ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluation of carbon sustainable development in the nine provinces and regions of the Yellow River Basin based on carbon ecological footprints.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study focuses on energy consumption, carbon emissions, and productive land use. Adopting a carbon footprint methodology based on the ecological footprint framework, it accounts for the carbon ecological footprint and carbon carrying capacity of the nine provinces and regions in the Yellow River Basin from 2010 to 2021. By introducing indicators such as carbon deficit/surplus, carbon ecological footprint per 10,000 yuan GDP, and the Carbon Ecological Carrying Capacity Index (ECI), the study assesses the development of the regional carbon system and analyzes its level of sustainability. A carbon ecological footprint model for the nine provinces and regions was established to analyze temporal trends and spatiotemporal distribution patterns. Furthermore, the driving factors of the carbon ecological footprints were examined using the logarithmic mean Divisia index (LMDI) decomposition method. The results indicate that the per capita carbon ecological footprint in the nine provinces and regions remained relatively stable overall, though some provinces, such as the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, exhibited an upward trend. Qinghai Province and the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region had the highest per capita carbon ecological footprints, while Henan and Sichuan Provinces were at comparatively lower levels. In terms of carbon carrying capacity, Shandong and Gansu Provinces showed the most significant increases in per capita carbon carrying capacity, whereas the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region experienced a slight fluctuating decline. Most areas in Qinghai and Sichuan Provinces were in a state of carbon surplus, while the remaining regions were in carbon deficit. The carbon ecological footprint per 10,000 yuan GDP across the nine provinces and regions showed an overall decreasing trend, indicating improved efficiency in carbon resource utilization. The Carbon Sustainable Development Index (CSI) varied notably among provinces: Qinghai Province recorded the highest and most stable index; Sichuan Province ranked above Henan Province, which, despite a lower index, still demonstrated an overall upward trend.
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.