Next Article in Journal
Multi-Scale Altitudinal Patterns of Soil and Litter Invertebrate Communities in a Warm Temperate Deciduous Broadleaf Forest
Previous Article in Journal
Genetic Variability of Tabebuia rosea (Bignoniaceae) from Plantations and Remnant Populations in the Mayan Forest
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 14
Issue 10
10.3390/f14102008
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Sustainability of Forest Eco-Products: Comprehensive Analysis and Future Research Directions

by
Jinghua Wang
and
Gang Tian
*
College of Economics & Management, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin 150040, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2023, 14(10), 2008; https://doi.org/10.3390/f14102008
Submission received: 5 September 2023 / Revised: 29 September 2023 / Accepted: 3 October 2023 / Published: 6 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Forest Economics, Policy, and Social Science)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Forest ecological products are closely related to ecological balance, and an in-depth understanding of the development dynamics of these products is crucial to the realization of sustainable development that integrates ecological, economic, and social benefits. Based on the Web of Science (WOS) and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases, this study conducted a comprehensive econometric analysis of the number of articles, journals, research institutions, author collaborations, research hotspots, and research trends of forest ecological products globally during the period of 2003–2023 with the help of CiteSpace software (Philadelphia, PA, USA). The study’s results revealed the following insights: (1) The research on forest ecological products in recent years showed a general upward trend, but the research interest in foreign countries was higher than that in China. (2) The literature within the WOS database primarily focused on the field of ecology, whereas the literature in the CNKI database predominantly emphasized the field of forestry. (3) In both databases, the Chinese Academy of Sciences was the organization with the highest number of articles. Globally, Chinese institutions had the largest proportion of articles issued. The high percentage of articles issued by specialized agricultural and forestry schools in China showed clear domain relevance. (4) In both databases, author collaborations were relatively decentralized, and no significant core group of authors had been formed. (5) The research hotspots in foreign countries focused on the ecological regulation of forest ecological products, while the research hotspots in China focused on the realization of the economic value of forest ecological products. (6) “Machine learning”, “river basin”, and “health” are the future research frontiers in foreign countries, while “ecological function” and “forest ecosystem service” are the future research frontiers in China. The results of both databases indicate that the sustainability of forest ecological products is a research trend for the coming period. Finally, the outlook for future research on forest eco-products is presented in four aspects: promoting the establishment of a unified international standard certification system for forest eco-products, developing diversified products, strengthening the function of policy support and guidance, and establishing national partnerships.

1. Introduction

Global forest resources are undergoing profound changes. As environmental concerns grow, the importance of forests and the positive contribution of forest ecological products to ecosystem health are being recognized [1,2,3]. Overharvesting and resource exploitation have led to the depletion of forest resources in some areas [4]. Increased climate change has also brought frequent forest fires and persistent droughts [5,6]. Failure to manage forests sustainably will inevitably result in serious economic and environmental damage. In response to growing global challenges, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) proposed 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) in 2015, two of which address forests: combating climate change and protecting biodiversity and ecosystems [7,8,9]. Meanwhile, consumer preference for green, organic, and natural products is gradually increasing, driving the growth of the eco-products market. Forest ecological products are favored by consumers as representatives of natural resources [10]. In order to promote the sustainability of forest ecological products, the State Forestry Administration of the People’s Republic of China (National Forestry and Grassland Administration) issued a Circular on the Implementation of the Forest Ecological Labeling Product Construction Project in 2017 and adopted the first batch of quality forest products eligible for recognition in 2019. This shows that China has made substantial progress in the field of forest ecological products [11].
Forest ecological products are a special category of forest products based on China’s national conditions, including concrete material products in the forest ecosystem and abstract intangible products that provide services to the ecosystem [12]. Internationally, the mechanism by which forest ecological resources are transformed into value is commonly referred to as “forest ecosystem services”, which mainly emphasizes the natural environmental conditions and ecological benefits of forest ecosystems that are indispensable for the maintenance of human existence [13,14,15]. Forest ecological products differ from forest ecosystems in that they are a concrete manifestation of the functions of forest ecosystems, and they place greater emphasis on the relationship between supply and consumption, recognizing the economic value of ecological services [16,17,18,19]. There is no uniform standard for the classification of forest ecological products, and there are two mainstream classification methods. One is to categorize forest ecological products into tangible and intangible products according to their material form. Tangible products include mainly timber and wood products, food and medicinal herbs, plant fibers, non-food plant products, wildlife products, and processed forest products. Intangible products mainly include ecological regulation services, climate regulation and forest carbon sink services, biodiversity conservation, water resource protection, forest landscapes, and cultural tourism values [12,20,21]. Another is to categorize forest ecological products into public ecological products, operational ecological products, and quasi-public ecological products according to their nature. Public eco-products emphasize public benefits to society and ecosystems as a whole and usually cannot be traded privately. They mainly include ecological regulation, water resource protection, climate regulation, and biodiversity maintenance. Operational ecological products refer to tradable commodities with economic value, including eco-forestry products, eco-industrial products, and eco-tourism services [22]. Quasi-public eco-products are products that are partly public in nature but also have a certain market nature and can be transformed to a certain extent, mainly carbon emission rights and sewage rights. It is worth mentioning that, with the signing of the Kyoto Protocol and the introduction of the REDD-plus mechanism, forest carbon sinks, as a kind of forest ecological product, have begun to enter the carbon market, being endowed with the ability to be traded and realizing the transformation of public products into private products. This also indicates that the future development of forest ecological products will be closely centered on the goal of sustainable development [23,24].
Although scholars have explored the functions of forest ecosystems over the years [25], so far there is no systematic literature that comprehensively compares and analyzes the research process and development of China and the world regarding forest ecological products. In order to systematically grasp the research dynamics in the field of forest eco-products and rationally examine the research status of forest eco-products over the past 20 years, this paper adopts the bibliometric analysis methodology to sort out and discuss the current status of research, research hotspots, and cutting-edge trends. It is hoped that it can provide theoretical support and a new thinking path for realizing the integrated development of the ecological, economic, and social benefits of forest ecological products.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

This research paper analyzed and studied the literature related to forest ecological products during the period from 1 January 2003, to 30 June 2023. In order to make the data of the study more comprehensive, rigorous, and comparative, the data sources were categorized into English literature data and Chinese literature data. English literature data were selected from the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) in the core collection of WOS databases. Chinese literature data were selected from the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI) and Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD) in the CNKI database. Considering that foreign scholars generally referred to the mechanism for transforming the value of forest ecological resources as “forest ecosystem service function”, the keyword “forest ecosystem service function” was added to the term “forest ecological products”. The search formula was ((((TS = (forest ecological products)) OR TS = (forest ecosystem service function)) AND DOP = (2003-01-01/2023-06-30)) AND DT = (Article OR Review)) AND LA = (English). Chinese literature was searched using CNKI’s advanced search function, limited to academic journals. After manually de-weighting, organizing, and screening the acquired data, a total of 5051 valid English documents were obtained, and 259 Chinese documents were used for research and analysis.

2.2. Methods

The utilization of scientific research software for analysis presented the advantage of enabling us to analyze data from extensive datasets, thereby achieving a more intuitive comprehension of the research dynamics in interconnected fields. This facilitation aided us in identifying points of entry and innovative orientations for scientific progress, as well as in pinpointing appropriate avenues for research exploration. CiteSpace (Philadelphia, PA, USA) is a powerful literature visualization and analysis tool that was developed and launched by Chen, Chao M, and his research team in 2004 and has subsequently been continuously improved and promoted [26,27]. For the study of the characteristics of the change in the number of literature and the main publishing journals, we used the data processed by CiteSpace and then processed and organized the data to make visual charts for bibliometric analysis. The distribution of authors, research institutions, and keywords was visualized using CiteSpace. This article used CiteSpace 6.1.6R the advanced version.
The CiteSpace visualization parameters and operational procedures were configured as follows: “Time Slicing” was set to encompass the period “From January 2003 to June 2023”. The “Years Per Slice” was specified as “1”. Within the “g-index” calculation, K was set at 25, with larger values of K resulting in more nodes. “TOP N” represented the number of entities within each time slice and was set to 50. “TOP N%” denoted the percentage of top-ranked entities within each time slice and was configured at 10%. Co-authorship and keyword co-occurrence networks were constructed for both the WOS and CNKI databases. Subsequently, keyword clustering analysis was performed to ascertain the distribution of research topics. Concurrently, keyword burst detection was employed to gain insights into the evolutionary trends and development dynamics within the field of forest ecological products. Figure 1 is a technology roadmap for this paper.

3. Results and Analysis

3.1. Analysis of the Change in Characteristics of Literature Quantity

Through an analysis of alterations in the literature volume, the alterations in research outcomes within the domain of forest ecological products for the period 2003 to 2023 could be visualized. Over these two decades, the quantity of foreign publications concerning forest ecological products exhibited an exponential growth trend (Figure 2a). Simulations were conducted on the data, yielding a fitness function in the form of an exponential function. Its computational formula was:
Y = 33.923e0.1448x + c,
R2 = 0.952, being close to 1, indicating a good fit. The research conducted abroad was divided into three distinct stages. The first stage (2003–2009): The annual count of publications consistently remained below 100 articles, culminating in a total of 430 articles being published. However, there was a gradual increase in this count, albeit at a slow pace. The second stage (2010–2019): Starting in 2010, the annual publication count exceeded 100 articles, maintaining this elevated level throughout and resulting in a total of 2429 articles being published. During this phase, the growth rate picked up momentum compared to the initial stage, although the overall progression exhibited a relatively stable trajectory. The third stage (since 2020): characterized by a marked surge in growth, the overall trend of publication count was notably rapid, contributing to a total of 2192 articles being published. Subsequent to 2021, a minor decline was observed; however, the magnitude of this decline remained insignificant.
Over a span of 20 years, the quantity of Chinese publications concerning forest ecological products underwent a fluctuating pattern of growth (Figure 2b). Intriguingly, the analysis of variations in publication count revealed that these changes were more aligned with a moving average function, indicating that the data fluctuations did not exhibit regularity. The phases of research within the Chinese context were classified into three distinct periods: In the initial phase (2003–2008), the publication count remained relatively low, totaling 17 articles, which reflected a reduced interest in the investigation of forest ecological products. The subsequent phase (2009–2019) witnessed an annual publication count exceeding 5 articles, aggregating to a total of 184 articles published throughout this timeframe. Notably, there was a significant surge in publications between 2009 and 2016, followed by a slight decline post-2016; nevertheless, the count consistently remained above five articles. The third phase (2020–2023) encompassed a cumulative total of 58 articles, symbolizing a rejuvenated upswing in research activity. Despite this, the level of research interest observed in this phase was marginally lower in comparison to the preceding stage.
A comparison of publication counts from two databases revealed that the overall trend for both datasets indicated an increase (Figure 3). However, foreign research concerning forest ecological products exhibited significantly higher levels of research interest compared to Chinese research. The periods of fluctuation in publication counts for both foreign and Chinese research roughly corresponded. Both foreign and Chinese research showed lower levels of interest during the period 2003–2008, signifying an exploratory phase in the field. Following a surge in research interest abroad commencing in 2009, there was a subsequent rise in Chinese interest in 2010. A phase of substantial growth was witnessed between 2019 and 2021 in both contexts, followed by a slight reduction in intensity post-2021.

