4.7 Article

Climate change and carbon sink: a bibliometric analysis

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
Volume 27, Issue 8, Pages 8740-8758

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-019-07489-6

Keywords

Bibliometric analysis; Climate change; Carbon sink; CiteSpace; Mapping knowledge domain

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In recent years, climate change and carbon sinks have been widely studied by the academic community, and relevant research results have emerged in abundance. In this paper, a scientometric analysis of 747 academic works published between 1991 and 2018 related to climate change and carbon sinks is presented to characterize the intellectual landscape by identifying and revealing the basic characteristics, research power, intellectual base, research topic evolution, and research hotspots in this field. The results show that & x2460; the number of publications in this field has increased rapidly and the field has become increasingly interdisciplinary; & x2461; the most productive authors and institutions in this subject area are in the USA, China, Canada, Australia, and European countries, and the cooperation between these researchers is closer than other researchers in the field; & x2462; 11 of the 747 papers analyzed in this study have played a key role in the evolution of the field; and & x2463; in this paper, we divide research hotspots into three decade-long phases (1991-1999, 2000-2010, and 2011-present). Drought problems have attracted more and more attention from scholars. In the end, given the current trend of the studies, we conclude a list of research potentials of climate change and carbon sinks in the future. This paper presents an in-depth analysis of climate change and carbon sink research to better understand the global trends and directions that have emerged in this field over the past 28 years, which can also provide reference for future research in this field.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available