For at least the past couple of centuries, modern architecture has been taught, practiced, and sanctioned as an art and science of extraction.1 Current architectural pedagogies and practices, as well as building codes and norms, have done little to curb this modernist, extractive, take-make-fake-break paradigm of building. These pedagogies and practices prolong an architectural history of taking land through displacement and dispossession for the extraction of materials to make products and assemble buildings on that taken land. As a form of teleological justification, this paradigm feels compelled to construe data that demonstrates the purported environmental virtue of extraction and attempts to convince itself, clients, and the public that this process of conspicuous consumption is “sustainable.” And it sees no problem breaking any building, place, or people along the way as it designs another cycle of planned obsolescence in the name of ostensible improvement.2 We curiously refer to this architecture as “growth.”
This persistent take-make-fake-break paradigm externalizes and degrades systemic ecological and social conditions. Architects are presently either unwilling or unable to see the damage and degradation—the slow and not-so-slow violence—inherent in its normal operating procedures, pedagogies, and practices. This is our discipline’s collective agnotology masked as creativity, safety, comfort, and sustainability. The future should no longer be a colony of this tutored ignorance. The vulgarity of this paradigm based on extraction and emission is not the only possible path forward, nor is it our only architectural legacy. World history is replete with elaborate examples of more relevant, nonmodern designs that do not presume extraction as their primary basis. As a result, we have for too long denied ourselves of other, nonmodern forms of beauty, delight, and conviviality.
Alternatives to the modern take-make-fake-break paradigm thus prove intellectually, practically, and politically compelling today. Timber buildings, as well as other biogenic building systems, are not merely less-bad substitutions for modernist construction systems and categories. Rather, they represent evolutionary opportunities to rethink how design tends and mends its terrestrial processes.
For example, there is a recursive relationship between forests and timber building, which we refer to as forest-building.3 Putting the forest first in thinking about timber building entails a detailed immersion in forest history, forest stand dynamics, forest ecology, forest-building carbon dynamics, and possible future forest trajectories as the pretext for deriving timber building technics.4 The specificity of regional forests suggests much about the prospect of non-extractive, regenerative building design: building activity that tends and mends its terrestrial basis rather than takes, makes, fakes, and breaks it.
We inherit a used planet, often an abused planet. We are in a situation that requires unbuilding: not just unbuilding modern buildings but also unbuilding modern codes and policies, assumptions and norms, and certainly, pedagogies. Most forests today also require unbuilding due to fire exclusion policies and the conversion of forests into plantations, fields, roads, and suburbs. As a matter of truth and reconciliation, design and building can actively augment and improve forest conditions as an instance of regenerative design—but only if conceived, valued, and practiced in ways distinct from normative design and construction.
Theories of Value
At the core of an inversion of design from extractive to regenerative forest-building is an inversion of values. In ecological economics, normative models of design, building, and urbanization reflect what are called “receiver theories of value.” In a receiver theory of value, a consumer is willing to pay for products and services according to their perceived exchange value, using reductionist and invariant units of exchange such as dollars. Externalities, unequal economic and ecological exchanges, and systemic forms of underdevelopment characterize market-based receiver theories of value.
By contrast, “donor theories of value” are based on the real wealth of planetary resources and other contributing values like labor to any resulting good or service. As Benjamin Lowe and Andrea Genovese note, “donor theories account for the objective resources utilized to produce an item or service; receiver theories link value to human demand.”5 In other words, the vector of valuation flips in receiver and donor theories of value. This value inversion is necessary for any land-based, multi-generational, nonmodern way of knowing and living. In forest-building, donor theories help frame a non-reductionist planetary realism as the basis for design’s value in wider socio-ecological systems. Donor theories of value guide distinct design practices.
One operating hypothesis of forest-building is that only practices can be non-extractive. Individual design projects—characteristically one-off responses—leap to a modern understanding of “design” prematurely and neglect systemic opportunities and obligations. This scope neglect is a systemic cognitive bias in normative, project-based design pedagogies and practice. Only donor-driven practices are sufficiently systemic to achieve non-extractive, regenerative outcomes. Thus, donor-oriented design shifts from the clever derivation of idiosyncratic objects towards reconciling the socio-ecological conditions of a region. This entails recursive, typically land-based work between ecology, economic geography, system labor, and more familiar architectural concerns, such as building geometry or timber assembly details.
Forest-Building Carbon
The role of carbon dynamics in forest-building relations helps further distinguish donor and receiver practices. Carbon is an emphasized topic in timber building today, especially conversations regarding mass timber building. However, the simple repetition of that emphasis does not mean that forest-building carbon dynamics are well characterized in discourse or practice. For example, in the building industry there are often claims regarding carbon neutral building components, or more ponderously, “net-zero” carbon buildings.6 Forest-building carbon dynamics are never neutral, nor should they be in ecological terms. Building is never net-zero anything, and one of the greatest ecological potentials of building is that it is not-zero.7 Instead, building as a terrestrial activity reflects a constitutively open system with abundant opportunities to feedback, regenerate, and amplify overall ecology.8
The primary scientific problem of net-zero is that its claims are persistently self-serving and exhibit errant system-boundary definitions. This is because the system boundary of common carbon models does not adequately include forest dynamics, and thus forest-carbon dynamics. For example, in life cycle assessment (LCA) studies of timber-related carbon, half the dry weight of harvested material is assumed to be carbon. On this basis, LCA arithmetic ensues with a material-based functional unit of analysis (e.g., carbon/cubic meter). Variants of LCA—each of which suffer the vicissitudes of its human-centric, metaphoric nomenclature—include Cradle to Gate, Cradle to Grave, and Cradle to Cradle. In each variant, the carbon/cubic meter accounting of the product assessment begins with the “Cradle,” or the extraction of that cubic meter of timber, before moving on to accounting for the emissions associated with its processing, transportation, emissions, manufacture, and so forth.
This assignment of a building product’s “Cradle” as the moment of extraction by receiver theories of carbon value poses a core problem of forest-building assessment: its system-boundary definition clips out the donating bio-geophysical work of the forest and all the important terrestrial relations and processes that precede extraction. As a result, life-cycle assessment protocols paradoxically only count what occurs once the living system, the tree, is killed and extracted. In other words, LCA only accounts for the metaphorical “life” of the harvested material as a commodity and product, not the cycles of life of that tree in its forest ecology. In this regard, the industrial ecology origin of LCA reflects a receiver theory of value and is an example of the take-make-fake-break paradigm in sanctioned action.
However, it is the living dynamics of trees and forests prior to harvesting and extraction that do the work of carbon dioxide sequestration and assimilation. Why, then, should these consequential forest carbon dynamics and pools be methodologically disregarded in LCA, and thus by design? Our methodological means need to better align with our ecological ambitions if we intend architecture to contribute substantively to climate-aware policy and regenerative design practices. Metrics and methods that isolate buildings from forests cannot account for the coupled dynamics that determine both ecological and architectural performance.
The static LCA-based characterization of carbon in the building industry is a prime example of what Alfred North Whitehead identified in science as the epistemic problem of “simple location”:
To say that a bit of matter has simple location means that, in expressing its spatio-temporal relations, it is adequate to state that it is where it is, in a definite finite region of space, and throughout a definite finite duration of time, apart from any essential reference of the relations of that bit of matter to other regions of space and to other durations of time…. I shall argue that among the primary elements of nature as apprehended in our immediate experience, there is no element whatever which possesses this character of simple location.9
Biogenic carbon does not possess the property of simple location. The simple location, and calculation, of carbon in building components occludes not only critical forest ecology dynamics (including air, water, and biodiversity), but also relevant forest history dynamics as well. While carbon sequestered decades or centuries ago in a volume of timber harvested today is pertinent to consider in forest-building relations, the role of current and future carbon sequestration is far more relevant in architecture’s relationship to looming climate change. In other words, what will impact climate is the future fate of a harvested hectare over the next hundreds of years, not the short-term storage of carbon in a building for a few decades. Relevant carbon sequestration, flux, and storage are thus not a material property but rather attributes of two interacting, complex adaptive systems: forest ecology and building ecology. We need dynamic methods and metrics that index the dynamics of these interacting systems. To avoid receiver-oriented, simply located accounts of carbon, a land-based functional unit of analysis (e.g., carbon/hectare) evaluated over long time horizons is the proper basis of forest-building carbon dynamic methods of analysis and design.
While trees sequester most forest-related carbon, they are but one portion of a forest system. In forest ecology, the carbon sequestered by a forest is stocked in elements (“pools”) other than just the living, sequestering trees. For example, in addition to biomass that is living above ground (of which trees are but one type), forest carbon is pooled below ground in organic soil and the biomass of living and dead roots, as well as in loose litter above ground and in aboveground dead trees. The carbon stored in a timber building component is a displacement of the carbon pooled in a forest system. We should thus construe timber buildings as a direct extension of forest dynamics: as displaced carbon pools of donated forest biomass.
Consider an acre of forest in the northeastern United States. About a third of the total forest carbon is in aboveground biomass. If this timber is clear-cut harvested and displaced to human use, material flow analysis reveals that after one hundred years, only 6.6 percent of the harvest would still be in use. The rest would be inefficiently emitted or in a landfill. This 6.6 percent, however, only reflects about 1 percent of the total carbon in the original forest system. Moreover, one hundred years is a short-term time horizon in forest dynamics. In a land-based, donor-oriented analysis of forest-building carbon dynamics, buildings cannot be construed as long-term carbon storage designs. Carbon–cubic meter building designs thus typically reflect inefficient displacements of otherwise more stable carbon flows and storage in adjacent carbon pools, especially in soil carbon where carbon is most stably stored for the longest duration.10 Carbon is generally better left in the forest where it would cascade through the carbon pools and into the soil carbon where it is most effectively and durably stored.
For valid forest-building carbon claims, the displaced carbon of timber building components must outlast the life and functions of the tree if left to live, die, and decompose in the forest where—living or dead—it provides important ecological functions, including much greater ongoing carbon sequestration and storage dynamics. However, if we develop forest-building designs that harvest at a much reduced rate using silvicultural techniques that cultivate old-growth attributes and their superior carbon, air, and water qualities, then building could be used to tend and mend forest dynamics rather than merely taking and making timber for building. Land-based carbon assessments and designs are but one parameter in forest-building methods, but they help illustrate an aspect of a donor-theory of value and the necessary shift from taking and making to tending and mending the terrestrial ecology of building and urbanization activities. Other forest-building traits further alter how we think about and do forest-building design work.
Building with Traits
If forest-building methods help us eliminate extraction as the epistemic and operational basis of architecture, we should also eliminate the material and syntactical categories that extraction has stabilized in modernity. Using the LCA example again, not only is wood treated a static object whose value is simply located the moment it leaves the forest, it also abstracts and simplifies terrestrial and living systems through traditional design methods and through material categories of their specifications.11 Materials are specified through receiver values and categories, as if they were discrete objects: species lists, product types, and standardized assemblies, each assumed to persist independently of the ecological systems that produce them. These materials are designed using Cartesian methods that can only describe isolated, static objects. Under accelerating climate change, the effects of these abstract material categories and design methods are increasingly apparent, if not violent. Species distributions are shifting, disturbance regimes are intensifying, and the assumption of stable material supply is collapsing. Yet architecture continues to operate as if these impacts and transformations were external. They are not.
The tradition of product-oriented material categories within architecture is an epistemic limitation when it comes to regenerative design and the terrestrial ecology of building. For example, the operative categories in the wood building industry—such as spruce-pine-fir, hardwood/softwood, mass timber—are abstractions that suppress the variability and vitality of forests in order to enable top-down, command-and-control management.12 These species and related categories have long stabilized the timber building industry. They anchor specifications, organize supply chains, and simplify design and engineering assumptions. They are also how forest-building scope neglect became manifest across all sectors of the timber building industry. They require species to be managed toward uniform outputs (e.g., tree plantations) rather than preferred ecological outcomes, as well as abstracted and standardized into predictable commodities (e.g., southern yellow pine, hem-fir). The result is a system organized around artificial stability that suppresses the variability that on the one hand defines ecological systems, and on the other enlivens architecture.
Thus, a forest-first, donor-based conception of design requires another core conceptual shift: designing and building through trait-based practices. Traits—such as specific gravity, growth rate, drought tolerance, density—can replace materials as the primary medium of architectural engagement with forest systems. They can replace species and products with the operative attributes of species’ function in forests and buildings. The relevant unit for design in forest-building is not object-oriented identity but system capacity: measurable attributes and traits through which forests and buildings are physically linked.
This follows recent forestry and ecological research, which has shifted from species-based management toward functional trait approaches.13 Traits provide a means of understanding forests through the capacities they maintain rather than the species they contain, allowing managers to prioritize resilience, functional diversity, and adaptive capacity under changing conditions. Architecture, by contrast, continues to operate solely through species-based, receiver-oriented categories and classification, while relying implicitly on traits to make those classifications workable.14 Common design parameters such as strength, stiffness, and durability remain common design variables detached from the donating ecological processes that produce them. Designing with traits resolves this detachment by situating building material traits within forest traits.
Within a donor-value approach to design, building traits are not independent of ecological traits; rather, building traits are the result of ecological traits. Wood density, for example, is both a structural property in construction and an ecological adaptation related to growth rate and environmental stress (like drought) in forest systems. Similarly, traits that influence timber strength and durability as a system attribute in buildings (like specific gravity) correspond to ecological traits like net primary production and carbon stocking in global climate models. By linking ecological traits to building traits, forest-building establishes a continuous relationship between forest dynamics and architectural dynamics. Materials are no longer seen as static resources, but as expressions of ecological and terrestrial processes. Traits are therefore not simply descriptors of material performance. They are the operational linkages—interfaces—through which forest dynamics become legible and actionable within design.
Traits also provide a basis for understanding resilience across both forests and buildings. Rather than treating resilience as an independent system property, a trait-based approach understands it as emerging from the distribution and arrangement of functional capacities within a system. Traits reveal not only how individual organisms, materials, or products perform, but also how systems respond to disturbance, adapt to changing conditions, and maintain function over time. Across coupled forest-building systems, resilience depends on the relationship between functional diversity and functional redundancy. Functional diversity describes the range of responses available to disturbance, while functional redundancy describes the extent to which multiple elements provide similar functional responses.
Alternative wood construction approaches and products can be evaluated through measures of functional diversity and functional redundancy, allowing resilience to be assessed quantitatively. Mixed-species and adaptive construction systems exhibit higher levels of both diversity and redundancy than conventional single-species approaches.15 These measures are useful not simply because they describe resilience, but because they reveal how resilience can be intentionally designed through the arrangement of traits. If resilience emerges from the distribution of functional capacities within a system, then the design challenge becomes identifying which traits perform equivalent functions across different species. This shifts attention from species identities to patterns of shared characteristics and creates opportunities for substitution, adaptation, and diversification through trait clustering.
Trait Clustering, Functional Equivalence, and Adaptation
To design with traits, species are organized into functional groupings based on shared capacities. These provisional trait clusters reflect fields of equivalence satisfied by multiple species or resources in the system. For example, a cluster defined by low density, rapid growth, and high machinability aligns ecologically with early-successional species. In construction, this provisional grouping aligns with light structural systems and reconstituted fiber products. Spruce, pine, fir, aspen, and poplar—typically separated by region or market—become functionally equivalent within this cluster. A second cluster defined by higher density, slower growth, and increased durability corresponds to late-successional or stress-tolerant species such as oak, maple, and beech. In buildings, these traits translate into greater strength and resistance but reduced processability. A third cluster could emerge around processing compatibility rather than intrinsic strength. Species with irregular form or small diameters, for instance, which are often excluded from conventional lumber production, can be grouped through traits such as fiber length, bonding capacity, and uniformity under reconstitution. These groupings and clusters are not fixed but contingent on the relevant behaviors required of a design. A single species can inhabit multiple clusters depending on which traits are engaged, and multiple species can occupy the same cluster when their performances converge. What thus emerges is not a fixed hierarchy of materials or categories, but a multidimensional design space of equivalent capacities indexed through traits.
Design specification thus shifts from the traditional architectural baggage of syntactic identity and proprietary performance to the more relevant concerns such as ecological capacity. Instead of prescribing species, trait-based design defines ranges of acceptable behavior and fitness. Within these ranges, equivalence within a system becomes intrinsic rather than exceptional and happenstance. Trait-based design reorganizes value aggregation around the donating living systems. Species-based supply chains, conversely, depend on market continuity, i.e.. the repeated extraction and processing of specific materials. This continuity is fragile because it assumes stable forest output. Clustered traits, however, replace this necessary continuity with equivalence. Clustered traits allow multiple species to satisfy the same material role, producing value-accruing systems that are distributed and adaptive rather than linear and fixed. Inputs can shift without disrupting outputs; variability and diversity are absorbed rather than eliminated. This redistributes risk and reward in the value and production systems. In traditional species-based material systems, disturbance propagates directly: the loss of a dominant species produces immediate scarcity. In trait-based systems, that loss is buffered by system-wide equivalence. Functional redundancy becomes a property of the value system itself.
To illustrate trait-based design at the scale of a building product, a conceptual mixed-species glulam beam was developed using representative species from seven ecological groups. Unlike conventional glulam products manufactured from a single species or commercial group, the beam organizes material according to ecological and building traits. Collectively, the assembly represents seven ecological groups through only three building groups, demonstrating how diverse ecological strategies can remain materially equivalent within construction. White spruce and red pine, for example, occupy the same building group while representing contrasting ecological responses to disturbance and climatic stress, while paper birch, red maple, white ash, and bur oak contribute distinct successional and adaptive traits within a common hardwood building group. The beam therefore functions not as a fixed species prescription but as a prototype of trait-based specification in which ecological diversity and building performance are coupled through a single product.
The beam is intentionally composed of ecological groups associated with contrasting ecological functions, including climatic adaptation, disturbance recovery, successional transition, response diversity, redundancy, and continuity. By combining these functions within a single engineered wood product, resilience is distributed across the assemblage rather than concentrated in a single species or commercial category. The beam can therefore be interpreted as a condensed ecological network in which functional diversity broadens the range of potential responses to disturbance, while functional redundancy maintains performance despite species turnover. In this sense, the engineered wood product becomes a material expression of forest-building, translating ecological resilience into architectural performance.
The outcome of this trait-based reorganization is the adaptive capacity of the coupled forest-building system. Adaptability is not introduced as a supplementary design feature but emerges from the structure of the system itself. By contrast, in species-based design, variability is externalized and must be controlled. In trait-based systems, variability is internalized and treated as a productive condition rather than a problem to be eliminated. Forests and buildings can therefore adapt together across both space and time. As forests transition through succession, disturbance, or climate-driven shifts in species composition, functional capacities can be redistributed among species and products while maintaining desired performance outcomes. By indexing trait distributions rather than species identities, trait-based designs remain compatible with conditions that cannot be predicted in advance. Adaptability, in this sense, is not flexibility added after the fact. It is the result of structuring systems around functional diversity and redundancy at the level of traits.
The implications of trait-based design extend beyond individual products to entire architectural systems. Just as ecological traits are aggregated within forest stands and building traits are aggregated within timber products, architectural capacities emerge from the organization of products into assemblies, structures, and buildings. Decisions regarding structural systems, maintenance cycles, replacement rates, adaptability, repair, and reuse therefore become expressions of ecological traits at architectural scales. Forest-building operates across these interconnected levels, from silvicultural practices and forest composition to timber products, building assemblies, and spatial organization. In this sense, buildings are not simply consumers of forest outputs but active participants in the organization of forest resilience. Architectural capacities such as durability, repairability, planning flexibility, and substitution potential emerge from the same ecological processes that produce the material itself. The significance of trait-based design therefore lies not in the diversification of products alone, but in the capacity to translate ecological variability into architectural adaptability across scales.
Traits as Interface
Designing and building with traits requires a redistribution of responsibility across disciplines. For architects, it requires that specifications be understood as critical, engaged ecological acts, with a focus on system traits rather than traditional product categories or material syntaxes. Accordingly, materials should not be selected from a catalog or specified as fixed proprietary products but negotiated within a field of traits inherent to the forests’ system dynamics. This approach builds upon emerging research in mixed-species engineering, adaptive forest management, and trait-based ecological modelling.16 Rather than specifying a single preferred species, architects define desired functional capacities such as strength, dimensional stability, durability, carbon storage, or workability, allowing multiple forest conditions and material pathways to satisfy the design intent. Yet, traits cannot be interpreted by designers alone. Their translation into building products must occur through a distributed network of forest managers, engineers, grading systems, and manufacturers.
For industry, designing with traits requires a departure from market-based, receiver-oriented categories and top-down command/control operations. Manufacturing systems must accommodate a wider range of forest inputs, and engineered products must be rethought as platforms for trait aggregation rather than species consolidation. Examples already exist in mixed-species glulam beams, hardwood and mass timber products made from underutilized species, small-scale/low-value pine CLT systems, and veneer-based composite products capable of combining multiple species while maintaining predictable performance.17 In these systems, engineered wood products function less as mechanisms for standardizing individual species and more as interfaces through which diverse ecological capacities can be assembled into architectural performance.
For forestry, it suggests a shift from yield optimization toward functional diversity, redundancy, and evolving forest stand compositions in an era of changing climates. Forests managed for uniform, massive output result in fragile forest systems while forests managed for trait-based adaptive capacity produce resilient ones. For building code and policy, the significance of a trait-based framework lies not in identifying new species to approve, but in changing the basis of approval itself. Functional capacities rather than species identities become the relevant unit of specification, allowing material systems to evolve alongside changing forest conditions.
If a forest-building approach redefines architectural value in terms of ecological work, traits provide the means through which that work enters design. Traits are the interface through which forest dynamics become architecture. Yet if value originates in the donated work of forests, soils, climate, biodiversity, and human stewardship, how are these contributions recognized and supported? Conventional receiver-based systems assign value primarily to commodities and transactions, compensating those activities that produce marketable outputs while treating many ecological processes as externalities. A donor framework suggests a different method of accounting. Forest ecosystem services, long-term stewardship, silvicultural management, manufacturing labor, and reciprocal design expertise all contribute to the capacities that ultimately make construction possible. Value is not produced at a single point of exchange but emerges from an extended network of ecological and social relations that precede and sustain the building itself.
To design with land-based conceptions of forest-building carbon dynamics, and to design and build with traits, helps to situate buildings as participants in larger terrestrial systems. Timber architecture does not operate apart from forests; it continuously reorganizes them through specification, extraction, manufacturing, and construction. We need design and assessment methods that reflect this inherent terrestrial relation. A forest-building approach opens these relationships to design in novel ways, offering a framework through which buildings can adapt alongside changing forests rather than against them.
For one emblematic example of extraction-based modern architecture, see Kiel Moe, Unless: The Seagram Building Construction Ecology (Actar D, Inc., 2021).
See Daniel M. Abramson, Obsolescence: An Architectural History (University of Chicago Press, 2016).
See Peter Osborne et al., “A Trait-Based Approach to Both Forestry and Timber Building Can Synchronize Forest Harvest and Resilience,” PNAS Nexus 2, no. 8 (2023): art. pgad254.
See Kiel Moe, Forest First: Timber Building (Actar, 2026).
See Benjamin H. Lowe and Andrea Genovese, “What Theories of Value (Could) Underpin Our Circular Futures?,” Ecological Economics 195 (May 2022): art. 107382.
See “Every Building on the Planet Must Be ‘Net Zero Carbon’ by 2050 to Keep Global Warming below 2°C - New Report,” World Green Building Council, n.d., accessed September 21, 2026, ➝.
See Kiel Moe, “Not-Zero Energy,” in Embodied Energy and Design: Making Architecture Between Metrics and Narratives, ed. David Benjamin (Lars Müller Publishers, 2017).
See Kiel Moe, Convergence: An Architectural Agenda for Energy (London: Routledge, 2013).
Alfred North Whitehead explicates aspects of simple location in his discussion of the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness in Alfred North Whitehead, “The Century of Genius,” in Science and the Modern World (New York: Free Press, 1967), 54.
For more on land-based, historically situated methods for forest carbon accounting and design, see Kiel Moe, “Forest Carbon: Static or Dynamic?” in Moe, Forest First.
See Peter Osborne, “Forest-Building: Exploring Carbon Sequestration in Wood Buildings and Forests with System Dynamics Modelling,” in Structures and Architecture A Viable Urban Perspective?, ed. Paulo J. S. Cruz and Marie Frier Hvejsel (Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2022).
See C. S. Holling and Gary K. Meffe, “Command and Control and the Pathology of Natural Resource Management,” Conservation Biology 10, no. 2 (1996): 328–37.
See Núria Aquilué et al., “Evaluating Forest Resilience to Global Threats Using Functional Response Traits and Network Properties,” Ecological Applications 30, no. 5 (2020): e02095; Jens Kattge et al., “TRY Plant Trait Database – Enhanced Coverage and Open Access,” Global Change Biology 26, no. 1 (2020): 119–88.
See Forest Products Laboratory, Wood Handbook: Wood as an Engineering Material, General Technical Report FPL-GTR-282, (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, 2021), ➝.
See Peter Osborne et al., “Wood in Transition: Diversifying Wood Construction to Cope with Forest Change,” Technology | Architecture + Design 11, no. 2, “Adaptable” (forthcoming, 2027).
See Mercy Ogunruku et al., “Mechanical Properties of Underutilized Hardwood Species and Potential for Use in Fabrication of Cross-Laminated Timber Industrial Mats,” Forest Products Journal 74 (2024): 233–41; Christian Messier et al., “The Functional Complex Network Approach to Foster Forest Resilience to Global Changes,” Forest Ecosystems 6, no. 1 (2019): art. 21; Marco Mina et al., “Managing for the Unexpected: Building Resilient Forest Landscapes to Cope with Global Change,” Global Change Biology 28, no. 14 (2022):4323–41.
See Lech Muszynski et al., “Defining Custom CLT Grade Utilizing Low‐Value Ponderosa Pine,” TallWood Design Institute, 2022, ➝; Citra Yanto Ciki Purba et al., “Assessment of Bonding Durability of CLT and Glulam Made from Oak and Mixed Poplar-Oak According to Bonding Pressure and Glue Type,” Construction and Building Materials 335 (June 2022): art. 127345; Michele Brunetti et al., “Comparison of Different Bonding Parameters in the Production of Beech and Combined Beech-Spruce CLT by Standard and Optimized Tests Methods,” Construction and Building Materials 265 (December 2020): art. 120168; Ogunruku et al., “Mechanical Properties of Underutilized Hardwood Species.”