3.2. Analysis of Journals Published

The research concerning foreign forest ecological products was mainly focused on areas such as environmental sciences, ecology, forestry, biodiversity conservation, science and technology, other topics, and other relevant fields. Among these, the ecological field had the largest share, accounting for 58.39%. The leading journals that published articles on forest ecological products from 2003 to 2023 encompassed Forest Ecology and Management, Forests, Ecological Indicators, and Remote Sensing, among others. Figure 4a provides an illustration of the top 10 journals ranked according to publication volume within the WOS database.
Within the scope of Chinese research regarding forest ecological products, emphasis was predominantly directed towards fields including forestry, agricultural economics, environmental science and resource utilization, agricultural basic science, and biology. Remarkably, forestry emerged as the most notable domain, constituting 66.96% of the research focus. From 2003 to 2023, noteworthy journals that published research on forest ecological products comprised Acta Ecologica Sinica, Journal of Central South University of Forestry & Technology, World Forestry Research, Chinese Journal of Ecology, and Journal of Northwest Forestry University. Figure 4b depicts the top 10 journals ranked by publication volume within the CNKI database, centered on the subject of forest ecological products.

3.3. Analysis of Research Institutions

To enhance the clarity of institutional analysis, we integrated institutions that had undergone name changes, merging the pre-renamed entities with the post-renamed ones. Additionally, subsidiary secondary institutions were consolidated into singular entities, and geographical regions were ranked for analysis based on the primary institutions’ locations. For example, the School of Economics and Management at Northeast Forestry University was incorporated into Northeast Forestry University. Table 1 provides a comprehensive listing of the top 10 institutions derived from the WOS and CNKI databases, outlining their publication counts and corresponding countries or regions for analysis.
In the WOS database, the top ten institutions in terms of publication volume within the realm of forest ecological products were drawn from China, the United States, Mexico, Brazil, Sweden, and Germany during the examined period. Drawing on the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 (FRA 2020), three out of the six countries consistently held positions within the top five globally with regards to forest area. The collective forested expanse of these three nations—Brazil, the USA, and China—stood at an impressive 25% of the total global forest coverage. Among these, Brazil secured the second rank, boasting approximately 497 hectares of forests, which accounted for 12%. The USA attained the fourth rank, with an approximate 310 hectares of forests, representing 8%. China, on the other hand, clinched the fifth rank with around 220 hectares of forests, contributing 5% (Figure 5). This highlighted the advantageous resource endowment in forest research that these countries possessed. Among these ten institutions, four were located in China, achieving the foremost position both in terms of the number of institutions and publication volume. These four Chinese institutions collectively contributed 52% of the total publications among the top ten, surpassing half of the overall publication volume. The United States secured the second position, accounting for 22% of the total. The Chinese Academy of Sciences plays a leading role as one of the most extensive and comprehensive research organizations in China. During the preceding two decades, the institution conducted extensive research in the domains of forest resource utilization and sustainable development [28], valuation and development of forest eco-products [29,30], climate change and forest eco-products [31], and eco-technology and innovation [32]. The University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, as an institution of higher learning in China dedicated to nurturing research talents, also generated a plethora of research outcomes in the realm of forest ecological products. These encompassed various aspects, including the preservation of forest biodiversity [33], the impact of land use on the realization of forest ecological product values [34], ecosystem value assessment indicators and their application [35], and the synergistic effect of plants on forest ecosystem service functions [36]. In addition, the United States Forest Service, the second-highest-ranked organization in the United States, as the national forest management agency, made important research and contributions to the development of urban forests [37], the role of forest management in sustainable forestry development [38,39], and the value assessment of forest ecosystem functions, such as forest water conservation [40,41] and forest carbon sinks [42].
The Chinese statistical results revealed that the institution with the highest publication volume was also the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Over the past two decades, it has contributed a total of 73 articles in the field of forest ecological products. Following closely was the Chinese Academy of Forestry, which produced 57 articles. Furthermore, Beijing Forestry University ranked third in terms of publication count, with 28 articles. Among the top ten institutions, five were situated in Beijing, accounting for 77% of the total publication count among these ten institutions. This indicated a robust overall research capability in the field of forestry in the Beijing region, with collaborations primarily revolving around these institutions. Beyond the Beijing region, other institutions were distributed across areas such as Heilongjiang, Zhejiang, Jiangsu, and Shaanxi—regions known for housing a higher concentration of research institutions in China. Additionally, it is noteworthy that almost all of the top ten institutions were closely related to forestry research. Among the seven universities, six were specifically focused on agriculture and forestry, showcasing a clear domain relevance. Over the past approximately 20 years of research, these universities have also achieved notable research outcomes. For instance, Beijing Forestry University made significant progress in various research domains, including the realization of value in forest ecological products [43], urban forest construction [44,45], and forest water conservation functions [46,47]. Likewise, Northeast Forestry University, apart from its research on realizing the value of forest ecological products [22,48], demonstrated a relatively rich research portfolio in areas such as forest tourism and cultural products [49,50], as well as the impact of climate change on ecosystem functions [51].

3.4. Analysis of Authors’ Collaborative Networks

The aim of collaborative research between different authors is to be able to explore new areas of research or new scientific knowledge in a specific field through teamwork in order to come up with a solution to the problem under study. Therefore, it is necessary to study the number of publications and the collaborative network relationships of authors. The authors were visualized and analyzed using CiteSpace to obtain the top ten authors, year, and number of publications in the WOS and CNKI databases, respectively (Table 2).
When analyzing the author collaboration network in the WOS database, we obtained the number of nodes N = 789 in the co-linear mapping (Figure 6). The nodes for Bruelheide, Helge, and Muys, Bart, were more prominent, indicating that they published most frequently. The number of connecting lines E = 1005. The connecting lines between nodes reveal the collaborative relationship between the authors, and the thickness of the connecting lines represents the closeness of the collaborative relationship; the thicker the connecting lines, the more frequently the authors appear in the same document [26,27]. Furthermore, due to the global scope of authors included in WOS, the cardinality of the author count is substantial, encompassing diverse countries and teams, resulting in a more intricate collaborative network involving multiple dispersed teams and individual authors. The indicated “Density = 0.0032” also corroborates the dispersed nature of its density. From the authors’ co-linearity mapping, we could observe that several collaborative network groups were encompassed within the WOS database.
Bruelheide, Helge, was situated at the center of the core group of authors, and he was also the author with the highest publication count, boasting 14 publications. His team’s primary research focus revolved around the role of biodiversity in forests in enhancing ecosystem resistance. Bruelheide, Helge argued that increased biodiversity protected the Earth’s environment by stabilizing the productivity of ecosystems while also enhancing resistance to severe weather [52,53,54]. The other two top three publishers were Muys, Bart and Sun, Ge with 13 and 12 articles, respectively, and Bauhus, Juergen tied for third place. From the author co-linearity mapping, it could be noticed that Muys, Bart, Bauhus, Juergen, and Bruelheide, Helge appeared in the same author collaboration network. This indicated that they all had close collaborations with Bruelheide, Helge and shared a common research direction, namely, the impact of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning. They have both conducted collaborative research on a number of different aspects with European forests in mind, including the mechanisms behind the influence of species diversity on ecosystem functioning [55] and the impact of forest management on the realization of ecosystem multifunctionality [56]. In addition, Muys, Bart and Bruelheide, Helge have conducted collaborative research on the effects of tree species richness on forest ecosystem functioning in Europe [57]. Bauhus, Juergen and Bruelheide, Helge have conducted collaborative research on the conservation status of primary forests in Europe and the service outputs to ecosystem functioning that can result from the adoption of forest conservation [58]. Sun, Ge was the more independent author at the center of another relatively small sub-network. His research focused on the interrelationships between climate, forest change, and water resources, as well as the role of water resources in forest ecosystem service functions. He argued that active forest management measures should be taken to ensure the service capacity of the aquatic systems of forests in response to increasing environmental threats and to ensure that forest ecosystem services are maintained [59,60,61]. In addition, apart from several other smaller collaborative network clusters, we can also observe some isolated nodes, which signify that these authors’ research is relatively independent.
Similarly, when analyzing the authors in the CNKI database, we obtained an author co-linearity graph with the number of nodes N = 437, the number of connections E = 561, and density = 0.0059 (Figure 7). From the depicted graph, it becomes evident that collaboration among authors was characterized by a notable degree of decentralization, leading to the formation of multiple distinct clusters within the collaborative network. Notably, the collaborative network centered around Wang, Bing emerged as the most expansive sub-network, accommodating the largest cohort of researchers. Wang, Bing, as the foremost contributor, boasted a commendable output of 22 published papers. His scholarly endeavors were principally directed towards unraveling the complexities of realizing the value inherent in China’s forest ecological products. This pursuit involved quantitative analyses of said products across diverse Chinese provinces, culminating in the identification of pathways conducive to their value maximization within distinct geographical contexts. Wang, Bing’s tenet underscored the paramount importance of forest resources within the realm of natural assets. He posited that the appraisal of forest ecological product value bore the dual potential of ushering in sustainable forest development and procuring substantial economic gains [62,63,64]. Worth mentioning is the fact that Niu, Xiang and Song, Qing F, securing the second and third positions, respectively, in terms of publication volume, shared significant collaborative affiliations with Wang, Bing [65,66]. Furthermore, an observation of interest pertains to the collaborative network spearheaded by Kong, Fan B, ranking as the second most substantial network cohort after Wang, Bing’s. A noteworthy detail highlighted by the nodal coloring scheme indicated a recent surge in Kong, Fan B publication frequency, indicative of his burgeoning prominence within the domain of forest ecosystem product research. Kong, Fan B scholarly pursuits predominantly revolved around assessing the reverberations of forest ecosystem product value realization on the dichotomy between urban and rural landscapes. His investigation notably focused on the topography of Zhejiang Province in China [67]. Through meticulous analysis encompassing non-agricultural employment, forestry, and water-related expenditures, as well as the per capita transfer income of rural residents, Kong, Fan B discerned avenues through which the efficacy of forest ecosystem product value realization could be bolstered, consequently ameliorating the disparities prevailing between urban and rural sectors [68].
Through an in-depth analysis of both Chinese and international author collaboration networks, it was observed that the foremost authors in the field of “forest ecological products” exhibited a roughly equivalent volume of publications in the two databases. In the CNKI database, Wang, Bing secured the first position with a tally of 21 documented works. However, a noticeable divergence in publication volume began with the fourth-ranking author, with domestic output merely amounting to half of that observed in foreign counterparts. Simultaneously, upon scrutinizing the corpus of authored literature, disparities in research emphasis between the two databases surfaced. Notably, the leading authors in the WOS database primarily focused on the ecological domain within the natural sciences, delving into aspects such as biodiversity and the stability of ecosystem functionality. In contrast, authors within the CNKI database exhibited a predilection for research within the economic realm. Their endeavors centered around optimizing the economic value of forest ecosystem products while simultaneously fostering environmental preservation.

3.5. Research Hotspot

3.5.1. Keywords Co-Linear Network Analysis

By analyzing the keyword covariance mapping, we could access the research hotspots about forest ecological products in the last 20 years. We could understand the dynamics of its development through the acquired cutting-edge issues, emerging concepts, and application areas. In this way, we could not only promote the development of the discipline but also the generation of innovation after grasping the dynamics. Using CiteSpace to analyze the keywords and then filtering the acquired data, the sixteen most frequently used terms in the WOS database (Table 3) were compiled by removing common terms such as forest and the concepts studied in this paper, such as ecosystem service.
Upon analyzing foreign keywords, we derived a keyword co-occurrence graph with the number of nodes N = 806, the number of connections E = 8541, and density = 0.0263 (Figure 8). The observed density suggests a notable aggregation and diversity within research pertaining to forest ecological products within the WOS database. Analyzing the colors of growth rings facilitated the determination of the earliest appearance year for each keyword; deeper colors indicated earlier years of introduction. Additionally, by assessing the thickness of the growth rings, we could infer the years with a higher keyword frequency. Similarly, node size denotes the frequency of keyword appearances. Noteworthy high-frequency keywords within the WOS database encompassed terms like “biodiversity”, “climate change”, “conservation”, “management” and “impact”. Predominantly, these terms explored forest ecological products from the perspective of ecological benefits.
When analyzing the keywords for China, we obtained the keyword co-linear contribution map N = 378, E = 698, density = 0.0098 (Figure 9). Its density was smaller than that of foreign keywords, indicating that the concentration and richness of keywords were not as good as those of foreign countries. The high-frequency keywords in the CNKI database mainly included “value assessment”, “water conservation”, “ecological function”, “service function” and “forest ecology”. Among these, the keyword “value assessment” appeared with the highest frequency, indicating that research and discussions on forest ecological products in the economic domain were the most active.

3.5.2. Keywords Cluster Analysis

Cluster analysis of keywords could determine the distribution of research topics. When performing cluster analysis of keywords, we obtained six categories in the WOS database through the Timeline function (Figure 10) and used the Cluster Summary function to output the cluster analysis table (Table 4). The categories with more than 10 occurrences of the keywords were filtered out, and then the five main themes of the research on the field of forest ecological products were summarized based on the literature study of the research on the field of forest ecological products:
  • Application of science, technology, and assessment models to forest ecological products: The advancement of science and technology played a crucial role in the development of forest ecosystem products. By compiling and analyzing statistical data, it was possible to gauge the developmental status of forest ecosystem products. This approach also facilitated a more in-depth exploration of innovation within forest ecosystem products, thereby ensuring their sustainable development. For instance, the application of remote sensing technology enabled the monitoring of the health status and trends of forest ecosystems. This timely detection of issues allowed for prompt interventions, such as in cases of forest fires, ensuring the sustainability of forest ecosystem products [69]. Additionally, remote sensing technology could be combined with other techniques to simulate ecosystems, investigating the relationship between the diversity of forest ecosystem functions and productivity [70]. Various other technologies, such as geographic information systems (GIS) and sensor technology, were extensively employed in the study of forest ecosystem products [71,72,73,74]. Furthermore, while researching forest ecosystem products, models were often employed for data analysis and forecasting. These models aided in the formulation of more scientific and feasible forest management plans. For instance, machine learning algorithms and random forests were commonly employed [75,76,77,78].
  • The main products and by-products of forests are: The principal and by-products of forests, as part of the material product supply within forest ecosystem products, have long been the focus of researchers’ attention. The study encompasses various aspects, including trade pricing and sustainable development of timber and non-timber forest products [79,80,81,82,83]. In terms of research on timber product trade, Zhang, and Ying argued that the implementation of China’s new logging ban policy in natural forests would reduce China’s timber supply and consequently impact the international timber market. For instance, Viola, Di C examined individual consumption intentions towards non-wood forest products, using three European countries as examples. The study revealed that people’s motivation for consuming non-wood forest products like mushrooms was primarily for recreational purposes. As a result, consumers exhibited a high degree of demand elasticity, implying that their consumption intentions would not substantially decrease even with higher prices [84].
  • Urban forest ecosystem services: The research on urban forest ecosystems not only addressed climate change and environmental challenges but also provided habitats for plants, microorganisms, and animals within urban areas, simultaneously offering psychological healing to humans. These ecosystems also held significant economic value, generating income through eco-tourism in urban settings. In recent years, an increasing number of scholars have incorporated urban forest ecosystems into sustainable urban planning [37,85,86,87].
  • Interactions Between Ecosystem Function and Biodiversity: The reciprocal mechanisms between biodiversity and ecosystem function have been a prominent subject of research [33,52,54,55]. Ecosystem functions encompass a range of services provided to human society, and biodiversity safeguards the realization of these services. The loss of biodiversity may result in impaired ecosystem functionality, subsequently affecting the services rendered by the ecosystem, such as water source protection and air purification [88,89,90,91].
  • Sustainable forest management: Sustainable forest management encompasses a number of research aspects, including ecological conservation and restoration, sustainable use of wood and non-wood resources, and maintenance of ecosystem services. It was more of a concept that human beings adhered to in order to maintain forest resources and ensure that the ecological, economic, and social well-being of forests could be enjoyed in the future as well, and research on it covered all aspects of forest ecological products. Forest certification has also received much attention recently as an indicator of sustainable management objectives [92,93].
Similarly, the Chinese keywords were categorized into three research themes by means of the keyword timeline mapping of the CNKI database (Figure 11) and the cluster analysis table (Table 5):
  • Research on the economic value of forest ecological products: Chinese scholars’ investigations into forest ecological products have predominantly focused on their economic benefits. The study of the economic value of forest ecological products has emerged as a primary area of interest in recent years. This encompasses two main aspects: firstly, the economic valuation of forest ecological products, and secondly, research into the mechanisms and pathways for realizing the economic value of these products. Apart from assessing the overall value of forest ecological products in China [62,65], Chinese researchers have also provided corresponding economic valuation estimation data and implementation pathways based on the varying endowments of forest resources and policies across different regions in China [63]. Additionally, the unexpected emergence of the concept of an “ecological bank” has lent robust support to the pathways for realizing the value of forest products [22].
  • Research on the economic value of forest ecological products: This research encompassed associations between the functional characteristics of plants and the services provided by forest ecosystems [94], the efficacy of microbial applications in forestry production [95], the positive role of measuring water conservation functions in assessing forest ecological value [30,96], and the role of soil retention in restraining soil erosion and thereby maintaining the security functions of the ecosystem [97]. Furthermore, with the carbon neutrality target proposed by China, research related to forest carbon sequestration has garnered increasing attention [98].
  • Sustainable Forest Management: Research on sustainable forest management within the country primarily focused on studies related to the restoration of degraded forest ecosystems [99]. Additionally, ZHU, Jiao J conducted research on the impact of secondary forest ecological conservation systems in Northeast China as an experimental subject, contributing significantly to the theory of sustainable forest development and its crucial role in ecosystem restoration [100].

3.6. Research Evolution Trends

Analyzing emergent keywords from a large sample of the literature data aids in gaining deeper insights into the developmental trends and evolutionary tendencies in the field of forest ecological products. By utilizing CiteSpace to detect emergent keywords, a graph illustrating the 20 most prominent emergent keywords related to forest ecological products within the WOS database from 2003 to 2023 was generated (Figure 12). In the figure, “Year” signifies the year when keywords first appeared. “Strength” represents the burst strength of keywords. “Begin” corresponds to the starting year of keyword bursts, and “End” denotes the concluding year of keyword bursts. Blue lines on the graph indicate the time span of keyword bursts, while red lines indicate the frequency of keyword bursts. From the graph, it is evident that the term “non-timber forest product” exhibited the strongest emergence (Strength = 20.93) and had the longest duration, spanning twelve years (2003–2015). This indicates sustained scholarly attention during this period.
Furthermore, based on the graph, we can observe the evolutionary trajectory of research on forest ecological products over these two decades. Initially, the study of forest ecological products aimed at pursuing the material supply from forests. However, the intensification of human activities led to ecological degradation and a series of environmental issues. As a result, a series of policies prohibiting deforestation were enacted, and there was a growing emphasis on maintaining biodiversity to uphold ecological balance. Gradually, people began to realize that forests not only impact their own ecosystems but also provide crucial environmental services such as water conservation, soil retention, and climate regulation. These services are vital to both human society and other ecosystems. Consequently, efforts were made to strike a balance between utilizing forest resources and meeting human needs, leading to the introduction of the concept of sustainable development.
Lastly, we observe that the emergence rates of “machine learning”, “river basin”, and “health” have persisted from 2021 to the present. This indicates that employing machine learning for data analysis and predictive modeling in monitoring and managing forest ecosystems, investigating water resources within forest ecological products, and safeguarding the health of forests are the primary directions of scholarly research on forest ecological products within the WOS database. Furthermore, it is anticipated that the prominence of these trends will continue in the coming years.
The keyword emergent graph from the CNKI database revealed that “water conservation” exhibited the highest emergence rate (Strength = 2.94) (Figure 13). The terms “forest ecology”, “canopy interception”, “nature forest protection project”, “water conservation”, “service function”, and “forest ecosystem service” had the longest duration, each spanning two years. From the graph, we could discern the evolutionary context of research related to forest ecological products: initially, scholars recognized the value of forest ecological products and conducted research focusing on various provinces across China. Subsequently, the emphasis of Chinese research funding shifted towards practical aspects, such as the establishment of projects like Chinese fir plantations and nature forest protection projects, leading the research towards practical applications. In recent years, studies related to forest ecological products have increasingly concentrated on their economic valuation and implementation. Additionally, the persistent emergence of “ecological function” and “forest ecosystem service signified that these areas represented the cutting edge of research within the domain of forest ecological products and are expected to be significant research trends in the forthcoming years.

4. Discussion

In the realm of research, scientific tools serve as valuable aids in our investigative process. However, it is paramount to underscore that their primary role is to assist researchers. What holds greater significance is the researcher’s profound contemplation, characterized by a rational and analytical mindset, directed towards the underlying complexities of research questions.
Within the Section 4 of this paper regarding research institutions, it is evident that the top ten institutions in terms of publication volume are situated in six countries, all of which possess abundant forest resources. Nevertheless, upon juxtaposing the forest coverage of each nation, an unexpected revelation emerged: China, despite leading in terms of article count and organizational presence, exhibited the smallest forest coverage among these nations, standing at a mere 23.34%. It was discovered that the Chinese government was dedicated to ecosystem restoration and biodiversity conservation, having formulated a range of national forestry policies to attain this objective. For example, the Returning Farmland to Forest Program [101], China’s Natural Forest Conservation Program [102], the Three-North Shelter Forest Program, and other significant ecological projects contributed to a noteworthy augmentation in forest cover [103]. Simultaneously, these policies prompted Chinese institutions and scholars to not only expand research on forest ecological products horizontally but also to delve more profoundly into the research content within this domain [104,105,106]. It is worth mentioning that in recent years, the Chinese government has introduced the Dual Carbon Goals, which have propelled the forest ecological products field to greater research prominence. Under the guidance of this policy, institutions and scholars in China have not only expanded the breadth of research in the forest ecological products domain but have also significantly enhanced its depth. We also conducted an analysis of the European Union (EU) as one of the earliest adopters of green environmental labeling. The findings revealed that since the EU introduced the ecological label system through Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 in 1992, the system has employed a variety of mechanisms, including the establishment of environmental standards, the provision of market incentives, regulatory oversight and certification, information dissemination, and policy coordination, to further enhance its role in guiding green products. This led to a gradual development of consumer trust and recognition for products bearing the ecological label, resulting in a distinct competitive advantage in the market [81,107]. Additionally, a comprehensive examination of scholars’ research revealed that the impact of policies related to sustainable development on forest ecological products in countries like Australia, the United States, and Brazil was evident. Policy formulation played a pivotal role in adjusting the dynamics of supply and demand in forest ecological products and influencing the industry structure, all while striving to strike a crucial balance between resource development and ecosystem preservation [108,109,110,111]. Consequently, we contend that government policies in the realm of forest ecological products not only contribute to environmental improvement and sustainable resource utilization but also drive the advancement and deepening of relevant research, thereby providing a robust foundation for achieving sustainable development goals.
Moreover, through the analysis conducted in this study, it can be affirmed that scholars have indeed recognized the significance of sustainable development in the realm of forest ecological products. They are actively striving to contribute to its advancement in their respective research domains. The evolving trends in research related to forest ecological products underscore this realization. However, we believe that research solely from ecological or economic value realization perspectives is no longer sufficient to meet the requirements of sustainability. Future research should focus on integrating the relevant achievements from various research domains and identifying approaches that can harmonize the tripartite synergy of ecological, economic, and social benefits for forest ecological products. This holistic approach aims to discover a more sustainable development path for forest ecological products.

5. Conclusions

This study conducted a systematic review of relevant literature on forest ecological products from 2003 to 2023, utilizing the CiteSpace literature visualization analysis software and drawing data from both the WOS and CNKI databases. The comprehensive analysis encompassed six key dimensions, including publication volume, journals, affiliations, author collaboration networks, research themes, and evolutionary trends. This interdisciplinary and all-encompassing analysis provides an overarching perspective for understanding research in the field of forest ecological products, shedding light on its historical development and future trajectories. It serves as a valuable guide for scholars engaged in forest ecological product research. Furthermore, the findings of this study have broader implications as they can provide valuable insights to government bodies, businesses, and relevant organizations involved in forest ecological product research, thereby assisting them in making informed decisions.
An extensive review of literature in the WOS and CNKI databases concerning forest ecological products reveals a consensus among scholars hailing from diverse disciplines. This consensus revolves around a common objective: the preservation of forest well-being. It entails ensuring the consistent delivery of ecological, economic, and societal value by forests, all of which contribute significantly to the overall health of both humanity and the global ecosystem. Given the current research landscape, which predominantly emphasizes ecological regulation and economic value, often neglecting the exploration of the societal benefits associated with forest ecological products, we propose four strategic developmental recommendations. These recommendations aim to facilitate the harmonious integration of ecological, economic, and social benefits within the context of forest ecological products.
First and foremost, facilitating the establishment of a unified international standard certification system is crucial for advancing the sustainable development of forest ecological products. The forest certification system typically comprises two main components: Forest Management Certification (FM) and Chain of Custody Certification (COC). FM certification is usually carried out by independent certifying bodies for specific forest areas or operators, ensuring sustainable management practices are implemented in timber harvesting, non-timber forest product collection, and ecosystem protection. CoC certification, on the other hand, involves certifying the entire supply chain from the forest to the final product, encompassing production, processing, distribution, and sales of forest products. By tracking and documenting the origin of forest products, it ensures they originate from sustainably managed forests certified through forest management certification. Currently, there are several international forest certification systems in existence, with the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) being the two most widely adopted certification systems [112,113]. Additionally, there are several other influential international certification standards systems, such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), the Canadian Standards Association (CSA), the Australian Forestry Standard (AFS), the China Forest Certification Council (CFFC), and the Malaysian Timber Certification Scheme (MTCS), among others [114,115,116,117]. However, due to the influence of factors like national policies, geographical locations, and market preferences, a unified and universally applicable forest standard system has not been fully established across all countries. Therefore, international organizations like the United Nations (UN) can coordinate various factors and stakeholders to facilitate collaboration among different forest certification standard organizations [118]. This would gradually lead to the development of a consistent international standard certification system for forest ecological products. This approach would not only enhance consumer trust and elevate the market competitiveness of forest ecological products but also promote sustainable management of these products [119,120].
Secondly, diversifying product development is of paramount importance for the forest ecological products industry. Traditional forest ecological products have primarily encompassed the principal and ancillary outputs of forests, specifically timber and non-timber commodities. To enhance the diversification of both primary and secondary outputs, avenues such as product branding, quality elevation, and functional expansion can be pursued to amplify product value [121,122]. Concurrently, the expansion of market channels, encompassing digital commerce platforms and local markets, is essential. Facilitating community engagement in the production and stewardship of forest ecological products can engender a comprehensive value chain, foster employment opportunities, and yield a mutually beneficial outcome encompassing economic and sociocultural dividends. Furthermore, in tandem with economic progress, an augmented emphasis on the experiential and cultural dimensions has emerged. This trend extends to the sphere of forestry. Consequently, propelling the development of multifarious forest ecological products is pivotal to accommodating the manifold requisites of a diverse marketplace. This encompasses innovations in ecotourism, sylvan-based wellness offerings, and related ventures. Traditional forest ecological products are primarily [123].
Additionally, enhancing policy support and guidance functions is a critical component of this endeavor. On one hand, enacting relevant legislation and regulations can constrain the excessive exploitation of ecosystems, ensuring the long-term sustainability of forest resources. On the other hand, considering the public attributes of forest ecological products, the formulation of policies that strike a balance between individual interests and public benefits becomes particularly significant. Policies can facilitate the rational allocation of forest resources while bolstering the ecosystem’s ecological service value to society through mechanisms such as fiscal support, tax incentives, and legal protection [124,125].
Lastly, fostering national collaborative partnerships stands as a pivotal strategy for propelling the forest ecological products industry forward. By establishing international collaborative platforms, governments, businesses, and relevant organizations from different countries can exchange experiences, formulate cooperative plans, integrate resource advantages, and propel the development of forest ecological products. Firstly, cross-border cooperation can achieve a balance between the conservation and utilization of forest ecological environments, advancing the sustainable development of forest ecological products [126,127]. Secondly, regional partnership initiatives help mitigate potential barriers and constraints, reduce trade barriers, and promote the development and trade of transnational forest ecological products. Empirical evidence demonstrates that regional collaborative partnerships not only stimulate economic growth but also drive industrial structural upgrades. Finally, innovation in forest ecological products and related technologies can be facilitated through transnational research and development projects, along with the establishment of international scientific collaboration networks [128]. Concurrently, this can advance tangible industrial cooperation, enhance employment prospects, and mitigate unemployment rates.

Author Contributions

J.W. and G.T. conceptualized the research design, determined the research methodology, and conducted material collection and organization; J.W. performed the analysis and completed the initial draft of the manuscript (review and editing); G.T. further expanded and finalized the manuscript, provided project supervision, and offered project funding support. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Open Projects of Heilongjiang’s University Think Tanks (The Think Tank on Modern Forestry and Carbon Sink Economy Development), grant number: ZKKF2022175.

Data Availability Statement

The data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the financial support from the National Social Science Foundation, China, as well as assistance from the School of Economics and Management of the Northeast Forestry University. The authors are grateful to the regional editors and anonymous reviewers whose invaluable insights have played a pivotal role in enhancing the quality of this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ellison, D.; Morris, C.E.; Locatelli, B.; Sheil, D.; Cohen, J.; Murdiyarso, D.; Gutierrez, V.; Noordwijk, M.V.; Creed, I.F.; Pokorny, J.; et al. Trees, Forests and Water: Cool Insights for a Hot World. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 43, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Trumbore, S.; Brando, P.; Hartmann, H. Forest Health and Global Change. Science 2015, 349, 814–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Bonan, G.B. Forests and Climate Change: Forcings, Feedbacks, and the Climate Benefits of Forests. Science 2008, 320, 1444–1449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Li, Y.; Brando, P.M.; Morton, D.C.; Lawrence, D.M.; Yang, H.; Randerson, J.T. Deforestation-Induced Climate Change Reduces Carbon Storage in Remaining Tropical Forests. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 1964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Phillips, O.L.; Aragão, L.E.O.C.; Lewis, S.L.; Fisher, J.B.; Lloyd, J.; López-González, G.; Malhi, Y.; Monteagudo, A.; Peacock, J.; Quesada, C.A.; et al. Drought Sensitivity of the Amazon Rainforest. Science 2009, 323, 1344–1347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Abram, N.J.; Henley, B.J.; Sen Gupta, A.; Lippmann, T.J.R.; Clarke, H.; Dowdy, A.J.; Sharples, J.J.; Nolan, R.H.; Zhang, T.; Wooster, M.J.; et al. Connections of Climate Change and Variability to Large and Extreme Forest Fires in Southeast Australia. Commun. Earth Environ. 2021, 2, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Marchi, E.; Chung, W.; Visser, R.; Abbas, D.; Nordfjell, T.; Mederski, P.S.; McEwan, A.; Brink, M.; Laschi, A. Sustainable Forest Operations (SFO): A New Paradigm in a Changing World and Climate. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 634, 1385–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Koutika, L.-S.; Matondo, R.; Mabiala-Ngoma, A.; Tchichelle, V.S.; Toto, M.; Madzoumbou, J.-C.; Akana, J.A.; Gomat, H.Y.; Mankessi, F.; Mbou, A.T.; et al. Sustaining Forest Plantations for the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Scharlemann, J.P.W.; Brock, R.C.; Balfour, N.; Brown, C.; Burgess, N.D.; Guth, M.K.; Ingram, D.J.; Lane, R.; Martin, J.G.C.; Wicander, S.; et al. Towards Understanding Interactions between Sustainable Development Goals: The Role of Environment–Human Linkages. Sustain. Sci. 2020, 15, 1573–1584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ferrario, P.; Fumagalli, N.; Senes, G.; Toccolini, A. Composite Assessment of Productive, Protective and Recreational Functions in Forest Planning. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2014, 13, 1277–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chen, S.L. Comprehensively promote the construction project of national forest ecological labeling products. China For. Ind. 2020, 16–21. [Google Scholar]
  12. Liyao, Y.U.; Tian, S.H.I.; Jingjing, G.U.O. Developing Mechanisms to Realize the Value of Forest Ecological Products. For. Resour. Manag. 2019, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kindler, E. A Comparison of the Concepts: Ecosystem Services and Forest Functions to Improve Interdisciplinary Exchange. For. Policy Econ. 2016, 67, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gutsch, M.; Lasch-Born, P.; Kollas, C.; Suckow, F.; Reyer, C.P.O. Balancing Trade-Offs between Ecosystem Ser vices in Germany’s Forests under Climate Change. Environ. Res. Lett. 2018, 13, 045012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Velasco-Muñoz, J.F.; Aznar-Sánchez, J.A.; Schoenemann, M.; López-Felices, B. An Analysis of the Worldwide Research on the Socio-Cultural Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Peng, W.Y.; Wei, C.X.J. The Supply Capacity Improvement and Value Realization Path of Ecological Products in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei. China Bus. Mark. 2021, 35, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dai, F.; Feng, X.M.; Song, X.F. Game Analysis on Forest Eco-products Supply. World For. Res. 2013, 26, 93–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Niu, X.; Wang, B.; Liu, S.; Liu, C.; Wei, W.; Kauppi, P.E. Economical Assessment of Forest Ecosystem Services in China: Characteristics and Implications. Ecol. Complex. 2012, 11, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhu, Z.; Huang, C.M.; Xu, Z.G.; Shen, Y.Q.; Bai, J.D. How risk attitude of farmers influences the supply willing ness of forest carbon sequestration in Zhejiang Province. Resour. Sci. 2016, 38, 565–575. [Google Scholar]
  20. Gao, J.Z. On Forest Ecological Product-The Function of Forest Ecological Environment on the Base of Product Concept. China For. Econ. 2007, 17–19+37. [Google Scholar]
  21. Zhang, L.B.; Yu, H.Y.; Li, D.Q.; Jia, Z.Y.; Wu, F.C.; Liu, X. Connotation and Value Implementation Mechanism of Ecological Products. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach. 2019, 50, 173–183. [Google Scholar]
  22. Wu, X.Y.; Li, X. Eco-bank Innovation Mechanism Enabling Ecological Product Value Realization. World For. Res. 2023, 36, 128–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kauppi, P.E.; Stål, G.; Arnesson-Ceder, L.; Hallberg Sramek, I.; Hoen, H.F.; Svensson, A.; Wernick, I.K.; Högberg, P.; Lundmark, T.; Nordin, A. Managing Existing Forests Can Mitigate Climate Change. For. Ecol. Manag. 2022, 513, 120186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lin, B.; Ge, J. Valued Forest Carbon Sinks: How Much Emissions Abatement Costs Could Be Reduced in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 224, 455–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Miura, S.; Amacher, M.; Hofer, T.; San-Miguel-Ayanz, J.; Ernawati; Thackway, R. Protective Functions and Eco system Services of Global Forests in the Past Quarter-Century. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 352, 35–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chen, C. CiteSpace II: Detecting and Visualizing Emerging Trends and Transient Patterns in Scientific Literature. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2006, 57, 359–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chen, C.; Song, M. Visualizing a Field of Research: A Methodology of Systematic Scientometric Reviews. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0223994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zheng, H.; Wang, L.; Peng, W.; Zhang, C.; Li, C.; Robinson, B.E.; Wu, X.; Kong, L.; Li, R.; Xiao, Y.; et al. Realizing the Values of Natural Capital for Inclusive, Sustainable Development: Informing China’s New Ecological Development Strategy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 8623–8628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sheng, W.; Zhen, L.; Xie, G.; Xiao, Y. Determining Eco-Compensation Standards Based on the Ecosystem Ser vices Value of the Mountain Ecological Forests in Beijing, China. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 26, 422–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Biao, Z.; Wenhua, L.; Gaodi, X.; Yu, X. Water Conservation of Forest Ecosystem in Beijing and Its Value. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1416–1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Xia, J.; Chen, J.; Piao, S.; Ciais, P.; Luo, Y.; Wan, S. Terrestrial Carbon Cycle Affected by Non-Uniform Climate Warming. Nat. Geosci. 2014, 7, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yang, F.; Ichii, K.; White, M.A.; Hashimoto, H.; Michaelis, A.R.; Votava, P.; Zhu, A.-X.; Huete, A.; Running, S.W.; Nemani, R.R. Developing a Continental-Scale Measure of Gross Primary Production by Combining MODIS and AmeriFlux Data through Support Vector Machine Approach. Remote Sens. Environ. 2007, 110, 109–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zhu, L.; Hughes, A.C.; Zhao, X.-Q.; Zhou, L.-J.; Ma, K.-P.; Shen, X.-L.; Li, S.; Liu, M.-Z.; Xu, W.-B.; Watson, J.E.M. Regional Scalable Priorities for National Biodiversity and Carbon Conservation Planning in Asia. Sci. Adv. 2021, 7, eabe4261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Fan, F.; Xiao, C.; Feng, Z.; Chen, Y. Land-Planning Management Based on Multiple Ecosystem Services and Simulation in Tropical Forests. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 323, 116216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Zhang, L.; Yu, X.; Jiang, M.; Xue, Z.; Lu, X.; Zou, Y. A Consistent Ecosystem Services Valuation Method Based on Total Economic Value and Equivalent Value Factors: A Case Study in the Sanjiang Plain, Northeast China. Ecol. Complex. 2017, 29, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pan, Q.; Wen, Z.; Wu, T.; Zheng, T.; Yang, Y.; Li, R.; Zheng, H. Trade-Offs and Synergies of Forest Ecosystem Services from the Perspective of Plant Functional Traits: A Systematic Review. Ecosyst. Serv. 2022, 58, 101484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lin, J.; Kroll, C.N.; Nowak, D.J.; Greenfield, E.J. A Review of Urban Forest Modeling: Implications for Management and Future Research. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 43, 126366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Tanner, S.J.; Escobedo, F.J.; Soto, J.R. Recognizing the Insurance Value of Resilience: Evidence from a Forest Restoration Policy in the Southeastern U.S. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 289, 112442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Stanturf, J.A.; Palik, B.J.; Dumroese, R.K. Contemporary Forest Restoration: A Review Emphasizing Function. For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 331, 292–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Vose, J.M.; Sun, G.; Ford, C.R.; Bredemeier, M.; Otsuki, K.; Wei, X.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, L. Forest Ecohydrological Research in the 21st Century: What Are the Critical Needs? Ecohydrology 2011, 4, 146–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hill, B.H.; Kolka, R.K.; McCormick, F.H.; Starry, M.A. A Synoptic Survey of Ecosystem Services from Headwater Catchments in the United States. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 7, 106–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kauppi, P.E.; Birdsey, R.A.; Pan, Y.; Ihalainen, A.; Nöjd, P.; Lehtonen, A. Effects of Land Management on Large Trees and Carbon Stocks. Biogeosciences 2015, 12, 855–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Liu, Y.; Wang, Y.J.; Wang, Y.Q.; Zhang, H.L.; Zhu, J.Q.; Li, Y.P.; Liu, N. Value assessment on service function of forest ecosystem in Jinyun Mountain, Chongqing City of southwestern China. J. Beijing For. Univ. 2013, 35, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ge, Y.Y.; Xin, B.Y.; Li, X. Urban forest construction based on ecosystem service function improvement in warm temperate semi-humid areas. J. Beijing For. Univ. 2020, 42, 127–141. [Google Scholar]
  45. Wang, Y.S.; Yu, X.X.; Jia, G.D.; Yin, W.L.; Zhai, M.P.; Wang, X.; Zheng, P.F. Review on Ecological Forestry Development in Beijing Metropolis. World For. Res. 2021, 34, 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Yu, X.X.; Zhou, B.; Lv, X.Z.; Yang, Z.G. Evaluation of water conservation function in mountain forest areas of Beijing based on InVEST model. Sci. Silvae Sin. 2012, 48, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  47. He, S.X.; Li, X.Y.; Mo, F.; Zhou, B.; Gao, G.L. The water conservation study of typical forest ecosystems in the forest transect of eastern China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2011, 31, 3285–3295. [Google Scholar]
  48. Liu, L.X.; Liu, C.Z.; Mao, Z.J. Evaluation of forest ecosystem service functions in Fenglin Biosphere Nature Reserve, Heilongjiang Province. J. Beijing For. Univ. 2011, 33, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Han, L.H.; Tian, G.S.; Gao, H. Impact of Industrial Integration on the Development of Forest Rehabilitation Industry. J. Northeast. For. Univ. 2021, 49, 100–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chen, H. Contingent Valuation Method Applied in the Assessment of Forestry Ecological Tourism Product Value. For. Econ. 2005, 60–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hao, J.F.; Jin, S.; Ma, Q.Y.; Lei, R.D.; Zhou, X.F. The influence of climate change on the structure and productivity of the typical forest ecosystem in the warm temperate Zone. J. Arid Land Resour. Environ. 2008, 22, 63–69. [Google Scholar]
  52. Bruelheide, H.; Nadrowski, K.; Assmann, T.; Bauhus, J.; Both, S.; Buscot, F.; Chen, X.; Ding, B.; Durka, W.; Erfmeier, A.; et al. Designing Forest Biodiversity Experiments: General Considerations Illustrated by a New Large Experiment in Subtropical China. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2014, 5, 74–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bruelheide, H.; Chen, Y.; Huang, Y.; Ma, K.; Niklaus, P.A.; Schmid, B. Response to Comment on “Impacts of Species Richness on Productivity in a Large-Scale Subtropical Forest Experiment”. Science 2019, 363, eaav9863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Isbell, F.; Craven, D.; Connolly, J.; Loreau, M.; Schmid, B.; Beierkuhnlein, C.; Bezemer, T.M.; Bonin, C.; Bruelheide, H.; De Luca, E.; et al. Biodiversity Increases the Resistance of Ecosystem Productivity to Climate Extremes. Nature 2015, 526, 574–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Van Der Plas, F.; Manning, P.; Allan, E.; Scherer-Lorenzen, M.; Verheyen, K.; Wirth, C.; Zavala, M.A.; Hector, A.; Ampoorter, E.; Baeten, L.; et al. Jack-of-All-Trades Effects Drive Biodiversity–Ecosystem Multifunctionality Relationships in European Forests. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 11109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Plas, F.; Ratcliffe, S.; Ruiz-Benito, P.; Scherer-Lorenzen, M.; Verheyen, K.; Wirth, C.; Zavala, M.A.; Ampoorter, E.; Baeten, L.; Barbaro, L.; et al. Continental Mapping of Forest Ecosystem Functions Reveals a High but Unrealised Potential for Forest Multifunctionality. Ecol. Lett. 2018, 21, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Jing, X.; Muys, B.; Baeten, L.; Bruelheide, H.; De Wandeler, H.; Desie, E.; Hättenschwiler, S.; Jactel, H.; Jaroszewicz, B.; Jucker, T.; et al. Climatic Conditions, Not above- and Belowground Resource Availability and Uptake Capacity, Mediate Tree Diversity Effects on Productivity and Stability. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 812, 152560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Sabatini, F.M.; Keeton, W.S.; Lindner, M.; Svoboda, M.; Verkerk, P.J.; Bauhus, J.; Bruelheide, H.; Burrascano, S.; Debaive, N.; Duarte, I.; et al. Protection Gaps and Restoration Opportunities for Primary Forests in Europe. Divers. Distrib. 2020, 26, 1646–1662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sun, G.; Wei, X.; Hao, L.; Sanchis, M.G.; Hou, Y.; Yousefpour, R.; Tang, R.; Zhang, Z. Forest Hydrology Modeling Tools for Watershed Management: A Review. For. Ecol. Manag. 2023, 530, 120755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Sun, G.; Caldwell, P.V.; McNulty, S.G. Modelling the Potential Role of Forest Thinning in Maintaining Water Supplies under a Changing Climate across the Conterminous United States. Hydrol. Process. 2015, 29, 5016–5030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Duan, K.; Sun, G.; Sun, S.; Caldwell, P.V.; Cohen, E.C.; McNulty, S.G.; Aldridge, H.D.; Zhang, Y. Divergence of Ecosystem Services in U.S. National Forests and Grasslands under a Changing Climate. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 24441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Wang, B.; Ren, X.X.; Hu, W. Assessment of forest ecosystem services value in China. Sci. Silvae Sin. 2011, 47, 145–153. [Google Scholar]
  63. Wang, B.; Lu, S.W.; You, W.Z.; Ren, X.X.; Xing, Z.K.; Wang, S.M. Evaluation of forest ecosystem services value in Liaoning Province. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2010, 21, 1792–1798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wang, B.; Ren, X.X.; Hu, W. Regional variation of forest ecosystem services in China. J. Beijing For. Univ. 2011, 33, 43–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Wang, B.; Niu, X.; Song, Q.F. Forest ecosystem service assessment and path design of value-oriented realization in China. Environ. Prot. 2020, 48, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Song, Q.F.; Niu, X.; Wang, B. Review on forest ecosystem services assessment based on big data. Chin. J. Ecol. 2015, 34, 2914–2921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kong, F.B.; Wang, N.; Xu, C.Y. Value Realization Efficiency of Forest Ecological Products in the Birthplace of “Two Mountains” Idea. Sci. Silvae Sin. 2022, 58, 12–22. [Google Scholar]
  68. Kong, F.B.; Cui, M.Y.; Xu, C.Y.; Lu, Y.; Shen, Y.Q. Impact of the Realization of Values of Forest Ecological Prod ucts on the Urban-Rural Gap in Zhejiang Province. Sci. Silvae Sin. 2023, 59, 31–43. [Google Scholar]
  69. Crowley, M.A.; Stockdale, C.A.; Johnston, J.M.; Wulder, M.A.; Liu, T.; McCarty, J.L.; Rieb, J.T.; Cardille, J.A.; White, J.C. Towards a Whole-system Framework for Wildfire Monitoring Using Earth Observations. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2023, 29, 1423–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Schneider, F.D.; Longo, M.; Paul-Limoges, E.; Scholl, V.M.; Schmid, B.; Morsdorf, F.; Pavlick, R.P.; Schimel, D.S.; Schaepman, M.E.; Moorcroft, P.R. Remote Sensing-Based Forest Modeling Reveals Positive Effects of Functional Diversity on Productivity at Local Spatial Scale. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 2023, 128, e2023JG007421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zerouali, B.; Santos, C.A.G.; Do Nascimento, T.V.M.; Silva, R.M.D. A Cloud-Integrated GIS for Forest Cover Loss and Land Use Change Monitoring Using Statistical Methods and Geospatial Technology over Northern Algeria. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 341, 118029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Irina, L.-T.; Javier, B.-P.; Maria Teresa, C.-B.; Euridice, L.-A.; Luz Maria del Carrnen, C.-I. Integrating Ecological and Socioeconomic Criteria in a GIS-Based Multicriteria-Multiobjective Analysis to Develop Sustainable Harvesting Strategies for Mexican Oregano Lippia Graveolens Kunth, a Non-Timber Forest Product. Land Use Policy 2019, 81, 668–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Nolde, M.; Mueller, N.; Strunz, G.; Riedlinger, T. Assessment of Wildfire Activity Development Trends for East ern Australia Using Multi-Sensor Earth Observation Data. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 4975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Burgess, S.S.O.; Kranz, M.L.; Turner, N.E.; Cardell-Oliver, R.; Dawson, T.E. Harnessing Wireless Sensor Technologies to Advance Forest Ecology and Agricultural Research. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2010, 150, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Zhao, Q.; Yu, S.; Zhao, F.; Tian, L.; Zhao, Z. Comparison of Machine Learning Algorithms for Forest Parameter Estimations and Application for Forest Quality Assessments. For. Ecol. Manag. 2019, 434, 224–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Shi, Y.; Xu, L.; Zhou, Y.; Ji, B.; Zhou, G.; Fang, H.; Yin, J.; Deng, X. Quantifying Driving Factors of Vegetation Carbon Stocks of Moso Bamboo Forests Using Machine Learning Algorithm Combined with Structural Equation Model. For. Ecol. Manag. 2018, 429, 406–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Guo, F.; Wang, G.; Su, Z.; Liang, H.; Wang, W.; Lin, F.; Liu, A. What Drives Forest Fire in Fujian, China? Evidence from Logistic Regression and Random Forests. Int. J. Wildland Fire 2016, 25, 505–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Aviña-Hernández, J.; Ramírez-Vargas, M.; Roque-Sosa, F.; Martínez-Rincón, R.O. Predictive Performance of Random Forest on the Identification of Mangrove Species in Arid Environments. Ecol. Inform. 2023, 75, 102040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Clark, J. Forest Policy for Sustainable Commodity Wood Production: An Examination Drawing on the Australian Experience. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 50, 219–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zhang, Y.; Chen, S. Wood Trade Responses to Ecological Rehabilitation Program: Evidence from China’s New Logging Ban in Natural Forests. For. Policy Econ. 2021, 122, 102339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. So, H.W.; Lafortezza, R. Reviewing the Impacts of Eco-Labelling of Forest Products on Different Dimensions of Sustainability in Europe. For. Policy Econ. 2022, 145, 102851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kilchling, P.; Hansmann, R.; Seeland, K. Demand for Non-Timber Forest Products: Surveys of Urban Consumers and Sellers in Switzerland. For. Policy Econ. 2009, 11, 294–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Huber, P.; Hujala, T.; Kurttila, M.; Wolfslehner, B.; Vacik, H. Application of Multi Criteria Analysis Methods for a Participatory Assessment of Non-Wood Forest Products in Two European Case Studies. For. Policy Econ. 2019, 103, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Di Cori, V.; Franceschinis, C.; Robert, N.; Pettenella, D.M.; Thiene, M. Moral Foundations and Willingness to Pay for Non-Wood Forest Products: A Study in Three European Countries. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Wolch, J.R.; Byrne, J.; Newell, J.P. Urban Green Space, Public Health, and Environmental Justice: The Challenge of Making Cities “Just Green Enough”. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 125, 234–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Chace, J.F.; Walsh, J.J. Urban Effects on Native Avifauna: A Review. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2006, 74, 46–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Escobedo, F.J.; Giannico, V.; Jim, C.Y.; Sanesi, G.; Lafortezza, R. Urban Forests, Ecosystem Services, Green Infra structure and Nature-Based Solutions: Nexus or Evolving Metaphors. Urban For. Urban Green. 2019, 37, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Sun, G.; Vose, J. Forest Management Challenges for Sustaining Water Resources in the Anthropocene. Forests 2016, 7, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Sun, Z.; Feng, M.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, S.; Zhang, W.; Li, Y.; Huang, Y.; Qi, P.; Wang, W.; Zou, Y.; et al. A Healthier Water Use Strategy in Primitive Forests Contributes to Stronger Water Conservation Capabilities Compared with Secondary Forests. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 851, 158290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Drever, C.R.; Cook-Patton, S.C.; Akhter, F.; Badiou, P.H.; Chmura, G.L.; Davidson, S.J.; Desjardins, R.L.; Dyk, A.; Fargione, J.E.; Fellows, M.; et al. Natural Climate Solutions for Canada. Sci. Adv. 2021, 7, eabd6034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Karnosky, D.F. Impacts of Elevated Atmospheric CO2 on Forest Trees and Forest Ecosystems: Knowledge Gaps. Environ. Int. 2003, 29, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. N’Doua, B.D. The Impact of Forest Management Certification on Exports in the Wood Sector: Evidence from French Firm-Level Data. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 418, 138032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Stupak, I.; Lattimore, B.; Titus, B.D.; Smith, C.T. Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Fuel Production and Harvesting: A Review of Current Standards for Sustainable Forest Management. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 3287–3308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Zheng, H.; Pan, Q.; Wen, Z.; Yang, T.Z. Relationships between plant functional traits and ecosystem services in forests: A review. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2021, 41, 7901–7912. [Google Scholar]
  95. Li, Q.L.; Li, A.B.; Huang, Z.Y.; Gai, X.; Bian, F.Y.; Zhong, Z.K.; Zhang, X.P. Application of phosphorus solubilizing microorganisms in forestry soil ecological restoration. World For. Res. 2022, 35, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Liu, L.L.; Cao, W.; Shao, Q.Q. Water Conservation Function of Forest Ecosystem in the Southern and Northern Pan River Watershed. Sci. Geogr. Sin. 2016, 36, 603–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Dong, R.; Ren, X.L.; Gai, A.H.; He, H.L.; Zhang, L.; Li, P. Use of CERN for estimating the soil conservation capability of typical forest ecosystems in China. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2020, 40, 2310–2320. [Google Scholar]
  98. Mao, J.T.; Xu, W.T.; Xie, Z.Q. Trends and hotspots of forest carbon sinks based on the knowledge map. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2023, 43, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Ma, J.M.; Liu, S.R.; Shi, Z.M.; Liu, X.L. A review on restoration evaluation studies of degraded forest ecosystem. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2010, 30, 3297–3303. [Google Scholar]
  100. Zhu, J.J.; Yan, Q.L.; Yu, L.Z.; Zhang, J.X.; Yang, K.; Gao, T. Support Ecological Restoration and Sustainable Management of Forests in Northeast China Based on Research of Forest Ecology and Demonstrations. Bull. Chin. Acad. Sci. 2018, 33, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Zinda, J.A.; Trac, C.J.; Zhai, D.; Harrell, S. Dual-Function Forests in the Returning Farmland to Forest Program and the Flexibility of Environmental Policy in China. Geoforum 2017, 78, 119–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Huang, L.; Wang, B.; Niu, X.; Gao, P.; Song, Q. Changes in Ecosystem Services and an Analysis of Driving Fac tors for China’s Natural Forest Conservation Program. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 9, 3700–3716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Cao, S.; Suo, X.; Xia, C. Payoff from Afforestation under the Three-North Shelter Forest Program. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 256, 120461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Wang, S.; Cornelis Van Kooten, G.; Wilson, B. Mosaic of Reform: Forest Policy in Post-1978 China. For. Policy Econ. 2004, 6, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Ke, S.; Qiao, D.; Zhang, X.; Feng, Q. Changes of China’s Forestry and Forest Products Industry over the Past 40 Years and Challenges Lying Ahead. For. Policy Econ. 2019, 106, 101949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Aguilar, F.X.; Wen, Y. Socio-Economic and Ecological Impacts of China’s Forest Sector Policies. For. Policy Econ. 2021, 127, 102454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Cashore, B.; Auld, G.; Newsom, D. Forest Certification (Eco-Labeling) Programs and Their Policy-Making Authority: Explaining Divergence among North American and European Case Studies. For. Policy Econ. 2003, 5, 225–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Kanowski, P.J. Australia’s Forests: Contested Past, Tenure-Driven Present, Uncertain Future. For. Policy Econ. 2017, 77, 56–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Samnakay, N. Understanding Design and Implementation Attributes for Strategic Policies: The Case of Australia’s National Environment Policies. Policy Stud. 2022, 43, 715–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Kilgore, M.A.; Blinn, C.R. Policy Tools to Encourage the Application of Sustainable Timber Harvesting Practices in the United States and Canada. For. Policy Econ. 2004, 6, 111–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Garrett, R.D.; Cammelli, F.; Ferreira, J.; Levy, S.A.; Valentim, J.; Vieira, I. Forests and Sustainable Development in the Brazilian Amazon: History, Trends, and Future Prospects. In Annual Review of Environment and Resources; Gadgil, A., Tomich, T.P., Eds.; Annual Reviews: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2021; Volume 46, pp. 625–652. ISBN 978-0-8243-2346-2. [Google Scholar]
  112. McDermott, C.L. Certification and Equity: Applying an “Equity Framework” to Compare Certification Schemes across Product Sectors and Scales. Environ. Sci. Policy 2013, 33, 428–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Palus, H.; Parobek, J.; Sulek, R.; Lichy, J.; Salka, J. Understanding Sustainable Forest Management Certification in Slovakia: Forest Owners’ Perception of Expectations, Benefits and Problems. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Chen, J.; Tikina, A.; Kozak, R.; Innes, J.L.; Duinker, P.; Larson, B. The Efficacy of Forest Certification: Perceptions of Canadian Forest Products Retailers. For. Chron. 2011, 87, 636–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Lemes, P.G.; Zanuncio, J.C.; Jacovine, L.A.G.; Wilcken, C.F.; Lawson, S.A. Forest Stewardship Council and Re sponsible Wood Certification in the Integrated Pest Management in Australian Forest Plantations. For. Policy Econ. 2021, 131, 102541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Ma, S.; Tian, M.H.; Hou, F.M.; Wu, H.M.; Miao, D.L. Research Hotspots and Trends of Forest Certification at Home and Abroad Based on Literature Analysis. J. Beijing For. Univ. Soc. Sci. 2023, 22, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Lewis, R.A.; Davis, S.R. Forest Certification, Institutional Capacity, and Learning: An Analysis of the Impacts of the Malaysian Timber Certification Scheme. For. Policy Econ. 2015, 52, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Tröster, R.; Hiete, M. Success of Voluntary Sustainability Certification Schemes—A Comprehensive Review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 196, 1034–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Bosona, T.; Gebresenbet, G. Food Traceability as an Integral Part of Logistics Management in Food and Agricultural Supply Chain. Food Control 2013, 33, 32–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Carlson, A.; Palmer, C. A Qualitative Meta-Synthesis of the Benefits of Eco-Labeling in Developing Countries. Ecol. Econ. 2016, 127, 129–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Ludvig, A.; Tahvanainen, V.; Dickson, A.; Evard, C.; Kurttila, M.; Cosovic, M.; Chapman, E.; Wilding, M.; Weiss, G. The Practice of Entrepreneurship in the Non-Wood Forest Products Sector: Support for Innovation on Private Forest Land. For. Policy Econ. 2016, 66, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Živojinović, I.; Nedeljković, J.; Stojanovski, V.; Japelj, A.; Nonić, D.; Weiss, G.; Ludvig, A. Non-Timber Forest Products in Transition Economies: Innovation Cases in Selected SEE Countries. For. Policy Econ. 2017, 81, 18–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Konu, H. Developing a Forest-Based Wellbeing Tourism Product Together with Customers—An Ethnographic Approach. Tour. Manag. 2015, 49, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Giessen, L.; Burns, S.; Sahide, M.A.K.; Wibowo, A. From Governance to Government: The Strengthened Role of State Bureaucracies in Forest and Agricultural Certification. Policy Soc. 2016, 35, 71–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Primmer, E.; Varumo, L.; Krause, T.; Orsi, F.; Geneletti, D.; Brogaard, S.; Aukes, E.; Ciolli, M.; Grossmann, C.; Hernández-Morcillo, M.; et al. Mapping Europe’s Institutional Landscape for Forest Ecosystem Service Provision, Innovations and Governance. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021, 47, 101225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Buongiorno, J.; Zhu, S. Potential Effects of a Trans-Pacific Partnership on Forest Industries. For. Policy Econ. 2017, 81, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Chambers, J.M.; Wyborn, C.; Ryan, M.E.; Reid, R.S.; Riechers, M.; Serban, A.; Bennett, N.J.; Cvitanovic, C.; Fernández-Giménez, M.E.; Galvin, K.A.; et al. Six Modes of Co-Production for Sustainability. Nat. Sustain. 2021, 4, 983–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Du, W.; Yan, H.; Yang, Y. Pattern Changes of Ecological Product Trade in Countries along the Belt and Road. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 49038–49051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Forests 14 02008 g001
Figure 1. The technology roadmap in this paper.
Figure 1. The technology roadmap in this paper.
Forests 14 02008 g001
Forests 14 02008 g002
Figure 2. Plot of WOS (a) versus CNKI (b) database of core journal publications on forest ecological products. The dotted line in the figure is the trend line.
Figure 2. Plot of WOS (a) versus CNKI (b) database of core journal publications on forest ecological products. The dotted line in the figure is the trend line.
Forests 14 02008 g002
Forests 14 02008 g003
Figure 3. Comparison of Domestic and International Publications.
Figure 3. Comparison of Domestic and International Publications.
Forests 14 02008 g003
Forests 14 02008 g004
Figure 4. Top 10 core journals in terms of the number of publications on forest ecological products in the WOS database (a) and CNKI database (b) between 2003 and 2023.
Figure 4. Top 10 core journals in terms of the number of publications on forest ecological products in the WOS database (a) and CNKI database (b) between 2003 and 2023.
Forests 14 02008 g004
Forests 14 02008 g005
Figure 5. Comparison of forest cover, forest area, and land area has been undertaken for the six countries hosting the top ten organizations within the WOS database. Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
Figure 5. Comparison of forest cover, forest area, and land area has been undertaken for the six countries hosting the top ten organizations within the WOS database. Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
Forests 14 02008 g005
Forests 14 02008 g006
Figure 6. Mapping of author collaboration networks in the WOS database: N = 789, E = 1005, Density = 0.0032.
Figure 6. Mapping of author collaboration networks in the WOS database: N = 789, E = 1005, Density = 0.0032.
Forests 14 02008 g006
Forests 14 02008 g007
Figure 7. Mapping of author collaboration networks in the CNKI database: N = 437, E = 561, Density = 0.0059.
Figure 7. Mapping of author collaboration networks in the CNKI database: N = 437, E = 561, Density = 0.0059.
Forests 14 02008 g007
Forests 14 02008 g008
Figure 8. Keyword co-linear network mapping for the WOS database: N = 806, E = 8541, Density = 0.0263.
Figure 8. Keyword co-linear network mapping for the WOS database: N = 806, E = 8541, Density = 0.0263.
Forests 14 02008 g008
Forests 14 02008 g009
Figure 9. Keyword co-linear network mapping for the CNKI database: N = 378, E = 698, Density = 0.0098.
Figure 9. Keyword co-linear network mapping for the CNKI database: N = 378, E = 698, Density = 0.0098.
Forests 14 02008 g009
Forests 14 02008 g010
Figure 10. Timeline mapping of the WOS database yielded a total of six clustering labels.
Figure 10. Timeline mapping of the WOS database yielded a total of six clustering labels.
Forests 14 02008 g010
Forests 14 02008 g011
Figure 11. Timeline mapping of the CNKI database yielded a total of six clustering labels.
Figure 11. Timeline mapping of the CNKI database yielded a total of six clustering labels.
Forests 14 02008 g011
Forests 14 02008 g012
Figure 12. Keyword burst map of the literature on forest ecological products in the WOS database for the period 2003–2023.
Figure 12. Keyword burst map of the literature on forest ecological products in the WOS database for the period 2003–2023.
Forests 14 02008 g012
Forests 14 02008 g013
Figure 13. Keyword burst map of the literature on forest ecological products in the CNKI database for the period 2003–2023.
Figure 13. Keyword burst map of the literature on forest ecological products in the CNKI database for the period 2003–2023.
Forests 14 02008 g013
Table 1. The top 10 institutions in WOS and CNKI, respectively, along with their number of publications and the country and region in which the institution is located.
Table 1. The top 10 institutions in WOS and CNKI, respectively, along with their number of publications and the country and region in which the institution is located.
RankWOSCNKI
InstitutionQuantityCountryInstitutionQuantityRegion
1Chinese Academy of Sciences342ChinaChinese Academy of Sciences73Beijing
2United States Forest Service187USAChinese Academy of Forestry57Beijing
3University of Chinese Academy of Sciences121ChinaBeijing Forestry University28Beijing
4Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México83MexicoNational Forestry and Grassland Administration22Beijing
5Beijing Normal University80USANortheast Forestry University19Heilongjiang
6Universidade de São Paulo75BrazilUniversity of Chinese Academy of Sciences18Beijing
7University of Florida74USACentral South University of
Forestry and Technology		16Hunan
8Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences73SwedenZhejiang A&F University9Zhejiang
9Beijing Forestry University70ChinaNanjing Forestry University8Jiangsu
10Technical University of Munich67GermanyNorthwest A&F University6Shaanxi
Table 2. Top 10 authors, years, and number of publications in the WOS and CNKI databases, respectively. In the table, “Year” represents the year in which the authors first published research articles on forest ecological products, and “Quantity” denotes the number of publications by the authors.
Table 2. Top 10 authors, years, and number of publications in the WOS and CNKI databases, respectively. In the table, “Year” represents the year in which the authors first published research articles on forest ecological products, and “Quantity” denotes the number of publications by the authors.
RankWOSCNKI
AuthorYearQuantityAuthorYearQuantity
1Bruelheide, Helge201314Wang, Bing201021
2Muys, Bart201313Niu, Xiang201313
3Sun, Ge201512Song, Qing F201310
4Bauhus, Juergen201812Kong, Fan B20225
5Penuelas, Josep201511Ren, Xiao X20104
6Verheyen, Kris201311Zhang, Biao20094
7Edwards, David P201411Xu, Cai Y20234
8Ammer, Christian201910Shao, Quan Q20124
9Pretzsch, Hans201510Yu, Li Z20133
10Eisenhauer, Nico20189Zhou, Ya D20153
Table 3. The sixteen most frequently used keywords in the WOS database and the CNKI database. In the table, “Year” represents the year when the keywords first appeared, and “Quantity” indicates the frequency of keyword occurrences.
Table 3. The sixteen most frequently used keywords in the WOS database and the CNKI database. In the table, “Year” represents the year when the keywords first appeared, and “Quantity” indicates the frequency of keyword occurrences.
RankWOSCNKI
QuantityYearKeywordsQuantityYearKeywords
18342003biodiversity212011value assessment
26702003climate change132009water conservation
36152003conservation92009ecological function
46142003management92010service function
54982004impact62009forest ecology
64032004land use62022value realization
73652003dynamics62009soil conservation
83552003vegetation62004economic value
93232003pattern42011urban forest
102862005community42014nature forest protection project
112722005model42011nature reserve
122492003growth42011canopy interception
132422006landscape42012invest model
142262004tropical forest32009forest resource
151982007carbon32012integrated storage capacity method
161832003area32010sustainable development
Table 4. The six clusters of the WOS database correspond to keywords and their frequency of occurrence. The frequency of the sixth keyword was only four.
Table 4. The six clusters of the WOS database correspond to keywords and their frequency of occurrence. The frequency of the sixth keyword was only four.
LabelSizeKeywords
0171remote sensing; machine learning; random forest; google earth engine; modis
1165non-timber forest products; traditional ecological knowledge; ethnobotany; non-timber forest products; climate change
2145ecosystem services; urban forestry; urban forest; social–ecological systems; land use change
3143functional diversity; ecosystem function; climate change; ecosystem functioning; biodiversity
489boreal forest; forest restoration; aboveground biomass; allometry; tree mortality
579microbial community; nutrient cycling; plfa; phosphorus; nitrogen
64environment; Bacillus thuringiensis; Pinus taeda; risk assessment; somatic embryogenesis
Table 5. Keywords corresponding to the nine clusters of the CNKI database and their frequency of occurrence.
Table 5. Keywords corresponding to the nine clusters of the CNKI database and their frequency of occurrence.
LabelSizeKeywords
065forest ecosystem; economic value; value assessment; ecosystem services; ecosystem services value
137ecosystem services; landscape pattern; forest ecosystem; ecosystem service; atmospheric pollution
228ecosystem service function; ecological service value; ecosystem service value; value assessment; urban forest
327water conservation; soil conservation; integrated storage capacity method; forest vegetation type; upper Tailan river
425forest ecology; forest rehabilitation; industrial integration; functional services; forest environmental resources
523service function; periodical inventory; carbon fixation; oxygen released; forest eco-system; continuous observation
614forest ecosystem services; forest ecosystem service; Wuning county; ecological effect; ecological model
812ecological benefit; nature forest protection project; sustainable development; function index; ecological service function
912water conservation function; in-vest model; Chinese fir plantation; non-capillary porosity; forest ecological system
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, J.; Tian, G. Sustainability of Forest Eco-Products: Comprehensive Analysis and Future Research Directions. Forests 2023, 14, 2008. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14102008

AMA Style

Wang J, Tian G. Sustainability of Forest Eco-Products: Comprehensive Analysis and Future Research Directions. Forests. 2023; 14(10):2008. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14102008

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Jinghua, and Gang Tian. 2023. "Sustainability of Forest Eco-Products: Comprehensive Analysis and Future Research Directions" Forests 14, no. 10: 2008. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14102008

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop