It is said that “The Road to success is always under construction” a quote largely attributed to actress and comedian Lily Tomlin. This is even truer in the context of civil engineering, the methods used in the planning and creation of structures are ever changing. People are discovering more efficient ways to make and use materials to build structures, and they are always looking for ways to make sure that the impact to the environment is minimal. In their report analyzing the input-output association of greenhouse gas emissions with the construction of timber, concrete, and steel check dams in Akita, Japan; Tomohumi Huzita and Ryu Noda inform the reader with data driven facts about how different types of construction materials affect greenhouse gas emissions. They use an objective and analytical tone to inform engineers and policymakers about the environmental impact of material selection. They use data and structure to inform and argue that timber check dams produce the lowest greenhouse gas emissions. Their research highlights the role of material choice in climate change, which shows us the necessity of consciously choosing what to do in construction.
The authors, Tomohumi Huzita and Ryu Noda, present the information in a structured and analytical manner. They employ logos as their primary rhetorical device, directly in their abstract we learn that using timber instead of concrete and steel check dams could reduce Greenhouse gas emissions “by 61% and 34%, respectively” (Huzita and Noda, 2025). Their methods allow the reader to think about the topic objectively through looking at the numbers and facts, rather than believing in a subjective argument through emotions or personal thoughts. They structure it with a logical progression, starting off with introducing the Paris Agreement and where nations agreed to try to reduce Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions “by 43% by 2030 and 60% by 2035 to achieve the 1.5°C target” (Huzita and Noda, 2025). Giving the background to the concerns surrounding the use of different construction materials, it is presented that the production of cement “contributes to approximately 5% of the global anthropogenic GHG emissions” (Huzita and Noda, 2025).
Throughout the paper, they use charts, tables, and other statistics to show their findings, not using any personal thoughts. For example, they present how another study by Johanne Hammervold, Marte Reenaas, and Helge Brattebø found that “Timber contributed less to global warming than concrete and steel” (Huzita and Noda, 2025), which illustrates the environmental benefits of using timber instead of the other materials. They also addressed other issues that would arise with the use of timber, like its environmental impact and cutting down of trees by explaining that “40% of Japan’s forests are planted forests… with the expectation of timber use” (Huzita and Noda, 2025). They do not give a personal reason to use Timber, instead they opt to show us the facts that this is what they are meant to be used for, and the government has been pushing for its usage. Their tone throughout the paper remains formal and objective, so as not to show the audience any emotions by not using any language that may present itself as emotional or persuasive. They let the data speak for itself; the authors ensure that their research is accessible and credible to the audience.
Throughout this paper, they speak to a variety of people, from engineers, environmental scientists, and especially the policymakers; people that are interested in and in charge of sustainable construction and infrastructure. Their technical nature and use of detailed emission data suggests that it is reading for readers that have a background in civil engineering or with sustainable infrastructures, more focused towards the academics rather than the ordinary person. Early on in the paper, the authors establish the relevance of the research by telling us about “the 49th Summit of the Group of Seven (G7) industrialized nations, held in May 2023 in Hiroshima, Japan, [which] emphasized the urgency of reducing GHG emissions”(Huzita and Noda, 2025), the G7 countries include Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States, all big and impactful countries. This tells us what type of people are thinking about the effects of climate change and why they should care about the research and what it finds. They use objective evidence rather than any persuasive rhetoric, which indicates that they are addressing people who value data-driven decisions, which would most likely be professionals and people higher up who are capable to make these decisions in a wider scale.
Furthermore, they acknowledge economic considerations, stating that its findings “will help in the selection of timber, which has not been selected before due to its high cost, as a construction material for public structures” (Huzita and Noda, 2025). The people who would care about the cost of using such materials are people who would be directly involved in the process of making the structures, specifically dams, that use the materials. However, their inclusion of “other structures in the civil engineering field include bridges, roadside noise barriers, and guardrails” (Huzita and Noda, 2025) broadens their audience to include engineers working on various infrastructure projects. By maintaining a formal tone and presenting their research through statistical analysis and data, the authors have made sure that their work is credible and understood to those in engineering, environmental planning, and policy-making roles.
The primary purpose of Huzita and Noda’s study is to evaluate and compare the GHG emissions amongst timber, concrete, and steel check dams, and inform their readers about the more sustainable construction practices. There is also subtle persuasion for the use of timber over the use of concrete or steel. They quantify the environmental impact of each material choice by using an input-output analysis and highlight how replacing concrete and steel with timber reduces emissions. They state that their findings “enable the quantitative evaluation of the added value of a construction material other than its construction cost,” (Huzita and Noda, 2025), showing that their research is not just about comparing the emissions but also about helping the people making decisions about these projects to consider environmental factors alongside the economic ones. The authors inform us that the GHG emissions associated with “the timber, concrete, and steel check dams at the design stage were 24,128 kg-CO2 eq, 49,022 kg-CO2 eq, and 35,801 kg-CO2 eq, respectively” (Huzita and Noda, 2025). Even though this piece of information clearly shows that timber is more efficient in that factor, however, they do not leave us off with these numbers as if it was black and white. We are told that concrete check dams could have lower GHG emissions compared to timber check dams “if GHG emissions from cement production were significantly reduced” (Huzita and Noda, 2025). They use their platform to let their readers get the facts straight so that they can use these facts and the actual data to make decisions, rather than just what they believe is right.
However, throughout the research there is a subtle favoritism towards the use of timber check dams rather than cement or steel. They state that even though they know that using timber may cause some “economic burden and reduce economic growth” it’s more “favorable because of its low environmental and economic impact” (Huzita and Noda, 2025). They are advocating, in a way, for the use of timber over other materials; there are not many places in the paper where you can find them advocating or saying similar things about the other materials. That leads to the belief that they agree more with the practical use of timber rather than concrete or steel, because they also acknowledge the high cost, but they still call it more favorable because of its effect on the environment.
Huzita and Noda’s study provides a detailed, data-driven comparison of the GSG emissions associated with timber, concrete, and steel check dams; while also highlighting that using timber is the most environmentally sustainable option. They use objective data from much past research and tell the reader the facts of the matter, to ensure that they are credible with their intended audience of engineers, policymakers, and environmental researchers. They use their paper to inform the audience of a comprehensive evaluation of the different material choices in construction in terms of their cost and environmental impact. Although they do acknowledge the use and practicality of cement and steel, their findings consistently back the advantages of using timber instead, showing that it could reduce GHG emissions by up to 51% compared to the other materials. By extending their research to other applications in civil engineering, the authors emphasize the need for the use of more sustainable materials not just in dams but also in other infrastructures. The study shows the value of using uncommon or even unconventional materials that may seem like a burden to use but must be necessary in order to move towards a more sustainable future for the industry.
Reference
Huzita, T., & Noda, R. (2025). Comparison of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction of timber, concrete, and steel check dams in Akita, Japan: An input-output analysis. PLoS ONE, 20(1), e0316153. http://dx.doi.org.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/10.1371/journal.pone.0316153
