Is Mass Timber Positioned to Lead Future Sustainable Construction? A Review of Economic, Cost, and Market Dimensions

Abstract

The construction sector contributes substantially to global greenhouse gas emissions, making material substitutions a key strategy for advancing sustainability transitions. Mass timber has emerged as a low-carbon alternative to mineral-based construction materials, offering biogenic carbon storage and compatibility with prefabricated and industrialized building systems. This study aims to systematically synthesize the economic, cost, and market evidence on mass timber construction by reviewing 143 peer-reviewed publications, with the objective of clarifying what is empirically known and where uncertainties remain. The reviewed literature reveals three core findings. First, economic outcomes are mixed: while several studies report regional value creation, supply-chain upgrading, and alignment with circular-economy principles, others highlight persistent constraints such as limited manufacturing capacity and uneven policy support. Second, construction cost findings vary substantially, ranging from cost parity or modest savings relative to conventional systems to premiums of approximately 10–15%, shaped by regional pricing, labor availability, transportation distance, regulatory conditions, and supply-chain maturity. Third, market-oriented studies consistently identify slow diffusion, limited practitioner experience, and risk-averse investment environments as key barriers to adoption. Overall, the review shows that economic performance is not yet consistently established and underscores the need for more standardized, context-sensitive, and methodologically consistent evaluation frameworks to support informed decision-making and the sustainable scaling of mass timber construction.

1. Introduction

The global construction sector is undergoing a profound shift as policy-makers, industries, and researchers seek alternatives to carbon intensive materials such as concrete and steel. Mass timber, a group of engineered wood products used for structural application, has emerged as one of the most promising pathways toward low-carbon, resource-efficient construction [1,2]. Examples of this category are Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT), a multilayer panel composed of orthogonally oriented lumber commonly used for floors, walls, and roof diaphragms; Glue-Laminated Timber (GLT or glulam), which consists of parallel laminated boards bonded with structural adhesives and is typically used for beams and columns in long-term applications; and Laminated Veneer Lumber (LVL), an engineered product made from thin wood veneers layered to form high-strength members often used for headers, rim boards, and structural framing components [3]. Together with Nail-Laminated Timber (NLT) and Dowel-Laminated Timber (DLT), as well as hybrid timber–concrete or timber–steel construction systems, these products form a rapidly expanding family of structural materials designed to enhance strength, stability, and prefabrication efficiency of construction [4,5].

In recent years, mass timber has gained global attention not only for its structural performance but also for its potential to support climate mitigation and circular-economy transitions [6]. Mass timber offers a substantially lower carbon footprint than conventional construction materials because wood stores biogenic carbon and requires less energy to process [7]. At the same time, mass timber aligns with circular-economy principles through design for disassembly, reuse, modularity, and material recovery, features that position it as a strategic solution for reducing construction waste and extending material lifecycles [8]. The recent literature demonstrates that salvaged lumber from deconstructed buildings can also be incorporated into new mass timber panels [9,10]. However, transportation distance and logistics remain critical determinants of both carbon performance and cost competitiveness, as long-haul movement of lumber or prefabricated panels can offset environmental benefits and increase project expenses, particularly in regions with limited local manufacturing capacity [11,12].

Despite these advantages, the field remains characterized by competing hypotheses and unresolved debates. Some scholars argue that mass timber can deliver cost-competitive [13], scalable, and carbon-negative construction solutions [14], while others caution that supply-chain volatility, high upfront material costs, and limited market maturity may constrain widespread adoption [2,15,16]. The use of fast-growing or low-grade wood species is celebrated by some as a pathway to affordability and regional economic revitalization, yet others question whether variability in material quality may introduce new risks [10,17]. For example, although salvaged wood is increasingly recognized as a high value circular resource, its integration into mainstream production remains limited due to the absence of standardized grading systems and the lack of a formal secondary materials market [18,19].

As mass timber transitions from a niche innovation to a mainstream construction material, questions surrounding investment viability, price dynamics, supply-chain integration, and industry readiness have become increasingly urgent [20,21]. The rapid expansion of mass timber research after 2020, driven by advances in prefabrication, modular construction, hardwood CLT development, and urban decarbonization policies, has produced a fragmented knowledge landscape in which economic, market, and cost considerations are dispersed across disciplines and geographic regions [22,23,24]. At the same time, many of these practical and market-oriented challenges are being addressed outside the traditional scholarly domain, through industry-led experimentation, pilot projects, and practitioner knowledge exchange. Forums such as the International Mass Timber Conference, for example, demonstrate how issues related to procurement risk, pricing volatility, insurance, logistics, and workforce capacity are actively discussed and resolved in practice. However, because these topics often fall outside conventional research frameworks or established scholastic funding mechanisms, the resulting insights remain weakly captured in the academic literature, contributing to a persistent disconnect between rapidly evolving industry practice and the formal evidence base.

This study addresses these gaps by conducting a review of peer-reviewed publications to synthesize existing knowledge on the economic forces influencing mass timber’s development. The review brings together insights on market structures, cost behavior, and competitiveness relative to conventional materials to clarify how these factors shape adoption dynamics. By integrating findings across economics, costs, and market development, this review helps situate current evidence, highlights areas of convergence and uncertainty, and points to where further empirical work and policy discussion may be most productively directed.

2. Materials and Method

This study employed a rapid-review methodology to synthesize peer-reviewed evidence on the economic, cost, and market dimensions of mass timber. Rapid reviews streamline certain steps of full systematic reviews while maintaining transparency and reproducibility [25]. The review followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines for reporting evidence syntheses, including a structured search strategy, predefined eligibility criteria, and a documented screening workflow [26].

A targeted search was conducted in the Web of Science Core Collection, covering all records available up to January 2026. The Boolean query TS = (“mass timber” OR “laminated timber”) AND TS = (“economy” OR “market” OR “cost”) was applied with an English-language filter. In Web of Science, the TS field tag retrieves publications whose titles, abstracts, or keywords explicitly reference the searched concepts.

As this study was conducted as a rapid review, the search strategy was intentionally streamlined to balance methodological rigor with timely synthesis. Rapid reviews commonly limit the number of databases and narrow search terms to accelerate evidence identification while maintaining transparency. The selected keywords were adapted from the previous literature who used similar terminology to capture economic and market related analyses of mass timber [27]. Although this approach may not retrieve all studies related to lifecycle cost, techno-economic analysis, supply chains, procurement, insurance, or willingness to pay, the chosen terms reflect the dominant vocabulary used in peer-reviewed publications addressing economic, cost, and market dimensions. This targeted strategy aligns with rapid-review standards and ensures that the included evidence remains focused and relevant to the review’s objectives.

All retrieved records were imported into Covidence for automated deduplication and structured screening. Title and abstract screening and full-text assessment were conducted by two reviewers using predefined criteria aligned with the rapid-review scope. Conflicts were resolved through Covidence’s consensus tool. Covidence systematic review software (https://app.covidence.org; Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia) does not provide a public version number. The PRISMA 2020 flow diagram summarizing identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion is provided in Figure 1.

Studies were eligible if they examined mass timber products and explicitly addressed at least one economic, cost, or market dimension. Eligible designs included empirical analyses, techno-economic assessments, modeling studies, conceptual papers, and review articles. Studies focused solely on structural engineering, material science, or non-timber construction materials were excluded. Only English language publications were included.

The breadth of eligible study designs reflects the rapid-review approach, which prioritizes timely synthesis of heterogeneous evidence rather than exhaustive methodological filtering [28]. Including empirical studies, modeling work, techno-economic analyses, conceptual contributions, and review articles is appropriate for a rapid review because economic, cost, and market analyses of mass timber are distributed across diverse methodological traditions. To avoid duplication of evidence when review articles were included alongside primary studies, the data extraction focused on the unique analytical contributions of each source rather than counting findings multiple times. This approach maintains coherence in the synthesis while ensuring that the review captures the full range of economic and market perspectives relevant to mass timber.

Data extraction followed a structured and iterative process to ensure consistency and traceability. Extracted variables included authorship, publication year, study objectives, geographic scope, methodological approach, and economic, cost, or market findings. Given the heterogeneity of study designs, a narrative synthesis approach was used to integrate evidence across themes, consistent with rapid-review standards.

The thematic synthesis did not employ formal qualitative coding procedures such as double coding, line-by-line coding, or a full extraction matrix. Instead, consistent with rapid-review standards, the first author conducted an interpretive grouping of recurring economic, cost, and market concepts across the included studies, with the second author providing supervisory oversight to ensure consistency and conceptual clarity. Themes and subthemes were developed iteratively by reviewing extracted information and identifying patterns that appeared across multiple studies. Each study was assigned to themes based on its primary analytical focus, and care was taken to avoid duplication by ensuring that review articles were not counted as independent evidence when their underlying primary studies were already included. This streamlined approach aligns with the rapid-review methodology, which emphasizes timely synthesis over exhaustive qualitative coding.

