* Important notice: This news reports on an unedited version of an accepted paper and is awaiting final editing. Therefore, the paper should not be regarded as conclusive or treated as established information.
Analyzing data from 538 residential buildings in China, a recent study sought to compare carbon intensity levels and identify the factors driving differences in emissions. Examining low-rise, multi-story, and high-rise constructions, it was found that the structural materials employed during building have the most significant influence on overall emissions. These findings were published in Scientific Reports.
Study: Research on the coupling and coordinated high-quality development of minerals and economy along the “Belt and Road.” Image credit: ZCOOL HelloRF/Shutterstock.com
Large-Scale Assessment Reveals Key Drivers of Embodied Carbon
Reducing carbon emissions from the building sector is critical for meeting national and global climate targets. Many previous studies have quantified embodied carbon in individual buildings or small groups of projects. However, fewer studies have explored why embodied carbon levels vary across residential building types.
In this study, researchers analyzed a dataset of 538 residential buildings across China to address these research gaps. The sample set included low-rise, multi-story, and high-rise buildings. It also covered a wide range of structural systems, seismic requirements, foundation types, decoration standards, and regional conditions.
The researchers examined how these characteristics influence embodied carbon intensity. They also identified the materials responsible for the observed differences. The results showed that structural form, seismic fortification intensity, and delivery type were the most important factors affecting embodied carbon performance.
Data Collection and Analytical Framework
The researchers assessed embodied carbon using a cradle-to-site system boundary that covered material production and transportation processes (stages A1–A4 of the EN 15978 standard). They measured carbon emissions per square meter of floor area, enabling consistent comparisons among buildings of different sizes.
The study analyzed 538 residential buildings, including 180 low-rise, 177 multi-story, and 181 high-rise projects. Data was gathered from engineering documents, bills of quantities, field surveys, and published case studies. The researchers improved dataset reliability by removing outliers, excluding incomplete records, and applying statistical techniques to address limited missing data.
The embodied carbon assessment considered 16 commonly used building materials, which were classified into three groups: structural, decorative, and functional materials.
Structural materials included steel, concrete, prefabricated components, and masonry products. Decorative materials included cement, mortar, paint, tiles, and timber-based products. Functional materials comprised insulation systems, waterproofing materials, windows, and doors.
The study used carbon emission factors from Chinese national standards and supplemented them with values from peer-reviewed literature when necessary.
Researchers applied Spearman's rank correlation and the Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test to identify factors influencing embodied carbon intensity. This approach identified the specific materials responsible for differences in embodied carbon intensity across building categories.
Structural Materials Dominate Carbon Emissions and Reduction Opportunities
Building height had a clear influence on embodied carbon intensity. High-rise buildings exhibited the highest average emissions (450.1 kgCO2e/m2), multi-story buildings occupied the middle range (442.9 kgCO2e/m2), and low-rise buildings showed the lowest embodied carbon intensity (399.2 kgCO2e/m2).
Structural materials were the dominant source of embodied carbon across all building types, contributing approximately 82%, 75%, and 78% in low-rise, multi-story, and high-rise buildings, respectively.
Decorative and functional materials contributed less overall, although decorative materials had a greater impact during transportation.
Buildings with refined decoration consistently generated higher embodied carbon emissions than those with simpler finishes. Concrete and steel were the key materials influencing embodied carbon emissions. In low- and high-rise buildings, concrete had the greatest influence, whereas steel played a larger role in multi-story buildings.
Carbon reduction analysis showed that multi-story frame structures offered the highest reduction potential at 15.2%, followed by low-rise frame structures at 13.9%. Among high-rise buildings, shear wall structures achieved the greatest potential for reduction at 12.5%.
These results demonstrate that material optimization and improved transportation strategies can significantly lower embodied carbon emissions.
Click here to download a free PDF copy of this page
Implications for Low-Carbon Residential Building Design
Rather than simply measuring embodied carbon, the researchers explored which building features and materials have the biggest impact on emissions. Their findings show that design decisions play a major role in a building's carbon footprint and offer ways to reduce emissions in residential construction.
Structural materials, particularly concrete and steel, were the main drivers of embodied carbon. However, there is no one-size-fits-all low-carbon solution. The best structural system depends on factors such as building height, performance requirements, and local seismic conditions.
The study also highlights several ways to cut embodied carbon, including using materials more efficiently and choosing lower-carbon structural systems where possible. It reinforces the importance of making these decisions early in the design process, when they can have the greatest impact.
As embodied carbon becomes an increasingly important part of a building's overall environmental impact, these findings provide useful guidance for designers, engineers, developers, and policymakers working toward lower-carbon, high-performing residential buildings.
Journal Reference
Wang, L., Lu, W., et al. (2026). Research on the coupling and coordinated high-quality development of minerals and economy along the “Belt and Road.” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. DOI: 10.1057/S41599-026-07343-4, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-026-07343-4
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author expressed in their private capacity and do not necessarily represent the views of AZoM.com Limited T/A AZoNetwork the owner and operator of this website. This disclaimer forms part of the Terms and conditions of use of this website.