| Literature DB >> 36141618 |
Jingwei Han1, Zhixiong Tan2, Maozhi Chen3, Liang Zhao4, Ling Yang2, Siying Chen1.
Abstract
Reducing the effect of mankind's activities on the climate and improving adaptability to global warming have become urgent matters. The carbon footprint (CF), derived from the concept of ecological footprint, has been used to assess the threat of climate change in recent years. As a "top to bottom" method, input-output analysis (IOA) has become a universally applicable CF assessment tool for tracing the carbon footprint embodied in economic activities. A wide range of CF studies from the perspective of the IOA model have been presented and have made great progress. It is crucial to have a better understanding of what the relevant research focuses on in this field, yet so far a systematic synopsis of the literature is missing. The purpose of this paper is to explore the knowledge structure and frontier trends in respect of the IOA model applied to CF research using scientometric visualization analysis. The main findings of this paper are as follows. (1) Published articles show a two-stage increase in the period 2008 to 2021, and present a complex academic network of countries, authors, and institutions in this important domain. (2) The classic studies are mainly divided into three categories: literature reviews, database application introduction, and CF accounting in different scales. (3) The research hotspots and trends show that the research scales tend to be more microscopic and applications of models tend to be more detailed. In addition, supply-chain analysis and driver-factor analysis will probably become the main research directions in the future.Entities:
Keywords: carbon footprint; input–output model; knowledge-mapping analysis; visual analysis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36141618 PMCID: PMC9516983 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191811343
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Outline of research design.
Figure 2The number of published papers on CF with IOA approach (2008–2021).
Top 10 authors based on frequency.
| Author | Frequency | Percentage | Author | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wood Richard | 36 | 7.3% | Moran Daniel | 16 | 3.3% |
| Lenzen Manfred | 29 | 5.9% | Tukker Arnold | 16 | 3.3% |
| Wiedmann Thomas | 26 | 5.3% | Onat Nuri Cihat | 12 | 2.4% |
| Hertwich Edgar G | 21 | 4.3% | Peters Glen | 12 | 2.4% |
| Kucukvar Murat | 19 | 3.9% | Tatari Omer | 12 | 2.4% |
Top 10 countries (regions) based on frequency.
| Country | Frequency | Percentage | Country | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| China | 142 | 28.9% | Netherlands | 50 | 10.2% |
| USA | 102 | 20.8% | Spain | 48 | 9.8% |
| Australia | 82 | 16.7% | Japan | 44 | 9.0% |
| Norway | 68 | 13.8% | Germany | 34 | 6.9% |
| England | 64 | 13.0% | Austria | 22 | 4.5% |
Top 10 institutions based on frequency.
| Institution (First Author) | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Norwegian University of Science and Technology | 56 | 11.4% |
| Leiden University | 54 | 11.0% |
| University of Sydney | 51 | 10.4% |
| Beijing Normal University | 28 | 5.7% |
| University of New South Wales Sydney | 28 | 5.7% |
| Chinese Academy of Sciences | 22 | 4.5% |
| University of Leeds | 21 | 4.3% |
| Tsinghua University | 17 | 3.5% |
| Universidad De Castilla La Mancha | 17 | 3.5% |
| Yale University | 17 | 3.5% |
Figure 3Network map of authors collaboration.
Figure 4Network map of country (region) collaboration.
Figure 5Network map of institution collaboration.
Figure 6Dual-map overlay graph of journals and disciplines after Z-score processing(top); detail in enlarged scale (bottom): knowledge carriers (a,b), knowledge supply (c,d).
Figure 7Time-zone view of the cited articles.
The top 10 cited articles with high co-citation frequency and betweenness centrality.
| Title | Year | Author | Source | Freq | Centrality | Burst |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 2009 | Edgar G. Hertwich [ |
| 44 | 0.11 | 16.74 |
|
| 2009 | J.C. Minx [ |
| 38 | 0.06 | 15.64 |
|
| 2009 | Thomas Wiedmann [ |
| 38 | 0.02 | 15.64 |
| 2011 | Glen P. Peters [ |
| 39 | 0.02 | 16.08 | |
|
| 2013 | Manfred Lenzen [ |
| 49 | 0.05 | 12.53 |
|
| 2013 | Arnold Tukker [ |
| 43 | 0.13 | 8.86 |
|
| 2013 | Thomas Wiedmann [ |
| 40 | 0.07 | 9.09 |
|
| 2015 | Richard Wood [ |
| 49 | 0.07 | 11.09 |
|
| 2018 | Thomas Wiedmann [ |
| 39 | 0.09 | 10.89 |
|
| 2018 | Konstantin Stadler [ |
| 36 | 0.01 | 10.64 |
Figure 8Whole clusters of cited articles. (a); Novel co-citations of 6 papers by Lenzen (b) and 7 papers by Wiedmann (c). Novel co-citations of papers by Ottelin (d), Lin (e), Kucukvar (f), and Hamilton (g).
The top 20 high-frequency keywords.
| Keyword | Freq | Centrality | Year | Keyword | Freq | Centrality | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| carbon footprint | 159 | 0.04 | 2009 | trade | 59 | 0.03 | 2011 |
| consumption | 148 | 0.01 | 2009 | model | 54 | 0.06 | 2009 |
| input–output analysis | 130 | 0.02 | 2008 | environmental impact | 53 | 0.09 | 2008 |
| international trade | 99 | 0.07 | 2008 | China | 43 | 0.05 | 2011 |
| emission | 86 | 0.07 | 2008 | footprint | 40 | 0.1 | 2009 |
| impact | 82 | 0.13 | 2010 | system | 37 | 0.07 | 2010 |
| CO2 emission | 80 | 0.11 | 2009 | input output | 32 | 0.1 | 2009 |
| greenhouse gas emission | 77 | 0.09 | 2010 | city | 30 | 0.14 | 2009 |
| energy | 76 | 0.11 | 2009 | energy consumption | 25 | 0.04 | 2014 |
| Life-cycle assessment | 66 | 0.05 | 2008 | climate change | 25 | 0.13 | 2008 |
Figure 9Time-line visualization of the keyword co-occurrence network.