.fpl.fs.fed.us. Laboratory publications are sent to hundreds of libraries 

in the United States and elsewhere.

The Forest Products Laboratory is maintained in cooperation with the 

University of Wisconsin. 

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information 

and does not imply endorsement by the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) of any product or service.

The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part 

of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. 

(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities 

who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250–9410, or call (800) 795–3272 

(voice) or (202) 720–6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider 

and employer.

Contents

Executive Summary.............................................................. i

Introduction.......................................................................... 1

Benefits of Wood as a Green Building Material.................. 1

Barriers to Increasing Wood Use as a Green Building 

Material................................................................................ 2

Research and Development Can Advance the Use of 

Wood in Green Buildings..................................................... 2

 Life Cycle Assessment..................................................... 2 

 New Technology .............................................................. 4

 Codes, Rating Systems, and Standards............................ 5

 Education and Technology Transfer ................................ 6

Concluding Remarks and Recommendations...................... 7

Literature Cited ....................................................................8

Abstract

The objective of this report is to summarize the scientific 

findings that support the environmental and economic benefits of using wood and wood products in green building 

construction. Despite documented advantages in many peerreviewed scientific articles, most building professionals and 

members of the public do not recognize wood as a renewable resource or the role that efficient wood utilization plays 

in mitigating climate change and promoting healthy forests. 

Research and development of wood products and building 

systems also are lagging behind that of other materials. Both 

scientific advancement in the areas of life cycle analysis and 

development of new technologies for improved and extended wood utilization are needed to continue to advance wood 

as a green construction material. We provide three research 

and technology transfer recommendations that will allow 

USDA to help to achieve its climate change objectives while 

creating jobs, bolstering the competitive position and longterm economic stability of the industry, and reducing U.S. 

dependence on foreign oil.

Keywords: wood, green building, sustainability, 

environment, life cycle assessment

Cover art used by permission of APA–The Engineered 

Wood Association, American Forest Foundation, and 

Shutterstock.
Executive Summary

The objective of this report is to summarize the scientific 

findings that support the environmental and economic benefits of using wood and wood products in green building 

construction. Wood has been used as a structural material in 

North America for hundreds of years, primarily for singleand multiple-family housing, commercial buildings, and 

transportation structures such as bridges. The market share 

for wood in commercial buildings, such as schools and strip 

malls, has been small compared with that for other materials. Today, a growing awareness of environmental sustainability and a desire on the part of consumers for quality 

building materials at competitive prices could boost markets 

for wood products. 

Use of forest products in the United States now supports 

more than 1 million direct jobs and contributes more than 

$100 billion to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. Forest 

management and sustainable forestry practices have evolved 

and expanded to include the manufacture of wood products 

from small-diameter trees, dead trees, or brush. This returns 

to land managers much-needed revenue to treat ecosystems 

devastated by fire, pathogens, or invasive species. Using 

wood obtained through sustainable forestry practices in 

green building applications promotes a healthy environment 

and a strong economy. Sustainability of forest products can 

be verified using any credible third-party rating system, such 

as Sustainable Forestry Initiative, Forest Stewardship Council, or American Tree Farm System certification.

To take advantage of this win–win opportunity, the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) and other stakeholders must overcome existing misconceptions about wood 

as a green building material and help lead the research and 

development efforts on green building materials. Despite 

documented advantages in many peer-reviewed scientific 

articles, most building professionals and members of the 

public do not recognize wood as a renewable resource or 

the role that efficient wood utilization plays in mitigating 

climate change and promoting healthy forests. Sustainable 

forest management can produce stronger, healthier forests 

that serve as a “carbon sink” to clean air of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and purify drinking water for wildlife and U.S. 

municipal water systems. Harvested trees can find economic 

and societal value in the life cycle of wood products and 

systems for green building construction that further optimize 

benefits to the environment.

A recent life cycle analysis found that harvesting, transporting, manufacturing, and using wood in lumber and panel 

products in building yields fewer air emissions—including 

greenhouse gases—than the resource extraction, manufacture, and use of other common building materials. In fact, 

wood-based wall systems can require significantly less 

total energy for manufacturing than thermally comparable 

wall systems using other materials. Currently, some 

building codes and standards related to green building do 

not consider a life cycle environmental analysis that will 

reveal the environmental advantages of using wood. Greater 

use of life cycle analysis in building codes and standards 

would improve the scientific underpinning of building codes 

and standards and thereby benefit the environment. 

Research and development of wood products and building 

systems also are lagging behind that of other materials. Both 

scientific advancement in the areas of life cycle analysis and 

development of new technologies for improved and extended wood utilization are needed to continue to advance wood 

as a green construction material. 

USDA will take a lead role in advancing wood as a green 

building material through the development and implementation of programs that are publicly relevant and appropriate 

for government. Policy makers, the forest products industry, 

and resource management organizations support a sciencebased approach to outlining the benefits of using wood and 

wood-based products in green building in the United States. 

The inherent benefits of using wood go beyond economic 

gains. Robust markets for green building materials can 

enhance the economic incentives for maintaining privately 

owned forests in forest use—an important consideration 

given continuing concerns regarding loss of forestland to 

development and fragmentation. An “all hands” approach 

by policy makers, government agencies, industry, academia, 

and private landowners will be needed to advance scientific 

knowledge, to bolster development and dissemination of 

new technologies, and to raise awareness and use of wood in 

green buildings. 

In proclaiming 2011 as the International Year of the Forest, 

USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack directed the Forest Service to 

favor wood in new building construction; maintain commitment to certified green building standards; examine ways 

to enhance research and development projects using green 

building materials; and actively work to identify innovative nonresidential construction projects that use wood as 

a green building material. This USDA policy is consistent 

with President Obama’s executive order on Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance. 

“Our country has the resources, the work force, and the innovative spirit to reintroduce wood products into all aspects 

of the next generation of buildings,” said Forest Service 

Chief Tom Tidwell. “As we move forward with restoring 

America’s forests, we are getting smarter and more efficient 

in how we use wood products as both an energy and green 

building source. Our progress in this area will also help 

maintain rural jobs.” 

