Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Research trends and hotspots related to global carbon footprint based on bibliometric analysis: 2007–2018

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As an important indicator of greenhouse gas emissions, the carbon footprint (CF) has become increasingly important in recent years under the dual pressures of global warming and international commitments to mitigate its effects. This study collected 3698 papers related to CF from the Web of Science database as research samples (year 2007 to 2018). Based on CiteSpace, the knowledge base, popular topics, and research trends of CF are presented. The results show the following: (1) from 2007 to 2018, the number of articles on CF have steadily increased. (2) After spatial analysis of the literature, we found that among research institutions, the Chinese Academy of Sciences has the largest number of publications on the issue. When it comes to country, three important research forces can be identified: USA, China, and UK. (3) Research on the CF is interdisciplinary; in addition to the traditional fields of environmental, political, economics, and computing, CF research has received attention from the Physics, Materials, Chemistry, Mathematics, and animal sciences. (4) Through keyword clustering, currently popular topics in research can be roughly divided into four aspects: CF calculation methods, research scales, energy, and agriculture. (5) The CF research during the study period is divided into four stages according to the burst time and content of the burst keywords. According to the research status and trend, this paper puts forward the future research direction of carbon footprint.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ali G, Anbren S, Bashir MK (2017) Climate mitigation, low-carbon society, and dynamism of educational institutes in a low-income country. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(4):3775–3784

    Google Scholar 

  • Baiocchi G, Minx J, Hubacek K (2010) The impact of social factors and consumer behavior on carbon dioxide emissions in the United Kingdom. J Ind Ecol 14(1):50–72

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baumann H, Tillman AM (2004) The hitch Hiker’s guide to LCA: an orientation in life cycle assessment methohdology and application. Studentlitteratur, Lund

    Google Scholar 

  • Benbi DK (2018) Carbon footprint and agricultural sustainability nexus in an intensively cultivated region of indo-gangetic plains. Sci Total Environ 644:611–623

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bostanci SC, Limbachiya M, Kew H (2018) Use of recycled aggregates for low carbon and cost effective concrete construction. J Clean Prod 189:176–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Braam RR, Moed HF, Raan AFJV (1991) Mapping of science by combined co-citation and word analysis. ii: dynamical aspects. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 42(4):252–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Buyle M, Pizzol M, Audenaert A (2017) Identifying marginal suppliers of construction materials: consistent modeling and sensitivity analysis on a Belgian case. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23(8):1624–1640

    Google Scholar 

  • Cadarso MA, Gómez N, López LA, Tobarra MA, Zafrilla JE (2015) Quantifying spanish tourism’s carbon footprint: the contributions of residents and visitors: a longitudinal study. J Sustain Tour 23(6):922–946

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang CC, Huang PC, Tu JS (2019) Life cycle assessment of yard tractors using hydrogen fuel at the port of Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Energy 189:116222

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chau CK, Hui WK, Ng WY, Powell G (2012) Assessment of CO2 emissions reduction in high-rise concrete office buildings using different material use options. Resour Conserv Recycl 61:22–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen C (2004) Searching for intellectual turning points: progressive knowledge domain visualization. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101(Suppl. 1):5303–5310

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chen C (2006) CiteSpace II: detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 57(3):359–377

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen C (2017) Science mapping: a systematic review of the literature. J Data Inf Sci 2(2):1–40

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chen C, Leydesdorff L (2014) Patterns of connections and movements in dual-map overlays: a new method of publication portfolio analysis. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 65(2):334–351

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen C, Ibekwe-Sanjuan F, Hou J (2010) The structure and dynamics of cocitation clusters: a multiple-perspective cocitation analysis. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 61(7):1386–1409

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen Y, Chen C-M, Hu Z-G, Wang X-W (2014) Citation space analysis principles and applications: a practical guide to CiteSpace. Beijing Science Press, Beijing (In Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Correa JP, Montalvo-Navarrete JM, Hidalgo-Salazar MA (2019) Carbon footprint considerations for biocomposite materials for sustainable products: a review. J Clean Prod:785–794