During the iterative thematic synthesis, an additional theme “Building Typology” emerged as a distinct analytical category. Although the review did not employ formal qualitative coding procedures, recurring patterns across the 143 studies showed that discussions of Mid-Rise Applications, High-Rise Feasibility, Hybrid Systems, and Structural Optimization formed a coherent conceptual cluster that was not fully captured by the four original themes. Following the interpretive grouping conducted by the first author and supervised by the second author, this cluster was elevated into a standalone theme to complement the existing categories of Products, Economic Dimensions, Market Dimensions, and Cost Dimensions. The addition of Building Typology reflects the inductive nature of the rapid-review process, in which themes are refined as patterns become clearer, and ensures that the thematic structure accurately represents the breadth of evidence in the literature. A summary of these thematic distributions is presented in

Table 1. Final themes and subthemes identified in this review.

Main Themes	Subthemes
Mass Timber Products	CLT, GLT (glulam), LVL, NLT, DLT
Economic Dimensions	Expense Framework; Price Dynamics; Investment Feasibility; Economic Competitiveness; Financial Modeling
Market Dimensions	Market Growth; Market Barriers; Market Drivers; Industry Adoption; Supply-Chain Integration
Cost Dimensions	Production Cost; Lifecycle Cost; Installation Cost; Operational Cost; Comparative Cost Analysis
Building Typology	Mid-rise Buildings; High-rise Buildings; Hybrid Systems; Structural Efficiency; Design Optimization

.

Although rapid reviews streamline certain steps, such as limiting databases or simplifying appraisal, the use of PRISMA 2020 ensures transparency in reporting and sup-ports replicability of the review process.

3. Results

The mapping of the selected studies revealed a research landscape shaped by several consolidated thematic directions. A total of 143 studies met the eligibility criteria, forming a comprehensive dataset that captures the evolution of mass timber product research across economic, market, and cost dimensions over the past three decades. The complete list of all included studies is provided in the Supplementary Material (Mass Timber Research Population).

Geographically, the literature reflects distinct regional priorities. Studies in the United States frequently examine market awareness, feasibility assessments, and economic decision-making related to the adoption, reflecting an early-stage market characterized by uncertainty and project-level evaluation [29,30]. In contrast, European research places stronger emphasis on production capacity [31], resource utilization [32], and Structural Optimization as drivers of economic performance [33]. Research from Asia and Oceania often focuses on supply-chain development and the economic potential of emerging hardwood-based products [34,35]. Studies from South America highlight industrial competitiveness and resource availability suggesting that economic viability is closely tied to regional forestry assets and export potential [31]. Taken together, these regional differences help explain why cost and economic findings vary throughout the literature: economic performance is not assessed under comparable conditions, but instead reflects differing stages of market maturity, supply-chain development, and resource availability.

Parallel streams of scholarship advance Lifecycle Assessment (LCA) and Lifecycle Costing (LCC) within circular-economy frameworks, including comparative evaluations of mass timber products and conventional construction materials [29]. In Europe, research places strong emphasis on the structural performance, material behavior, and design optimization of Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT), reflecting long standing engineering traditions in Austria, Germany, and the Nordic region [36,37].

Additional studies explore the socio-economic and policy dimensions of hardwood-based mass timber products, including their market viability, regulatory implications, and contributions to sustainable construction [27,38,39]. The recurrence of these thematic clusters indicates a stabilizing and maturing field, where research trajectories, ranging from structural integrity to market dynamics, are becoming increasingly distinct and specialized.

The temporal distribution of publications shows a marked acceleration after 2020. Earlier studies (pre-2015) focused primarily on mechanical properties and early product development. Between 2016 and 2019, research expanded into supply-chain logistics and techno-economic frameworks [21]. The period from 2020 to 2025 represents the most prolific phase, characterized by diversification into modular construction [40,41], agent-based modeling for policy analysis [42], and the use of salvaged or reclaimed wood [43,44]. This shift reflects a broader transformation in which mass timber is increasingly framed not only as a technical innovation but also as a strategic pathway for construction decarbonization and circular-economy transitions [4,45].

Figure 2 below visualizes this progression, illustrating how the thematic focus of mass timber research has evolved from technical foundations toward economic integration and sustainability strategies. The timeline highlights the transition from early material studies to system level analyses that position mass timber as a cornerstone of low-carbon construction.

Across the dataset, the research objectives converge into three dominant pillars. The first centers on structural and material performance [17,46], including bending and shear testing [47], durability assessments [1,36], and manufacturing innovations such as the use of fast-growing or low-quality timber [17,48]. The second pillar integrates sustainability and economics, with studies combining LCA–LCC methodologies and carbon footprint analysis to evaluate the environmental and financial implications of mass timber [49,50]. The third pillar present findings on market adoption, policy, and perception, encompassing analyses of adoption barriers, optimal facility siting, and the influence of national building codes on market readiness [2,51,52]. Together, these pillars illustrate the increasingly multidisciplinary nature of mass timber scholarship and the broadening scope of inquiry beyond purely technical considerations.

The interdisciplinary nature of the field is further reflected in the diversity of publication outlets. Engineering-focused journals remain central for structural research [13,40,48,53], forestry journals dominate material science and manufacturing discussions [9,39,54,55], and environmental journals increasingly host sustainability and circular-economy analyses [4,49,52,56]. This disciplinary breadth enriches the field but also contributes to methodological variation, which complicates direct comparison of economic outcomes across studies.

Geographically, the research exhibits a global footprint with concentrated activity in regions with strong forestry sectors and decarbonization agendas. The United States, particularly the Pacific Northwest, Appalachia, and the Southeast, serves as a major hub for feasibility and market-readiness studies [21,29,57,58]. Europe, especially Austria, Sweden, Germany, and Finland, continues to lead in structural innovation and circular-economy models [32,36,37,59]. Emerging contributions from Malaysia, South Korea, South Africa, Uruguay, and Turkey broaden the narrative by examining hybrid products, hardwood utilization, and regional timber quality [17,20,34,60]. However, representation from Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of South Asia remains limited, constraining global comparability of economic findings.

Taken together, these patterns reveal a research domain that is increasingly multidimensional, integrating structural, environmental, economic, and market perspectives. The variability in reported economic outcomes across regions and typologies reflects differing stages of market maturity, supply-chain development, policy environments, and resource availability [22,29,61,62,63].

3.1. Mass Timber Products

The Mass Timber Products theme was intentionally condensed in the revised manuscript to provide essential context without overshadowing the economic, cost, and market synthesis. Rather than offering detailed technical descriptions of CLT, GLT, LVL, NLT, and DLT, the revised section focuses on how differences among these products influence cost structures, supply-chain requirements, market readiness, and project feasibility. For example, CLT’s high prefabrication level affects installation speed and labor costs; GLT’s structural efficiency influences material volumes and price competitiveness; LVL’s mechanical performance affects design optimization and cost trade-offs; and NLT and DLT, which rely on simpler manufacturing processes, have implications for localized production and supply-chain integration. To support this streamlined approach,

Table 2. Key findings related to mass timber product types.

Product Subtheme	Key Findings from the Literature
CLT	Used for wall and floor panels [64]; increasing market share [65]; applied in mid and high-rise buildings [13,66,67]; influences installation speed and prefabrication-related cost savings [1,68].
GLT (Glulam)	Compared with concrete/steel for columns [69,70]; high structural efficiency [46,71]; affects material volume requirements and cost competitiveness [13,33].
LVL	Used for large structural members [22,72]; high mechanical performance [65,73]; relevant for Structural Optimization and design efficiency [74].
NLT/DLT	Simple manufacturing processes; potential for localized production; relevant for regional supply-chain integration [27,34].
Hybrid Systems	Used to optimize performance in taller buildings; influences connection detailing and associated cost implications [46,75].

summarizes the key product-specific characteristics that directly shape economic, cost, and market outcomes, ensuring that the discussion remains aligned with the economic orientation of the review and directly addresses reviewer feedback.

3.2. Economic Dimensions

The Economic Dimensions theme captures how the literature conceptualizes and evaluates the financial performance of mass timber across different contexts. Five subthemes emerged from the synthesis: Expense Framework, Price Dynamics, Investment Feasibility, Economic Competitiveness, and Financial Modeling. These subthemes reflect how studies assess cost structures, market behavior, and economic viability at both the project and system levels.

Table 3. Economic Dimensions and key findings across the reviewed studies.

Economic Subtheme	Key Findings from the Literature
Expense Framework	Studies consistently distinguish between material cost, installation cost, and long-term operational cost [7,22,76]. Mass timber often shows higher upfront material cost but potential savings in installation time and labor due to prefabrication [27,75].
Price Dynamics	CLT and GLT prices are strongly influenced by regional manufacturing capacity [21,77], transportation distance [55], lumber availability [39], and market maturity [21,27]. Price volatility is higher in emerging markets with limited supply-chain integration [78].
Investment Feasibility	Many studies evaluate feasibility for mid-rise buildings [67,79,80], showing that mass timber becomes financially viable when time savings, carbon incentives [38,45], or local supply chains reduce cost premiums [73,81]. Incentives and policy support significantly improve feasibility.
Economic Competitiveness	Competitiveness varies by region and typology. Mass timber is most competitive in markets with high labor costs [1,12], strong prefabrication ecosystems [53,82], or carbon-pricing mechanisms [20,49]. Comparative studies show cost parity in optimized designs.
Financial Modeling	Research employs EIO-LCA [83], unit-cost modeling [76], sensitivity analysis [21,84], and scenario-based simulations to evaluate economic impacts [7,85]. Models highlight the importance of transportation, manufacturing scale, and policy incentives in shaping total cost [31,86,87,88].

summarizes the key findings associated with each subtheme, demonstrating the analytical basis for the economic synthesis presented in this review.

3.3. Market Dimensions

The Market Dimensions theme captures how the literature evaluates the conditions that enable or constrain mass timber adoption across different regions and building sectors. Five subthemes emerged from the synthesis: Market Growth, Market Barriers, Market Drivers, Industry Adoption, and Supply-Chain Integration. These subthemes reflect how studies assess demand formation, practitioner readiness, regulatory environments, and the structural factors that shape market expansion.

Table 4. Market Dimensions and key findings across the reviewed studies.

Market Subtheme	Key Findings from the Literature
Market Growth	Market expansion is strongest in regions with supportive building codes [4,12,66], carbon-focused policies [89,90], and established prefabrication industries [53]. Growth remains uneven globally [78], with North America and Europe leading adoption [21,43,91].
Market Barriers	Common barriers include limited practitioner familiarity [35], fragmented supply chains [45,92], lack of standardized components [52,75], and perceived fire-safety or durability risks [1,93]. These barriers are more pronounced in emerging markets.
Market Drivers	Key drivers include demand for low-carbon construction [4,94,95], architectural preference for exposed timber [76,78], faster construction timelines [92,96], and policy incentives such as embodied-carbon credits or procurement mandates [42,57,67,97].
Industry Adoption	Adoption depends on contractor experience [98,99], availability of trained labor [55], and institutional familiarity with mass timber [98,100]. Early adopters tend to be firms with strong design-build capacity or sustainability-oriented portfolios [101].
Supply-Chain Integration	Market readiness is strongly shaped by lumber availability [39], regional CLT/GLT manufacturing capacity [78], and logistical efficiency [41,54,102]. Weak integration increases cost volatility and reduces competitiveness.

summarizes the key findings associated with each subtheme, demonstrating how market-related dynamics influence the economic and adoption outcomes reported across the reviewed studies.

3.4. Cost Dimensions

The Cost Dimensions theme captures how the literature evaluates the financial implications of mass timber across different stages of the building lifecycle. Four subthemes emerged from the synthesis: Production Cost, Installation Cost, Lifecycle Cost, and Comparative Cost Analysis. These subthemes reflect how studies assess cost drivers, construction efficiencies, long-term economic performance, and the relative cost position of mass timber compared with conventional materials.

Table 5. Cost Dimensions and key findings across the reviewed studies.

Cost Subtheme	Key Findings from the Literature
Production Cost	Production cost varies by lumber species [57,103], manufacturing scale [21,45], and regional supply-chain maturity [70,92]. CLT and GLT often exhibit higher material cost than concrete or steel [94], especially in markets with limited manufacturing capacity [30,55].
Installation Cost	Prefabrication and lighter components reduce installation time [75,104], labor requirements [66,105], and on-site disruption [106]. Several studies report installation-phase savings that partially offset higher material costs [107,108], particularly in mid-rise buildings [86].
Lifecycle Cost (LCC)	LCC analyses show that mass timber can achieve long-term cost advantages through reduced construction time [44,85], improved energy performance [20,59], and potential carbon-credit benefits [63,90]. However, results vary depending on assumptions about service life [7,66], maintenance, and end-of-life recovery [7,109].
Comparative Cost Analysis	Comparative studies reveal mixed outcomes: mass timber is cost-competitive in optimized designs [33,110], regions with high labor costs [1,33,111], or where carbon incentives exist [38,45]. Cost disadvantages persist in markets with immature supply chains or high transportation costs [48,101,108,112].

summarizes the key findings associated with each subtheme, demonstrating how cost-related evidence informs broader assessments of economic feasibility and market competitiveness.