Three inter-related wood industry initiatives will help further USDA’s climate change mitigation and job creation 

objectives. This latter objective is particularly noteworthy 

i
ii

given the fact that the sector has lost more than one-fourth 

of its work force over the past five years.

Although most people are aware that North American forests help to address climate change by absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the fact that wood products continue to store carbon, thus keeping it out of the atmosphere 

indefinitely, is less well known. Substituting wood products 

for fossil-fuel-intensive alternatives also results in significant amounts of “avoided” GHG emissions. To capitalize on 

wood’s carbon benefits, we recommend that USDA provide 

information on the following projects:

1. Research and development—life cycle assessment: A 

partnership of government, universities, and industry 

is proposed to undertake research needed to support 

widespread recognition of wood’s carbon benefits under 

emerging green building codes, standards, and rating 

schemes. Led by the Green Building Strategy Group, a 

newly established organization composed of industry 

and non-government organizations (NGOs) to advance 

green building, this project includes expanding the library of transparent information available to the industry and public, filling critical gaps for wood products 

in the U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Database, increasing 

acceptance and specification of wood as a green building material through the application of complete and 

current life cycle assessment (LCA) data and tools, and 

increasing technical knowledge of and preference for 

wood products among building science and design/engineering professionals. 

2. Technology transfer—wood use in nonresidential buildings: The WoodWorks program is a North American 

program funded by U.S. and Canadian companies, the 

Forest Service, and some other groups to raise awareness among engineers and architects of the environmental and economic benefits of wood as a green building 

material. The WoodWorks program is nearing the end 

of its three-year pilot phase and has demonstrated that 

education and technology transfer activities aimed at 

design and building professionals, including information on wood’s carbon benefits, can increase the amount 

of wood used in nonresidential structures. The program 

is already supporting more than 450 building conversions, which represent an additional 400 million board 

feet of lumber and 100 million square feet of panels 

(3/8-in. basis). Between the carbon stored in the wood 

products and avoided GHGs, these projects represent 

a carbon savings of 2.2 million metric tons of CO2 

(equivalent). Supporting WoodWorks as a national initiative over the next five years is expected to increase 

these wood volumes to a total of 5.5 billion board feet 

and 3 billion square feet, respectively, which represents 

a carbon savings of over 30 million metric tons of CO2

(or about 6 million cars off the road for a year). Further, 

it is expected to significantly contribute to USDA’s job 

creation objectives. 

3. Technology transfer—carbon and green building benefits of typical wood structures: Working under an established Memorandum of Understanding with the USDA 

Forest Service Forest Products Laboratory (FPL), 

APA–The Engineered Wood Association will partner 

with government and forest research organizations to 

show how carbon-storing wood products can be used in 

typical residential and nonresidential construction. The 

partnership will pursue research and technology transfer 

activities that demonstrate the advantages of wood over 

other building materials in green building. This includes 

activities that build on the success of APA’s Florida 

Carbon Challenge, a program created to educate design 

and building professionals about the relationships between climate, carbon, and everyday building. Design 

competitions, educational seminars, and the construction of three or four demonstration houses are proposed. 

This activity will also further the development and use 

of new or improved wood composites (such as crosslaminated timber) to improve the environmental importance of buildings as measured by LCA tools.

By supporting these recommendations, USDA can help to 

achieve its climate change objectives while creating jobs, 

bolstering the competitive position and long-term economic 

stability of the industry, and reducing U.S. dependence on 

foreign oil. 

1.

2.

3.
1

Introduction

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is a strong 

supporter of sustainable forest management on federal, state, 

and private lands and manages approximately 20% of U.S. 

forest land. A key to maintaining healthy forests is to keep 

management costs reasonable by developing a market for 

sustainably harvested green products that advance green 

building. The use of forest products in the United States 

supports more than a million direct jobs and contributes 

more than $100 billion to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. 

The sustainable use of wood products supports forests, jobs, 

national income, and a healthy environment. It also contributes to green building by reducing environmental burdens 

associated with constructing, operating, and decommissioning many other types of buildings. 

Benefits of Wood as a Green 

Building Material

The use of wood as a building material can provide substantial economic and environmental benefits. Economic benefits from producing solid wood products included more than 

350,000 direct jobs and $12.0 billion in payroll in 2009, 

down significantly from 460,000 jobs and $15.6 billion in 

payroll for 2008. Many of these jobs and associated payroll 

are especially important in the economic development of 

rural forested areas. In addition to economic benefits, the 

development of construction applications for wood from 

small-diameter and insect- or disease-killed trees can support forest conservation management by providing revenue 

to offset treatment costs on forest land needing ecological 

restoration. Increased use of wood for construction also provides revenue to forest land owners and incentive for them 

to keep lands forested, thereby conserving forest ecosystems 

and a wide range of forest ecosystem services, including 

water purification, water flow regulation, erosion control, 

stream bank stabilization, carbon sequestration, biodiversity, 

recreation, and cultural heritage values. 

The environmental benefits of using wood over other common construction materials are documented in numerous 

peer reviewed papers: 

•	 Twenty-two peer-reviewed articles in Wood and Fiber 

Science report the lower environmental emissions associated with U.S. production of 17 wood products used 

for building construction (Bergman and Bowe 2008, 

2010; Hubbard and Bowe 2010; Johnson and others 

2005; Lippke and others 2010; Kline 2005; Milota and 

others 2005; Oneil and others 2010; Oneil and Lippke 

2010; Perez-Garcia and others 2005a, b; Puettmann 

and Wilson 2005a, b; Puettmann and others 2010a, b; 

Wilson and Sakimoto 2005; Wilson and Dancer 2005a, 

b, Wilson 2010a, b, c; Winistorfer and others 2005).

•	 Two peer-reviewed articles in Energy and Buildings

report less environmental emissions to construct residential and commercial buildings with wood than 

with steel and concrete (Gustavsson and Joelsson 2010; 

Dodoo and others 2011).

•	 A paper in Environmental Science and Technology

reviewed 21 international studies and found that, on 

average, each ton of carbon in wood products that is 

used in place of non-wood products reduces greenhouse 

gas (GHG) emissions by 2.1 tons of carbon (Sathre and 

O’Connor 2010). 

•	 A paper in the Forest Products Journal (FPJ) indicates 

how use of wood for all components in a residential 

wall system—replacing non-wood products—can 

reduce GHG emissions for product production by as 

much as two-thirds compared with a conventional wood 

wall (Lippke and others 2004). Another peer-reviewed 

FPJ article shows significant energy reduction and higher material efficiencies over a 30-year time-period for 

the forest products industry (Meil and others 2007).

Science Supporting the Economic and 

Environmental Benefits of Using Wood 

and Wood Products in Green Building 

Construction

Michael A. Ritter, Assistant Director

Kenneth Skog, Supervisory Research Forester

Richard Bergman, Research Forest Products Technologist

Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–206

2

Examples of specific research findings include the 

following:

•	 Fossil fuel consumption, contributions to GHG emissions, and quantities of solid waste tend to be less for 

manufacturing and use of wood products than for competing products (Werner and Richter 2007). 

•	 Wood products that are installed and used appropriately 

tend to have lower environmental burdens than functionally equivalent products of other materials (Lippke 

and others 2004). 

•	 The analysis of example homes in Minneapolis and 

Atlanta indicate lower environmental emissions over 

the life of building materials for homes built with wood 

than those with steel framing or concrete (Lippke and 

others 2004).

•	 Houses with wood-based wall systems require 15% less 

total energy for manufacturing than thermally comparable houses using steel- or concrete-based building 

systems. Over 100 years, net GHG emissions associated 

with wood-based houses are 20% to 50% lower than 

emissions associated with thermally comparable houses 

using steel- or concrete-based building systems (Upton 

and others 2008).

•	 Replacing all non-wood building products in a house 

with wood alternatives (such as cedar siding, wood 

windows, and cellulose insulation) could result in a 

net reduction of atmospheric carbon (Salazar and Meil 

2009).

Barriers to Increasing Wood Use 

as a Green Building Material

Wood has been used as a structural material in North America for hundreds of years. Historically, the primary markets 

for structural wood applications have involved single- and 

multiple-family housing, commercial buildings, and transportation structures such as bridges. Although wood has 

been used with a good performance record in nonresidential 

building applications such as schools, hotels, strip malls, 

and offices, the relative market share for wood has been 

small compared with that of other construction materials. 

However, a growing emphasis on sustainability and environmental awareness is providing an opportunity for wood to 

demonstrate attributes that clearly make it a preferred green 

building material and thus advance the potential to significantly increase the market share for wood products and 

enhance the vitality of our forests.

Despite clear sustainability advantages, wood is often not 

considered to be a “green” building material by design professionals and the general public; further, there is confusion 

about the benefits of renewable (wood) versus recyclable 

(steel) materials and the true environmental impacts associated with each. Barriers to the full recognition of wood as 

a green building material include the following:

•	 Information on the life cycle environmental impacts of 

wood and alternative construction materials is incomplete. Improved life cycle information and simple comparison methods for different materials and building 

systems are needed to aid building professionals and 

consumers in the selection of wood as an environmentally preferable construction material.

•	 Research and development of wood products and building systems is significantly lagging behind that of other 

materials. Despite large public sector financing of new 

technology and product development for other materials, comparative expenditures for wood have been 

small. 

•	 Most codes and standards related to green building do 

not include adequate provisions to recognize the benefit 

of a life cycle environmental analysis to guide selection of building materials. Comparing the true environmental benefits and costs of wood use relative to other 

materials in green building without life cycle analyses 

(LCAs) is impossible. 

•	 Insufficient education, technology transfer, and demonstration projects are hindering the acceptance of wood 

as a green building material. Despite documented advantages, most building professionals and the public in 

general do not recognize the sustainability of wood and 

the role that efficient wood utilization plays in mitigating climate change and contributing to maintaining 

the health and vitality of our forests.

Research and Development Can 

Advance the Use of Wood in Green 

Buildings 

Despite the barriers to increasing wood use as a green 

building material, the challenges are not overwhelming and 

positive results can be achieved in a reasonable time period. 

In response to this opportunity, research and development 

can play a lead role through a combination of scientific advancement in the areas of LCA and the development of new 

technologies for improved and extended wood utilization. 

Significant contributions can also be made in the areas of 

codes and standards, education and technology transfer, and 

the development of demonstration projects.

Life Cycle Assessment

Life cycle assessment is a well-established set of methods 

for measuring the environmental impacts of a product or 

service across its entire life cycle (ISO 2006a, b). LCA 

methods are standardized, transparent, credible, and internationally recognized. LCA identifies the flow of materials and 

energy through various stages, from the point of extracting 

raw materials from the environment, through manufacture, 

construction, use, and final disposal. Inputs (material and 

energy) and outputs (emissions) are found for each stage 

(Fig. 1). Using estimates of inputs and outputs, the LCA 
Science Supporting the Economic and Environmental Benefits of Using Wood and Wood Products in Green Building Construction

3

indicates the burdens the product or service places on the 

environment over its life cycle. 

Specifically, LCAs can identify emissions to air, water, and 

land associated with building products and product applications (such as construction). For example, an LCA would 

estimate the GHG emissions per cubic foot of product produced, or for construction of a 2,000-ft2 house.

LCAs can also be used to improve products or applications 

by identifying “hot spots” of environmental impacts within 

a product life cycle. As a result, LCA is increasingly used by 

businesses to help them identify hot spots and make changes 

to reach environmental performance goals for products they 

produce. 

Obtaining and organizing life cycle information to allow 

LCA practitioners to develop LCAs is an ongoing and 

research-intensive task. Life cycle information is publicly 

available through the U.S. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Database maintained by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

LCA information is needed to prepare environmental product declarations (EPDs) for individual products (ISO 2006c, 

2007). An EPD is a summary of the environmental impacts 

associated with producing and using a product or service 

(Table 1). The life cycle information in EPDs can be used to 

compare the environmental burdens of alternative products. 

EPDs are meant to communicate standardized LCA information in a way that is meaningful to people who may not 

be familiar with LCA.

Building architects and engineers can make choices about 

environmentally preferable materials only if complete life 

cycle information is readily available for wood and nonwood products and for alternative designs of building components (such as walls, floors, roofs). 

Research is needed in two broad areas to make life cycle 

information available: 

1. To aid in improving the environmental performance of 

wood products in buildings, there is a need to identify 

new wood products and building assemblies that have 

lower life cycle emissions by conducting LCAs for such 

products and assemblies. In the building industry, individual wood components make up building assemblies, 

and whole buildings are composed of building assemblies. Each of these—product, assembly, and whole 

building—requires LCAs to determine its environmental performance. 

There is a need to provide software tools for building 

professionals to evaluate the LCA for a wide range 

of products and building assemblies for residential 

and commercial buildings. Developing LCA-based 

tools for building assemblies and whole buildings is a 

complex endeavor. LCA-based tools require detailed 

regional life cycle information on wood and non-wood 

products. Providing software tools for building professionals not familiar with LCA will allow the design of 

new buildings and redesign of older buildings with less 

environmental impacts. The ATHENA EcoCalculator 

for Assemblies is one tool that can analyze a limited 

number of building assemblies. The ATHENA Impact 

Estimator for Buildings analyzes a larger set of possible 

materials and assemblies in a whole-building context; 

however, there is a need to further develop these and 

other tools and make them widely available so more 

assemblies and whole-building designs can be assessed 

on a regional geographic basis that takes into account 

such factors as hot, humid weather, earthquakes, and 

flooding.

2. To make life cycle information available to consumers 

and the general public as well as architects and builders, 

there is a need to develop additional product LCAs specifically to prepare EPDs for all wood construction materials. EPD information can be condensed into a table 

similar to nutritional labels on food products (Table 1). 

The United States trails Europe and parts of Asia in 

instituting requirements for EPDs. France, Japan, 

and Korea are all in the process of implementing 

Figure 1. Cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment for wood building products.

Forest management

(regeneration)

Raw material acquisition

(harvest)

Product manufacturing

Building construction

Use/maintenance

Recycle/waste management

(Transportation)

(Transportation)

(Transportation)

(Transportation)

(Transportation)

(Transportation)

Materials

Energy

Water

Emissions

Effluents

Solid wastes

Other releases

Products

Coproducts
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–206

4

requirements for EPDs on all imported products. It is 

anticipated that EPD requirements will be considered 

in the United States at state or federal levels, or through 

green building codes and standards.

•	 Basic life cycle information previously compiled 

for some wood products needs to be updated to 

meet EPD requirements. In order to make the best 

product comparisons, life cycle information needs 

to be updated every 3 to 5 years to account for 

technology changes and new regulations. 

•	 To ensure transparent and peer-reviewed data for 

EPDs, there is a need to provide up-to-date life cycle information to the U.S. LCI Database. The U.S. 

LCI Database (www.nrel.gov/lci) is a library of life 

cycle data for many products, including building 

products. Life cycle information has been uploaded 

for more than 15 region-specific wood products to 

date. The data were provided from research conducted by the Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Materials (CORRIM) funded in part 

by the FPL. CORRIM is a non-profit research consortium of 15 universities that have partnerships 

with the FPL. 

•	 In addition to basic life cycle information for the 

processes to produce a product, an EPD requires 

life cycle information on product use in specific 

applications such as buildings and disposal of 

products from these buildings. Obtaining life cycle 

information for applications and disposal is a 

research-intensive activity requiring a large amount 

of data and analysis. 

New Technology

Research can advance the use of wood in green buildings 

through development of new product technologies. An example of a new technology in the United States for woodbased building systems is cross-laminated timber (CLT), 

which allows for large, solid-wood structural panels to be 

factory manufactured from low-value, small-diameter, and 

insect- and disease-killed trees. Suitable for multi-story 

buildings that substantially exceed current height limitations 

on conventional wood-frame construction, CLT is a good 

material for nonresidential green building construction. 

Although previously used in Europe, CLT is a new product 

in the United States, and research is needed to establish economic and resource parameters for market development and 

structural performance criteria required for building code 

acceptance. 

Nanotechnology is another new technology that has the 

potential to significantly advance wood as a green building material (Atalla and others 2005). Nanotechnology is 

the understanding and control of matter at dimensions approximately 1 to 100 nm (a nanometer is 1 × 10–9 m), where 

unique phenomena enable novel applications. A sheet of 

paper is about 100,000 nm thick, and a gold atom is about 

one-third of a nanometer in diameter. Unusual physical, 

chemical, and biological properties can emerge in materials 

at the nanoscale. These properties differ in important ways 

from the properties of bulk materials and single atoms. 

Table 1—Life cycle information provided by EPD for western redcedar 

siding 

Impact category Unit 

Per 1 m2

of siding 

Per 100 ft2

of siding 

Total primary energy MJ 280.08 2601.96 

Non-renewable, fossil MJ 138.84 1289.80 

Non-renewable, nuclear MJ 8.28 76.89 

Renewable, SWHGa MJ 17.00 157.97 

Renewable, biomass MJ 4.50 41.81 

Feedstock, non-renewable fossil MJ 6.46 60.00 

Feedstock, renewable biomass MJ 105.00 975.49 

Renewable material consumption (wood) kg 4.65 43.24 

Non-renewable material 

 consumption (nails, paint) 

kg 0.37 3.42 

Fresh water use L 1.01 9.40 

Total waste kg 5.02 46.66 

Hazardous kg 0 0 

Non-hazardous kg 5.02 46.66 

Global warming potential (GWP)b

 kg CO2eq 4.64 43.11 

Acidification potential H+

 mol eq 4.15 38.59 

Eutrophication potential kg N eq 6.71 × 10–3 6.23 × 10–2

Smog potential kg NO× eq 6.17 × 10–2 5.73 × 10–1

Ozone depletion potential kg CFC–11 eq 3.20 × 10–7 2.97 × 10–6

a

SWHG: solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal. b

GWP includes all biogenic carbon sinks and sources throughout the product system boundary. 
Science Supporting the Economic and Environmental Benefits of Using Wood and Wood Products in Green Building Construction

5

Nanotechnology holds great promise to revolutionize materials used in the 21st century, while wood-based nanomaterials provide the key materials platform for the sustainable 

production of renewable, recyclable, and environmentally 

preferable goods and products to meet the needs of people 

in our modern society (Wegner and Jones 2009). Our ability to see materials down to nanoscale dimensions and to 

determine and alter how materials are constructed at the 

nanoscale provides an opportunity to develop new materials 

and products in previously unimagined ways. Nanotechnology will result in novel forms of wood-based construction 

materials and products that have superior performance and 

serviceability under the most severe end-use environments. 

Use of nano-dimensional cellulose in nanocomposites also 

will allow the production of much lighter weight materials 

to replace metals and plastics in many applications.

Codes, Rating Systems, and Standards

The provisions of building and material codes and standards 

are critical for the widespread acceptance of wood as a 

green building material. The use of scientifically consensusbased green building certification standards can also help 

the USDA meet climate mitigation strategic objectives nationwide. The USDA 2010–2015 Strategic Plan, Strategic 

Goal No. 2, is intended to ensure that our national forests 

and private working lands are conserved, restored, and made 

more resilient to climate change, while enhancing our water 

resources. Objective 2.2 is intended to lead efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The mitigation role of 

forests under Objective 2.2 includes identifying and supporting the appropriate role that wood products can play in 

building construction that mitigates GHG emissions and 

other environmental burdens. Green building certification 

standards that identify and credit use of materials that mitigate GHG emissions as well as other environmental burdens 

can support achievement of Objective 2.2.

There are two key privately developed green building rating 

systems for commercial buildings (information for this section from Bowyer and others 2010):

1. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

(LEED) by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC)

2. Green Globes, an outgrowth of the Building Research 

Establishment Environmental Assessment Method 

(BREEAM) developed in the United Kingdom, operating in the United Sates under the auspices of the Green 

Building Initiative (GBI) 

On March 24, 2010, the GBI Green Building Assessment 

Protocol for Commercial Buildings was approved as the 

nation’s first and only American National Standard Commercial Building Rating System by the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI/GBI 01-2010). In addition to the 

GBI Green Building Assessment Protocol for Commercial 

Buildings, there are three other green building consensusbased standards: 

1. The National Green Building Standard (NGBS), ICC 

700-2008, developed by the National Association of 

Home Builders and the International Code Council under the ANSI standards process is for new construction 

and remodeling for all residential building types, including single-family, multi-family, and residential portions of mixed-use buildings. The scope of the NGBS 

rating standard is inclusive of land development, lots, 

and buildings. It is the only ANSI-accredited standard 

for residential construction.

2. The ASHRAE 189.1 Standard for the Design of HighPerformance Green Buildings developed with USGBC 

and the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES), released on January 22, 2010, is a standard intended as 

a commercial green building standard.

3. International Green Construction Code (IGCC), now in 

development through the International Code Council 

(ICC), is intended for incorporation in 2012 international codes.

CALGREEN is the first state-wide green building code law. 

The California state legislature approved measures to adopt 

LEED as code for commercial and residential construction 

but was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, affirming that 

the state should have a role in developing and adopting standards. The State Standard Commission was directed to develop a statewide green code. The code became mandatory 

on January 1, 2011. Currently many elements are voluntary, 

but it is anticipated by state leaders that many will become 

required over time.

In January 2010, New York City leaders announced that 

they will develop a green building code for the city based on 

the IGCC. The city of Phoenix, Arizona, developed a green 

building code to be implemented in July 2011. 

As a research organization, USDA Forest Service Research 

and Development supports the use of LCA science to guide 

development of green building certification standards. All 

the codes and standards referenced above, except LEED, 

incorporate LCA in one way or another within existing 

standards. LCA has been a pilot credit within LEED and 

is now included in the draft revision that is currently being 

circulated for public comment. Proposed standards vary in 

the degree to which they use LCA science in determining 

which system designs and materials would cause the lowest 

environmental burdens. 

The existing national scope of green building certification 

standards differs to a limited degree in how and to what degree wood use is considered “green”:

•	 The NGBS, ICC 700-2008, is an ANSI-approved standard that allows wood to contribute in the resource efficiency section with use of certified wood products, engineered wood, locally sourced wood, recycled-content 

materials, and salvaged materials. Credit is also given if 
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–206

6

LCA tools are used in building design and in the selection of materials.

•	 ASHRAE/USGBC/IES 2009 requires that 60% of all 

wood used in construction be chain-of-custody certified (with the certification program to meet standards 

of ISO/IEC Guide 59 or the WTO Technical Barriers 

to Trade document). Support is given for use of recycled-content materials, salvage and reuse, and locally 

sourced materials. There is an optional requirement that 

LCA be performed for a minimum of two alternative 

building designs.

•	 IGCC draft standard is comprehensive and includes 

language supporting the use of certified wood and LCA 

in building design and the selection of construction materials.

•	 LEED currently provides credits only for use of wood 

certified by the Forest Stewardship Council and locally 

sourced wood. LEED is considering an approach in the 

2012 revision to incorporate LCA into all its standards. 

If adopted, structural/envelope assemblies will be evaluated with an LCA impact calculator based on the magnitude of impact of the selected assemblies compared 

with the average and lowest impact options. 

•	 The GBI Green Globes design, assessment, and rating 

system recognizes and gives credit for use of wood 

from forests that are certified to any of the major forest 

certification systems such as the Forest Stewardship 

Council, Sustainable Forestry Initiative, and American 

Tree Farm System. This approach to recognition of forestry certification systems was supported by the ANSI 

teams and is included in the ANSI/GBI 01-2010: 

Green Building Assessment Protocol for Commercial 

Buildings.

The latest green building initiatives indicate a clear trend 

toward requiring green in building construction that includes 

demand for recycled content, re-used/refurbished products, 

regionally sourced materials, and certified wood. Currently, 

all green building standards except LEED recognize forest 

certification standards of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, 

Forest Stewardship Council, and American Tree Farm System. In addition, with language regarding LCA now in all 

the new national scope standards as well as the new California code and the Green Globes standard, and perhaps fully 

integrated into the USGBC LEED program in the future, 

there is every indication that use of LCA represents a new 

way of doing business in green building evaluation.

LEED is the most widely used green building standard 

for new nonresidential buildings. An estimated 2.4 billion 

square feet of low-rise residential buildings (four stories or 

less) were constructed in 2009. This is based on estimated 

expenditures from the U.S. Department of Commerce and 

the estimated square feet per dollar of expenditures from 

McGraw-Hill Corporation. Based on some analyses, as 

many as 25% of all nonresidential building starts are registered with LEED. However, a recent estimate indicates 

that only half the registered building starts follow through 

with full certification (Watson 2009). Using these fractions 

and wood use rates per square foot of low-rise buildings, an 

estimated 294 million square feet was certified and the associated wood use was approximately 390 million board feet. 

However, these figures should be considered order-of-magnitude estimates and require confirmation. Wood is also used 

in other residential and commercial buildings that are green 

certified by LEED or other standards, so the total wood use 

will be larger. However, even if the amount is off by a factor 

of two or more, it is likely to be only a small fraction of the 

estimated 57 billion board feet of lumber consumed in the 

United States in 2009. 

Steps that the USDA could take in the area of codes and 

standards to expand the use of wood in green building 

include the following: 

1. Support standards that use LCA to choose building designs and materials that reduce environmental burdens.

2. Endorse Forest Service adoption of the American Society for Testing and Materials Standard D 7612-10, 

Standard Practice for Categorizing Wood and WoodBased Products According to Their Fiber Sources.

3. Support research that provides necessary data for the 

U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Database.

Education and Technology Transfer 

Although most people are aware that North American forests help to address climate change by absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, less well known is the fact that 

wood products continue to store carbon, thus keeping it out 

of the atmosphere indefinitely. Substituting wood products 

for fossil-fuel-intensive alternatives also results in significant amounts of “avoided” GHG emissions.

Technology transfer and education are key components of 

research that can significantly influence the preference for 

wood as a green building material. USDA Forest Service 

Research and Development is a partner in the U.S. WoodWorks program, which is nearing the end of its three-year 

pilot phase. This program has clearly demonstrated that 

education and technology transfer activities aimed at design 

and building professionals, including information on wood’s 

carbon benefits, can increase the amount of wood used in 

nonresidential structures. The program already supports 

more than 450 building conversions to wood from other 

materials, representing 400 million board feet of lumber and 

100 million square feet of panels (3/8-in. basis). Between 

the carbon stored in the wood products and avoided GHGs, 

these projects represent a carbon savings of 2.2 million metric tons of CO2 (equivalent). Supporting WoodWorks with 
Science Supporting the Economic and Environmental Benefits of Using Wood and Wood Products in Green Building Construction

7

continued funding and technical expertise over the next five 

years is expected to increase these wood volumes to 5.5 billion board feet and 3 billion square feet, respectively, which 

represents a carbon savings of over 30 million metric tons of 

CO2 (equivalent to removing approximately 6 million cars 

from the road for a year). 

The Forest Service is currently involved in four demonstration projects in three locations: two structures at the Forest 

Products Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin; one on the 

campus of Mississippi State University; and one under construction on the campus of Haywood Community College in 

Canton, North Carolina. These demonstration structures provide educational outreach on wood as a sustainable building 

material and afford an opportunity to conduct “real world” 

research specific to a geographic region. The structures are 

each unique, but all demonstrate wood as a green building 

material and emphasize the influence of regional climatic 

parameters on durability, energy efficiency, and livability. 

A demonstration-related project recently promoted by the 

Forest Service and the wood products industry was the Florida Residential Carbon Challenge, a competition for architects to design a house with the lowest carbon footprint. The 

objectives of this competition were to increase understanding and development of single-family house designs that 

meet the structural and thermal requirements of the 2007 

Florida Building Code and to move toward reduced carbon 

footprint and fossil fuel use in Florida (and the broader U.S. 

South). The visibility of a state-wide competition was aimed 

at encouraging building professionals and developers to 

incorporate such designs into their homes and communities. 

Although the competition did not specifically require the 

use of wood as a primary construction material, all 36 of 

the submissions involved wood-frame designs. The winning 

design was awarded to True Design Studios of Jacksonville 

at the 2011 National Association of Home Builders International Builders Show in Orlando. As a follow-up to the 

competition, APA–The Engineered Wood Association is 

sponsoring 10 seminars to educate architects and engineers 

on the sustainability aspects of wood-frame housing.

Although green building and sustainability are typically associated with buildings, the same principles can be applied 

to the transportation infrastructure. The Forest Service has 

partnered with Iowa State University to construct several 

demonstration bridges in Iowa. In these cases, sustainability 

considerations and availability of local wood species have 

demonstrated that wood is an excellent material for bridge 

replacement for the rural transportation infrastructure.

Several potential cooperative demonstration projects will 

further demonstrate the use of wood as a green building 

material:

•	 Six research/demonstration houses located in Washington, California, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and North 

Dakota

•	 A partnership to construct the Forest Service National 

Museum using CLT

•	 Numerous CLT demonstration structures with the 

Forest Service National Forest System

•	 Demonstration projects involving nonresidential 

buildings with other government agencies

•	 Construction of 10 demonstration wood highway 

bridges in the Midwest and South

Concluding Remarks and 

Recommendations 

The USDA has the opportunity to take a lead role in advancing wood as a green building material through the development and implementation of programs that are publically 

relevant and are an appropriate role for government. Policy 

makers, the forest products industry, and resource management organizations support a science-based approach to outlining the benefits of using wood and wood-based products 

in green buildings in the United States. An interdisciplinary 

approach is needed to further develop scientific knowledge 

and provide technology transfer and education relevant to 

evaluating and advancing these benefits. It must be noted 

that the inherent benefits of using wood go beyond economic gains. Sound forest management leads to increased forest 

productivity, cleaner water, and enhanced wildlife habitat. 

Part of maximizing the environmental benefits of wood as a 

building material is to fully understand the benefits of sustainable forestry practices on the overall environmental impact. This includes assessing the impact of outreach and education, conservation cost share, and certification programs 

on the footprint of wood building materials. From this it will 

be possible to identify techniques for maximizing benefits 

and transfer these practices through partner networks of 

state forestry agencies, extension services, and sustainable 

forestry organizations. 

The following annual programs are proposed to advance 

wood use in green building: 

•	 Life cycle assessment—A partnership of government, 

universities, and industry is proposed to undertake 

research needed to support widespread recognition of 

wood’s carbon benefits under emerging green building codes, standards, and rating schemes. Led by the 

Green Building Strategy Group, a newly established 

organization composed of industry and non-government 

organizations to advance green building, this project includes expanding the library of transparent information 

available to industry and the public, filling critical gaps 

for wood products in the U.S. LCI Database, increasing acceptance and specification of wood as a green 

building material through the application of complete 

and current LCA data and tools, development of EPDs, 

and increasing technical knowledge of and preference 
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–206

8

for wood products among building science and design/

engineering professionals. For maximum impact, the 

group will also ensure that all key stakeholders understand the science behind LCAs and EPDs and appropriately promote their use. Workshops to engage 

key stakeholders, share research findings, solicit input, 

and further environmental understanding will extend 

outreach to materials scientists, public agencies, the 

conservation community, and policy makers.

•	 Wood use in nonresidential buildings—The U.S. 

WoodWorks program, which is nearing the end of its 

three-year pilot phase, has demonstrated that education 

and technology transfer activities aimed at design and 

building professionals, including information on wood’s 

carbon benefits, can increase the amount of wood used 

in nonresidential structures. 

•	 Carbon and green building benefits of typical wood 

structures—A partnership is proposed between government and forest research organizations to show how 

carbon-storing wood products can be used in typical 

residential and nonresidential construction. The partnership will pursue research and technology transfer 

activities that demonstrate the advantages of wood over 

other building materials in green building. This effort 

includes activities that build on the success of the Florida Carbon Challenge, a program designed to educate 

design and building professionals about the relationships between climate, carbon, and everyday building. 

In addition to design competitions, educational seminars and the construction of three or four demonstration 

houses are proposed. This effort will further the development and use of new or improved wood products and 

technologies (such as cross-laminated timber) to extend 

utilization of the forest resource and improve the environmental importance of buildings as measured by LCA 

tools.

By supporting these initiatives, the USDA can help to 

achieve its climate change objectives, while creating jobs, 

bolstering the competitive position and long-term economic 

stability of the industry, and reducing U.S. dependence on 

foreign oil. 

Literature Cited

Atalla, R.; Beecher, J.; Jones, P.; Wegner, T. [and others]. 

2005. Nanotechnology for the forest products industry 

vision and technology roadmap. ISBN: 1-59510-087-3. 

Norcross, GA: TAPPI Press. 84 p. (March 2005).

Bergman, R.; Bowe, S. 2008. Environmental impact of producing hardwood lumber using life-cycle inventory. Wood 

and Fiber Science. 40(3): 448–458.

Bergman, R.; Bowe, S. 2010. Environmental impacts of 

manufacturing softwood lumber in the northeastern and 

north central United States. Wood and Fiber Science. 

42(CORRIM Special Issue): 67–78.

Bowyer, J.; Bratkovich, S.; Howe, J.; Fernholz, K. 2010. 

Potential game changers in green building: new developments signal a fundamental shift and perhaps significant 

opportunities for building materials suppliers. Minneapolis, 

MN: Dovetail Partners, Inc. 9 p. http://www.dovetailinc.org/

files/DovetailGrnBldg0410.pdf

Dodoo, A.; Gustavsson, L.; Sathre, R. 2011. Building 

energy-efficiency standards in a life cycle primary energy 

perspective. Energy and Buildings. 43(7): 1589–1597.

Gustavsson, L.; Joelsson, A. 2010. Life cycle primary energy analysis of residential buildings. Energy and Buildings. 

42(3): 210–220.

Hubbard, S.; Bowe, S. 2010. A gate-to-gate life-cycle inventory of solid strip hardwood flooring in the eastern United 

States. Wood and Fiber Science. 42(CORRIM Special 

Issue): 79–89.

ISO. 2006a. Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. ISO 14040:2006. Geneva, 

Switzerland: International Standards Organization. 

ISO. 2006b. Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. ISO 14044:2006. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standards Organization.

ISO. 2006c. Environmental labels and declarations—type 

III environmental declarations—principles and procedures. 

ISO 14025:2006. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standards Organization.

ISO. 2007. Sustainability in building construction—environmental declaration of building products. ISO 21930:2007. 

Geneva, Switzerland: International Standards Organization.

Johnson, L.; Lippke, B.; Marshall, J.; Comnick, J. 2005. 

Life-cycle impacts of forest resource activities in the Pacific 

Northwest and Southeastern United States. Wood and Fiber 

Science. 37(CORRIM Special Issue): 30–46.

Kline, E. 2005. Gate-to-gate life cycle inventory of oriented 

strandboard production. Wood and Fiber Science. 37(CORRIM Special Issue): 74–84.

Lippke, B.; Wilson, J.; Meil, J.; Taylor, A. 2010. Characterizing the importance of carbon stored in wood products. 

Wood and Fiber Science. 42(CORRIM Special Issue): 5–14.

Lippke, B.; Wilson, J.; Perez-Garcia, J.; Bowyer, J.; Meil, 

J. 2004. CORRIM: life-cycle environmental performance 

of renewable building materials. Forest Products Journal. 

54(6): 8–19.

Meil, J. 2004. CORRIM: life-cycle environmental performance of renewable building materials. Forest Products 

Journal. 54(6): 8–19.

Meil, J.; Wilson, J.; O’Connor, J.; Dangerfield, J. 2007. 

An assessment of wood product processing technology 
Science Supporting the Economic and Environmental Benefits of Using Wood and Wood Products in Green Building Construction

9

advancements between the CORRIM I and II studies. Forest 

Products Journal. 57(7/8): 83–89.

Milota, M.; West, C.; Hartley, I. 2005. Gate-to-gate life 

cycle inventory of softwood lumber production. Wood and 

Fiber Science. 37(CORRIM Special Issue): 47–57.

Oneil, E.; Johnson, L.; Lippke, B.; McCarter, J.; McDill, 

M.; Roth, P.; Finley, J. 2010. Life-cycle impacts of inland 

northwest and northeast/north central forest resources. Wood 

and Fiber Science. 42(CORRIM Special Issue): 29–51.

Oneil, E.; Lippke, B. 2010. Integrating products, emissions offsets, and wildfire into carbon assessments of inland 

northwest forests. Wood and Fiber Science. 42(CORRIM 

Special Issue): 144–164.

Perez-Garcia, J.; Lippke, B.; Briggs, D.; Wilson, J.; Bowyer, J.; Meil, J. 2005a. The environmental performance of 

renewable building materials in the context of residential 

construction.. Wood and Fiber Science. 37(CORRIM Special Issue): 3–17.

Perez-Garcia, J.; Lippke, B.; Comnick, J.; Manriquez, C. 

2005b. An assessment of carbon pools, storage, and wood 

product market substitution using life-cycle analysis results. Wood and Fiber Science. 37(CORRIM Special Issue): 

140–148.

Puettmann, M.; Bergman, R.; Hubbard, S.; Johnson, L.; 

Lippke, B.; Oneil, E.; Wagner, F.G. 2010a. Cradle-to-gate 

life-cycle inventories of U.S. wood products production—

CORRIM Phase I and Phase II products. Wood and Fiber 

Science. 42(CORRIM Special Issue): 15–28.

Puettmann, M.; Wagner, F.; Johnson, L. 2010b. Life cycle 

inventory of inland northwest softwood lumber in the United States. Wood and Fiber Science. 42(CORRIM Special 

Issue): 29–51.

Puettmann, M.; Wilson, J. 2005a. Gate-to-gate life cycle 

inventory of glue-laminated timber production. Wood and 

Fiber Science. 37(CORRIM Special Issue): 99–113.

Puettmann, M.; Wilson, J. 2005b. Life-cycle analysis of 

wood products: cradle-to-gate LCI of residential wood 

building materials. Wood and Fiber Science. 37(CORRIM 

Special Issue): 18–29.

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. Journal of Cleaner 

Production. 17: 1563–1571.

Sathre, R.; O’Connor, J. 2010. Meta-analysis of greenhouse 

gas displacement factors of wood product substitution. Environmental Science and Policy. 13(2010): 104–114.

Upton, B.; Miner, R.; Spinney, M.; Heath, L.S. 2008. The 

greenhouse gas and energy impacts of using wood instead of 

alternatives in residential construction in the United States. 

Biomass and Bioenergy. 32: 1–10.

Watson, R. 2009. Green building market and impact report 

2009. Oakland, CA: Greener World Media, Inc. 36 p. http://

www.greenbiz.com/sites/default/files/GreenBuildling

ImpactReport2009.pdf

Wegner, T.H.; Jones, E.P. 2009. A fundamental review of the 

relationships between nanotechnology and lignocellulosic 

biomass. In: Lucia, L.A.; Rojas, O.J., eds. The nanoscience 

and technology of renewable biomaterials. Hoboken, NJ: 

John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1–41.

Werner, F.; Richter, K. 2007. Wooden building products in 

comparative LCA: a literature review. International Journal 

of Life Cycle Assessment. 12(7): 470–479.

Wilson, J. 2010a. Life-cycle inventory of particleboard in 

terms of resources, emissions, energy, and carbon. Wood 

and Fiber Science. 42(CORRIM Special Issue): 90–106.

Wilson, J. 2010b. Life-cycle inventory of medium density 

fiber board in terms of resources, emissions, energy, and carbon. Wood and Fiber Science. 42(CORRIM Special Issue): 

107–124.

Wilson, J. 2010c. Life-cycle inventory of formaldehydebased resins used in composites in terms of resources, 

emissions, energy, and carbon. Wood and Fiber Science. 

42(CORRIM Special Issue): 125–144.

Wilson, J.; Dancer, E. 2005a. Gate-to-gate life cycle inventory of softwood plywood production. Wood and Fiber Science. 37(CORRIM Special Issue): 84–98.

Wilson, J.; Dancer, E. 2005b. Gate-to-gate life cycle inventory of laminated veneer lumber production. Wood and Fiber Science. 37(CORRIM Special Issue): 114–127.

Wilson, J.; Sakimoto, E. 2005. Gate-to-gate life cycle inventory of softwood plywood production. Wood and Fiber Science. 37(CORRIM Special Issue): 58–73.

Winistorfer, P.; Chen, Z.; Lippke, B.; Stevens, N. 2005. 

Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions related 

to the use, maintenance, and disposal of a residential structure. Wood and Fiber Science. 37(CORRIM Special Issue): 

128–139.