  • Ding GKC (2014) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of sustainable building materials: an overview. Eco-efficient Construction and Building Materials—Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Eco-Labelling and Case Studies, Elsevier Science & Technology, Cambridge, pp 38–62

  • Ding G, Ding Y, Weng P (2018) Spatial differences in the influence of science popularization resources development on the energy consumption carbon footprint in provincial regions of China. Energy Sustain Soc 8(19):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Dong G, Mao X, Zhou J, Zeng A (2013) Carbon footprint accounting and dynamics and the driving forces of agricultural production in Zhejiang province, China. Ecol Econ 91:38–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckman A, Jackson T (2010) The bare necessities: how much household carbon do we really need? Ecol Econ 69(9):1794–1804

    Google Scholar 

  • Egilmez G, Kucukvar M, Tatari O, Bhutta MKS (2014) Supply chain sustainability assessment of the U.S. food manufacturing sectors: a life cycle-based frontier approach. Resour Conserv Recycl 82:8–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Evandro FA, Joseph KC, Junghoon W et al (2018) The carbon footprint of buildings: a review of methodologies and applications. Renew Sust Energ Rev 94:1142–1152

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan Z, Lei Y, Wu S (2018) Research on the changing trend of the carbon footprint of residents’ consumption in Beijing. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(4):4078–4090

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkbeiner M (2009) Carbon footprinting—opportunities and threats. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14(2):91–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnegan W, Goggins J, Clifford E, Zhan X (2017) Global warming potential associated with dairy products in the republic of Ireland. J Clean Prod 163:262–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Flysjö A, Thrane M, Hermansen JE (2014) Method to assess the carbon footprint at product level in the dairy industry. Int Dairy J 34(1):86–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo F, Lv W, Liu L, Wang T, Duffy VG (2019) Bibliometric analysis of simulated driving research from 1997 to 2016. Traffic Inj Prev 20:64–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamdaoui S, Mahdaoui M, Allouhi A, El Alaiji R, Kousksou T, El Bouardi A (2018) Energy demand and environmental impact of various construction scenarios of an office building in Morocco. J Clean Prod 188:113–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller MC, Willits-Smith A, Meyer R, Keoleian GA, Rose D (2018) Greenhouse gas emissions and energy use associated with production of individual self-selected US diets. Environ Res Lett 13(4):044004

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang YA, Weber CL, Matthews HS (2009) Categorization of scope 3 emissions for streamlined Enterprise carbon footprinting. Environ Sci Technol 43(22):8509–8515

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huang J, Chen Y, Pan J, Liu W, Yang G, Xiao X, Zheng H et al (2019) Carbon footprint of different agricultural systems in China estimated by different evaluation metrics. J Clean Prod:939–948

  • Ichisugi Y, Masui T, Karkour S, Itsubo N (2019) Projection of National Carbon Footprint in Japan with integration of LCA and IAMs. Sustainability 11(23):6875

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2006) 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html. Accessed 17 Sep. 2007

  • IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalbar PP, Birkved M, Kabins S, Nygaard SE (2016) Personal metabolism (PM) coupled with life cycle assessment (LCA) model: Danish case study. Environ Int 91:168–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinberg J (2003) Bursty and hierarchical structure in streams. Data Min Knowl Disc 7(4):373–397

    Google Scholar 

  • Klüppel HJ (2005) The revision of ISO standards 14040-3 - ISO 14040: environmental management life cycle assessment principles and framework - ISO 14044: environmental management life cycle assessment requirements and guidelines. Int J Life Cycle Assess 10(3):165–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamba K, Prakash SS, Mishra N (2018) Integrated decisions for supplier selection and lot-sizing considering different carbon emission regulations in big data environment. Comput Ind Eng 128:1052–1062

    Google Scholar 

  • Lan J, Malik A, Lenzen M, McBain D, Kanemoto K (2016) A structural decomposition analysis of global energy footprints. Appl Energy 163:436–451