Comparative cost evidence across the reviewed studies shows that mass timber’s financial performance varies substantially by region, typology, and analytical assumptions. A tall mass timber project examined in the United States demonstrated that actual construction costs were approximately 6% lower than budgeted, with the authors noting that reduced construction time contributed significantly to overall savings [113]. A related comparison between a mass timber and reinforced-concrete buildings found that the mass timber alternative was 6.42% more expensive per square foot, although it experienced fewer and less costly change orders, improving cost predictability [72].

Lifecycle-based assessments also reveal mixed outcomes. A high-rise mass timber building in the Pacific Northwest was found to be 4–6% more expensive than its reinforced-concrete counterpart, but the study emphasized that shorter construction duration and reduced foundation requirements improved long-term cost performance [114]. A complementary LCA/LCC comparison similarly reported that mass timber’s higher upfront material costs can be partially offset by operational energy savings over the building’s service life [14].

Other comparative analyses show higher premiums in early-stage or high-rise applications. A multicriteria decision analysis of 5- and 12-story prototypes in the Pacific Northwest reported that mass timber superstructure costs were 21–27% higher than steel alternatives due to market immaturity and material price volatility [29]. In Australia, mass timber buildings were estimated to carry a 4–6% premium relative to reinforced concrete [70], while a recent comparison in Türkiye found that mass timber construction costs were five to six times higher than reinforced concrete due to local pricing structures and limited supply-chain capacity [111].

At the same time, several studies highlight conditions under which mass timber approaches cost parity. An evaluation of mass timber beam–column gravity systems found that total project costs can be competitive when schedule savings and reduced foundation loads are incorporated into the analysis [76]. Collectively, these findings indicate that cost outcomes depend heavily on regional supply-chain maturity, Building Typology, comparator material, and whether analyses incorporate lifecycle or operational benefits.

To provide transparency for the cost ranges reported in the abstract,

Table 6. Comparative cost evidence for mass timber relative to conventional systems.

Study	Region	Building Typology	Comparator	Cost Outcome	Key Assumptions
Ahmed and Arocho, 2022 [72]	USA	Tall mass timber building (real project)	Budgeted cost (project estimate)	Modest savings/near parity—actual total cost lower than budgeted	Based on comparison of budgeted vs. actual cost; schedule reduction and lighter structure reduce overall project cost; highlights impact of construction time and foundations.
Ahmed and Arocho, 2021 [61]	USA	Mid-rise commercial building	Reinforced concrete	Premium—mass timber more expensive per m2/ft2 than RC	Direct cost comparison of MT vs. RC; early-stage market, conservative detailing; MT shows higher upfront cost but fewer and less costly change orders, improving predictability.
Liang et al., 2021 [2]	USA (Pacific Northwest)	High-rise mass timber vs. RC alternative	Reinforced concrete	Premium within 10–15% range (construction cost)	LCA + LCC case study; MT has higher construction cost but benefits from shorter schedule, reduced foundation loads, and lower environmental impacts over lifecycle.
Liang et al., 2020 [14]	USA (Pacific Northwest)	Multi-story office/residential	Reinforced concrete	Near parity/context-dependent	Comparative LCA/LCC; higher material cost for MT partially offset by operational energy savings; cost outcome sensitive to service life and energy assumptions.
Ahmad et al., 2023 [29]	USA (Pacific Northwest)	5- and 12-story prototype buildings	Steel frame	Premium (often > 10–15%)	Multicriteria decision analysis; MT superstructure cost higher than steel due to material price, market immaturity, and limited supply; explores trade-offs with environmental performance.
Chaggaris et al., 2021 [76]	USA	Beam–column gravity systems (office/commercial)	Steel/RC gravity systems	Parity to modest savings (project level)	Techno-economic evaluation; schedule savings and reduced foundation loads can make MT competitive at total project cost level when time and indirect costs are included.
Kremer and Symmons, 2015 [70]	Australia	Mid-rise mass timber building	Reinforced concrete	Small premium (within~10% range)	Early adoption context; limited contractor experience and supply-chain maturity; identifies non-cost drivers (sustainability, speed) as important for adoption.

compiles comparative cost studies that evaluate mass timber against reinforced concrete, steel, or budgeted project estimates. The table reports the region, Building Typology, comparator material, cost outcome (parity, modest savings, or premium), and key analytical assumptions. Together with the narrative synthesis, this comparative evidence clarifies the empirical basis for the reported cost ranges and the conditions under which mass timber achieves or departs from cost competitiveness.

3.5. Building Typology

The Building Typology theme captures how mass timber’s economic and technical performance varies across different building forms and structural configurations. Four subthemes emerged from the synthesis: Mid-Rise Applications, High-Rise Feasibility, Hybrid Timber–Concrete Systems, and Structural Optimization. These subthemes reflect how typology influences cost competitiveness, installation efficiency, regulatory constraints, and material performance.

Table 7. Building Typology and key findings across the reviewed studies.

Typology Subtheme	Key Findings from the Literature
Mid-Rise Applications	Mass timber is most cost-competitive in mid-rise buildings (typically 6–12 stories) [115,116], where prefabrication efficiencies, reduced foundation loads [14,76,117], and shorter construction timelines generate measurable economic advantages [41].
High-Rise Feasibility	High-rise applications face greater regulatory scrutiny [52,118], fire-safety requirements [93,119,120], and engineering complexity [121]. Economic feasibility improves when Hybrid Systems or performance-based codes are available [27,44,46,75,83], but cost premiums remain common [42,103].
Hybrid Timber–Concrete Systems	Composite systems (e.g., timber–concrete floors) enhance stiffness [48,122], acoustic performance [123,124], and fire resistance [33,125]. These systems can achieve competitive lifecycle performance when operational energy savings and usable floor area are included in evaluations [20,109].
Structural Optimization	Optimization strategies, such as panel thickness reduction [116,126,127], efficient span layouts [95,104], and material-specific design [13,64,105], significantly influence cost and performance. Optimized designs consistently outperform non-optimized ones in both cost and structural efficiency [64,105,116,128].

summarizes the key findings associated with each subtheme, demonstrating how the building form shapes the economic and market outcomes reported across the reviewed studies.

4. Discussion

Evaluating whether mass timber is positioned to lead sustainable construction requires situating its performance within the broader economic, institutional, and market systems that govern its adoption. Across the reviewed literature, mass timber is no longer understood as a purely technical innovation; its competitiveness emerges from coordinated supply chains, stable policy environments, and institutional readiness [23,129,130]. Although mass timber consistently delivers sustainability benefits, such as embodied-carbon reduction, biogenic storage, circular-economy potential, and regional economic development, these advantages do not automatically translate into market leadership [131,132]. Economic outcomes remain highly context-dependent, shaped by manufacturing scale, labor conditions, supply-chain maturity, and regulatory stability. This makes clear that cost-competitiveness is not an inherent material property but an emergent outcome of the surrounding ecosystem [39,46,133,134].

A recurring tension in the literature concerns the gap between higher upfront costs and longer-term lifecycle benefits [2,66,135]. Limited manufacturing capacity, fragmented supply chains, and volatile lumber markets often elevate initial material costs, particularly in regions where production networks are still developing [15,136]. Yet these premiums are frequently offset by lifecycle advantages such as reduced embodied energy, shorter construction timelines, lower on-site waste, and end-of-life recovery opportunities [43,137]. Divergent cost findings across studies largely reflect differences in temporal framing: mass timber appears costly when evaluated as a capital expenditure but becomes more favorable when assessed through lifecycle-based sustainability frameworks [16,135,138]. This reinforces the need for investment decisions aligned with long-term decarbonization and circular-economy objectives.

A central tension in the literature concerns the gap between higher upfront costs and longer-term lifecycle benefits [2,66,135]. Limited manufacturing capacity, fragmented supply chains, and volatile lumber markets frequently elevate initial material costs, particularly in regions where production networks are still developing [15,136]. Yet these premiums are often offset by lifecycle advantages such as reduced embodied energy, shorter construction timelines, lower on-site waste, and end-of-life recovery opportunities [43,137]. Divergent cost findings across studies largely reflect differences in temporal framing: mass timber appears costly when evaluated as a capital expenditure but becomes more favorable when assessed through lifecycle-based sustainability frameworks [16,135,138]. This distinction underscores the need for investment decisions aligned with long-term decarbonization and circular-economy objectives rather than short-term cost benchmarks.

Material diversification further illustrates how economic and sustainability objectives intersect. Fast-growing species, low-grade lumber, and salvaged wood are increasingly recognized as viable feedstocks that expand resource availability and strengthen supply resilience [139,140,141,142,143]. However, their integration into markets remains uneven. The primary barriers are institutional, such as lack of standardized grading, certification pathways, and functioning secondary-materials markets, rather than technical feasibility [139,144,145,146]. As a result, circular feedstocks remain difficult to specify, price, and procure consistently at scale. This helps explain why studies in mature markets report stronger economic performance, while studies in emerging markets highlight higher costs and uncertainty.

Market adoption is also shaped by social acceptance and perceived risk. While mass timber is widely viewed as environmentally preferable, concerns about fire safety, durability, and long-term performance persist [147,148,149,150]. Evidence shows that positive environmental beliefs often coexist with risk-based skepticism, influencing willingness to adopt. For instance, a study in the U.S. reported that respondents appreciated the renewable and environmental attributes of mass timber construction while simultaneously expressing heightened fire-risk concerns that negatively influenced their overall perceptions of wood structure [151]. These perception dynamics reinforce findings across the literature that communication and education are essential mechanisms for reducing uncertainty and accelerating adoption, particularly among audiences unfamiliar with mass timber or exposed to misconceptions regarding safety and reliability [152]. In parallel, five recurring themes, environmental sustainability, fire safety, human health and well-being, structural durability, and market costs, have been synthesized as the dominant factors shaping public perceptions [51]. Effective communication strategies must therefore integrate sustainability claims with accessible evidence on safety, performance, and cost trajectories to address the mixed enthusiasm–skepticism landscape that currently influences mass timber’s legitimacy.

Synthesizing these findings, market barriers can be more clearly distinguished into demand-side barriers (social acceptance, perceived risk, and client familiarity) [24,119,150], supply-side barriers (manufacturing capacity, supply-chain fragmentation, and timber availability) [153,154,155], regulatory barriers (building codes, permitting, insurance, and certification requirements) [22,119,155], and financial barriers (upfront cost premiums, price volatility, and limited access to lifecycle-based financing) [43,119,154]. This categorization clarifies how different constraints interact to shape mass timber’s market trajectory.

Building Typology further conditions economic outcomes. Many cost-competitive projects fall within the mid-rise range (8–12 stories) [16,156], where mass timber’s structural efficiency [15,16], prefabrication advantages [15,24], and reduced foundation loads align most effectively with design requirements [157]. In contrast, projects adapted from concrete or steel templates often experience higher costs due to non-optimized spans, connection detailing, or fire-rating requirements [29]. This indicates that cost performance depends not only on material pricing or supply-chain maturity but also on selecting building types that leverage mass timber’s inherent efficiencies.

Finally, demand-side sustainability signals (particularly certification) offer a pathway for market transformation. Growing willingness to pay for certified timber suggests that credible certification can function as both a sustainability mechanism and a trust-building device [158,159,160,161,162]. Transparent sustainability claims reduce perceived risk and strengthen acceptance [158,163]. Several studies propose monetizing carbon benefits through offset mechanisms, internalizing climate advantages typically excluded from conventional cost assessments [24,164,165]. When supported by robust accounting frameworks and policy recognition, such valuation could significantly strengthen the economic rationale for mass timber.

Taken together, the evidence indicates that mass timber’s potential leadership in sustainable construction depends less on its material attributes and more on the maturity of the institutional, productive, and market ecosystems that support it. Its competitiveness emerges where these systems are aligned—and falters where they are not.

5. Conclusions

Mass timber is positioned to contribute to sustainable construction, but its leadership potential is conditional rather than inherent. Evidence across 143 studies shows that its competitiveness depends on the maturity of the surrounding ecosystem—coordinated supply chains, adequate building codes and permitting pathways, sufficient industrial capacity, credible certification systems, and the use of lifecycle-based cost assessment. When these institutional, productive, and market conditions are aligned, mass timber delivers strong sustainability and economic performance; where they are absent, adoption remains constrained. In other words, mass timber’s potential to support future sustainable construction depends on the extent to which enabling systems are developed and effectively integrated.

6. Study Limitations and Future Pathways

This review is shaped by several inherent limitations that define the interpretive boundaries of its findings. The available literature remains geographically concentrated in a few regions, and the heterogeneity of study designs (ranging from techno-economic assessments to experimental material testing) limits the comparability of results. In addition, the review relies primarily on peer-reviewed sources, meaning that industry reports, proprietary datasets, and practitioner insights that often contain valuable cost and market information were beyond the scope of this synthesis.

These limitations point to several productive directions for future research. Priority areas include the development of standardized grading systems and performance databases for emerging feedstocks, the use of more advanced economic modeling to capture market volatility and supply-chain risks, and empirical studies that document real-world circular-economy practices such as design for disassembly and secondary-material markets. Further work on logistics optimization, digital traceability, and comparative policy analysis will also be essential for understanding how regulatory frameworks and industrial capacity shape mass timber’s long-term adoption trajectory.