ReviewEnvironmental science and pollution research international2022
A bibliometric review on carbon accounting in social science during 1997-2020.
Review in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A social science perspective to carbon accounting is essential for determining the appropriate allocation of reduction responsibility, and thus contributing to addressing the climate crisis. It is crucial to have a comprehensive review of the literature in this field to better understand how relevant research has evolved, and to identify gaps that future studies need to work on. Based on the bibliographic database from the Web of Science (WOS), we identified 897 publications relevant to carbon accounting in the social sciences published between 1997 and 2020. Bibliometric analysis is applied to analyze the trends and features of carbon accounting research in the social sciences. The results show that international trade has spurred considerable scholarly interest in responsibility allocation from a consumption perspective. IO (input-output) analysis that can be used to derive embodied emissions in trade has therefore become the most popular method in this domain. It is also revealed that few publications have addressed quantification of emissions at organizational level. In consideration of the importance of organizations especially corporations in emission reduction, a shift of priority to this particular area is needed for further research. Carbon label and supply chain have emerged as a subject in keywords analysis, but have not been addressed enough either. To achieve carbon neutrality, solely relying on actions at country and organizational level may not be sufficient. Greener consumption behaviors of the public and individuals could play a remarkable role. Thus, it is important to formulate a consistent framework for labeling carbon embodied in products and investigate the drivers of consumers' low-carbon choices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.