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehne J, Preston F (2018) Making concrete change: innovation in low-carbon cement and concrete. Chatham House, England-London

    Google Scholar 

  • Leontief WW (1936) Quantitative input and output relations in the economic systems of the United States. Rev Econ Stat 18(3):105–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Li J, Chen C-M (2016) Cite space: tech text mining and visualization. Capital University of Economics and Business Press, Beijing, Beijing (In Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Li B, Dewan H (2017) Efficiency differences among China’s resource-based cities and their determinants. Res Policy 51:31–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Li J, Su Q, Ma L (2017) Production and transportation outsourcing decisions in the supply chain under single and multiple carbon policies. J Clean Prod 141:1109–1122

    Google Scholar 

  • Li LX, Yang Y, Qin GY (2019a) Optimization of integrated inventory routing problem for cold chain logistics considering carbon footprint and carbon regulations. Sustainability 11(17):4628

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Li X, Du J, Long H (2019b) Dynamic analysis of international green behavior from the perspective of the mapping knowledge domain. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26(6):6087–6098

    Google Scholar 

  • Li J, Zhang D, Su B (2019c) The impact of social awareness and lifestyles on household carbon emissions in China. Ecol Econ 160:145–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin Z, Wu C, Hong W (2015) Visualization analysis of ecological assets/values research by knowledge mapping. Acta Ecol Sin 35(5):142–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood C (2006) Building the green way. Harv Bus Rev 84(6):129–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez S, Delgado MD, Marin RM, Alvarez S (2019) Organization environmental footprint through input-output analysis: a case study in the construction sector. J Ind Ecol 23(4):879–892

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews HS, Hendrickson CT, Weber CL (2008) The importance of carbon footprint estimation boundaries. Environ Sci Technol 42(16):5839–5842

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Menegotto A, Rangel TF (2018) Mapping knowledge gaps in marine diversity reveals a latitudinal gradient of missing species richness. Nat Commun 9(1):1–6

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Leiva S, Díaz-Ferrán G, Haas J, Telsnig T, Díaz-Alvarado FA, Palma-Behnke R et al (2017) Towards solar power supply for copper production in Chile: assessment of global warming potential using a life-cycle approach. J Clean Prod 164:242–249

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nemecek T, Weiler K, Plassmann K, Schnetzer J, Gaillard G, Jefferies D et al (2012) Estimation of the variability in global warming potential of worldwide crop production using a modular extrapolation approach. J Clean Prod 31:106–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Nijdam D, Rood T, Westhoek H (2012) The price of protein: review of land use and carbon footprints from life cycle assessments of animal food products and their substitutes. Food Policy 37(6):760–770

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson AE, Aragones MM, Torralvo FA et al (2017) A review of the carbon footprint of Cu and Zn production from primary and secondary sources. Minerals 7(9):168

    Google Scholar 

  • Niu B, Loáiciga HA, Wang Z, Zhan FB, Hong S (2014) Twenty years of global groundwater research: a science citation index expanded-based bibliometric survey (1993-2012). J Hydrol 519:966–975

    Google Scholar 

  • Onat NC, Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2014) Scope-based carbon footprint analysis of U.S. residential and commercial buildings: an input-output hybrid life cycle assessment approach. Build Environ 72:53–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Pan S, Ballot E, Frédéric F (2013) The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from freight transport by pooling supply chains. Int J Prod Econ 143(1):86–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters GP (2010) Carbon footprints and embodied carbon at multiple scales. Curr Opin Environ 2(4):245–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Purohit AK, Shankar R, Dey PK, Choudhary A (2015) Non-stationary stochastic inventory lot-sizing with emission and service level constraints in a carbon cap-and-trade system. J Clean Prod 113(1):654–661

    Google Scholar 

  • Qin A, Huang G, Chai Q, Yu A, Huang P (2013) Grain yield and soil respiratory response to intercropping systems on arid land. Field Crop Res 144:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Quéré CL, Andrew RM, Friedlingstein P, Sitch S, Hauck J et al (2018) Global carbon budget 2018. Earth Syst Sci Data 10(4):2141–2194

    Google Scholar 

  • Robati M, Daly D, Kokogiannakis G (2019) A method of uncertainty analysis for whole-life embodied carbon emissions (CO2-e) of building materials of a net-zero energy building in Australia. J Clean Prod 225:541–553

    Google Scholar 

  • Röös E, Sundberg C, TidåKer P, Strid I, Hansson PA (2013) Can carbon footprint serve as an indicator of the environmental impact of meat production? Ecol Indic 24:573–581

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen RA (2016) Is the IPCC’s 5th assessment a denier of possible macroeconomic benefits from mitigating climate change? Clim Chang Econ 7(1):1–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossello-Batle B, Ribas C, Moia-Pol A, Martinez-Moll V (2015) Saving potential for embodied energy and co2 emissions from building elements: a case study. J Build Phys 39(3):261–284

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Safire W (2008) Footprint. N Y Times Mag 157:20

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz Y, Raslan R, Mumovic D (2018) The life cycle carbon footprint of refurbished and new buildings-a systematic review of case studies. Renew Sust Energ Rev:231–241

  • Singh A, Kumari S, Malekpoor H, Mishra N (2018) Big data cloud computing framework for low carbon supplier selection in the beef supply chain. J Clean Prod 202:139–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Small H (1973) Co-citation in the scientific literature: a new measure of the relationship between two documents. J Am Soc Inf Sci 24(4):265–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith AC, Patterson V, Scott RE (2007) Reducing carbon footprints-how telemedicine helps. Br Med J 335(7629):1060–1060

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith P, Martino D, Cai ZC et al (2008) Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philos Trans R Soc B 363(2184):789–813

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon S, Plattner GK, Knutti R, Friedlingstein P (2009) Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106(6):1704–1709

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sun Q (2016) Research on the influencing factors of reverse logistics carbon footprint under sustainable development. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24(29):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Teague WR, Apfelbaum S, Lal R, Kreuter UP, Rowntree J, Davies CA et al (2016) The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in North America. J Soil Water Conserv 71(2):156–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14(3):207–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Vergé XPC, Dyer JA, Desjardins RL, Worth D (2007) Greenhouse gas emissions from the Canadian dairy industry in 2001. Agric Syst 94(3):683–693

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang B, Wang Z (2018) Analysis of mapping knowledge domains of tennis teaching research in China. Edu Sci Theory Pract 18(6):2979–2988

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang C, Wang W, Huang R (2017a) Supply chain enterprise operations and government carbon tax decisions considering carbon emissions. J Clean Prod 152:271–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang S, Tao F, Shi Y, Wen H (2017b) Optimization of vehicle routing problem with time windows for cold chain logistics based on carbon tax. Sustainability 9(5):694

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang X, Liu B, Wu G, Sun Y, Guo X, Jin Z et al (2018) Environmental costs and mitigation potential in plastic-greenhouse pepper production system in China: a life cycle assessment. Agric Syst 167:186–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Weidema BP, Thrane M, Christensen P (2008) Carbon footprint: a catalyst for life cycle assessment. J Ind Ecol 12(1):3–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisser D (2007) A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply technologies. Energy 32:1543–1559

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wiedmann T (2009) A review of recent multi-region input–output models used for consumption-based emission and resource accounting. Ecol Econ 69(2):211–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiedmann T, Wilting HC, Lenzen M, Lutter S, Palm V (2011) Quo vadis mrio? Methodological, data and institutional requirements for multi-region input–output analysis. Ecol Econ 70(11):1937–1945

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong EYC, Tai AH, Emma Z (2018) Optimising truckload operations in third-party logistics: a carbon footprint perspective in volatile supply chain. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ 63:649–661

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu Y, Luo J, Shen L, Skitmore M (2018) The effects of an energy use paradigm shift on carbon emissions: a simulation study. Sustainability 10(5):1–18

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao XQ, Zhu ZQ, Fu ZT, Mu WS, Zhang XS (2018a) Carbon footprint constrained profit maximization of table grapes cold chain. Agron-Basel 8(7):125

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao J, Wang C, Ding T, Akbarnezhad A (2018b) A recycled aggregate concrete high-rise building: structural performance and embodied carbon footprint. J Clean Prod 199:868–881

    Google Scholar 

  • Xin Z, Long YW, Le VH (2018) Visualization and analysis of mapping knowledge domain of road safety studies. Accid Anal Prev 118:131–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Yan M, Holden NM (2018) Life cycle assessment of multi-product dairy processing using Irish butter and milk powders as an example. J Clean Prod 198:215–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang J, Guo J, Ma S (2012) Low-carbon city logistics distribution network design with resource deployment. J Clean Prod 119:223–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang R, Su Y, Kong J (2017) Effect of tillage, cropping, and mulching pattern on crop yield, soil C and N accumulation, and carbon footprint in a desert oasis farmland. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 63(6):599–606

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yu M, Wiedmann T, Crawford R, Tait C (2017) The carbon footprint of Australia’s construction sector. Process Eng 180:211–220

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yunusa IAM, Blair G, Zerihun A, Yang SJ, Wilson SC, Young IM (2015) Enhancing carbon sequestration in soil with coal combustion products: a technology for minimising carbon footprints in coal-power generation and agriculture. Clim Chang 131(4):559–573

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zea Escamilla E, Habert G, Correal Daza J, Archilla H, Echeverry Fernández J, Trujillo D (2018) Industrial or traditional bamboo construction? Comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of bamboo-based buildings. Sustainability 10(9):3096

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Z, Qu J, Zeng J (2008) A quantitative comparison and analysis on the assessment indicators of greenhouse gases emission. J Geogr Sci 18(4):387–399

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang S, Pang B, Zhang Z (2015) Carbon footprint analysis of two different types of hydropower schemes: comparing earth-rockfill dams and concrete gravity dams using hybrid life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 103:854–862

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao R, Huang X, Liu Y, Zhong T, Ding M, Chuai X (2014) Urban carbon footprint and carbon cycle pressure: the case study of Nanjing. J Geogr Sci 24(1)

  • Zhu Y, Waqas MA, Li Y, Zou X et al (2018) Large-scale farming operations are win-win for grain production, soil carbon storage and mitigation of greenhouse gases. J Clean Prod:1–10

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank International Science Editing (http://www.internationalscienceediting.com) for editing this manuscript.

Credit authorship contribution statement

Ting Yue: conceptualization, funding acquisition, resources, supervision, validation, writing-review and editing, and visualization. Haiwen Liu: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, software. Ruyin Long and Hong Chen: conceptualization, funding acquisition, resources, formal analysis, methodology. Xin Gan: investigation, software, writing - review and editing. Junli Liu: investigation

Funding

This work was financially supported by the project of National Natural Science Fund of China (Grant No. 71603257, 71874188, and 71603255), the project of General Financial Grant from the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant No. 2016 M601920), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant No. 2015QNA17), the Major project of National Social Science Funding of China (Grant No. 18AZD014 and 16ZDA056), and the Innovation Team Program of the China University of Mining and Technology (Grant No. 2015ZY003).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, 221000, Jiangsu province, China

    Ting Yue, Haiwen Liu, Ruyin Long, Hong Chen, Xin Gan & Junli Liu

Authors
  1. Ting Yue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Haiwen Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ruyin Long
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hong Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xin Gan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Junli Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ting Yue.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yue, T., Liu, H., Long, R. et al. Research trends and hotspots related to global carbon footprint based on bibliometric analysis: 2007–2018. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27, 17671–17691 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08158-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-08158-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation