Next Article in Journal
Analysis of Spatial and Temporal Variations in Ecosystem Service Functions and Drivers in Anxi County Based on the InVEST Model
Previous Article in Journal
Bio-Preservation of Meat and Fermented Meat Products by Lactic Acid Bacteria Strains and Their Antibacterial Metabolites
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 13
10.3390/su151310152
sustainability-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

Comparative Analysis of Research Trends and Hotspots of Foreign and Chinese Building Carbon Emissions Based on Bibliometrics

by
Jiaojiao Yang
1,2,
Ting Wang
1,2,*,
Yujie Hu
1,3,
Qiyun Deng
4 and
Shu Mo
1,3
1
School of Management, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China
2
Key Laboratory of “Internet+” Collaborative Intelligent Manufacturing in Guizhou Provence, Guiyang 550025, China
3
State Key Laboratory of Public Big Data, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China
4
Whiting School of Engineering, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles Street Baltimore, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(13), 10152; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310152
Submission received: 12 April 2023 / Revised: 12 June 2023 / Accepted: 20 June 2023 / Published: 26 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Topic Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability, 2nd Volume)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The construction industry has great potential for carbon emission reduction, which strongly impacts the peak of carbon emissions and carbon neutrality. This paper compares foreign and Chinese articles on building carbon emissions from publication objects, journals, subject categories, authors, and institutions. It discusses the differences in research trends and hotspots from keywords, reference co-citation analysis, and historical citation analysis. The results show that the number of publications on building carbon emissions steadily increased. The research on building carbon emissions in foreign articles is earlier and more systematic than that in China, and the output and influence of foreign articles are generally more prominent than those of Chinese articles. However, the production and influence of articles by certain Chinese authors and institutions have been remarkable. The topics of ‘CO2 emission’, ‘life-cycle assessment’, ‘environmental impact’, ‘greenhouse gas emission’, and ‘renewable energy’ are essential subjects for foreign and Chinese articles in the research field of building carbon emissions and the development trend is similar. The thematic direction of Chinese articles is more divergent and lacks well-developed themes that greatly influence other research themes. Finally, based on the research results, this study puts forward the potential future research direction of building carbon emissions. The results of this study will provide a current and systematic overview of this field, which will be helpful for future researchers to promote the development of research on building carbon emissions.

1. Introduction

Sustainable development is one of humanity’s most significant challenges in the 21st century. With the deepening influence of greenhouse gases and the increase in global energy consumption, the problem between the environment and energy consumption has aroused widespread concern and research. Environmental protection and energy-saving measures have become highly concerning global issues. In 2020, in response to international calls to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the Chinese government proposed reaching the peak of carbon dioxide emissions by 2030 and striving to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060. The United States has pledged to return to the Paris Agreement in 2021, which also proposes new policies to reduce carbon emissions. At the same time, the European Union passed the European Union Act, which sets a goal of carbon neutrality by 2050.
With the gradual urbanization and modernization of countries worldwide, the construction industry has developed rapidly, and the energy demand and carbon emissions of building construction and use have shown a rising trend. The building sector is highly energy-consuming. In 2020, construction activities consumed 36% of global energy, and building carbon emissions accounted for 39% of global carbon emissions [1]. At the same time, this field has excellent energy conservation and emission reduction potential, and the emission reduction cost is relatively low. It was found that by controlling building scale, selecting construction mode, reducing material supply-side emissions, and other measures, the embodied carbon emissions of China’s construction industry can be reduced by approximately 50% in 2060 compared with 2020 [2,3]. Therefore, building emission reduction is considered a critical link to achieving the long-term goal of controlling the global temperature rise within 2 °C, and this field is attracting more and more attention [4,5].
Currently, the literature on building carbon footprints published by Chinese and foreign scholars is abundant and complicated. It includes (1) Accounting for building carbon emissions, including the accounting of carbon emissions from building monomers at the micro level and the accounting of carbon emissions from buildings at the macro level. Various carbon emission accounting systems have been developed for single buildings at home and in foreign locations [6,7,8]. At the micro level, the latest research focuses on the carbon emission accounting of different life-cycle stages of buildings [9], building materials [10], components [11], and structural forms [12]. Macro-level building carbon emissions accounting refers to the global, national, regional, provincial, and municipal scales of carbon emissions in the building sector. Its purpose is mainly to reflect regional building energy consumption and total carbon emissions and provide a basis for the government to formulate energy-saving and emission-reduction policies. Scholars at home and in foreign countries mainly use the input-output method (top-down) [13] and the process analysis method (bottom-up) [14] to measure embodied carbon emissions at the macro level. (2) The analysis model method of carbon emission influencing factors, such as IPAT model [15], the exponential decomposition method [16], the structural decomposition method, and other novel model methods [17,18]. (3) Research on influencing factors in building carbon emissions. The main factors that affect the carbon emission of buildings are energy structure, energy intensity, industry scale [19], population [20], income level [21], residential building area, and urbanization level [22].
The existing articles have various reviews of the research on building carbon emissions. Most review literature determined the research topics from a subjective point of view. These reviews often focus on household carbon emissions [23], the neural network prediction method [24], carbon reduction technology [25], energy conservation policy [26,27], energy performances [28], life cycle assessment [29,30], and the building act [31]. For example, Pomponi et al. systematically reviewed the academic knowledge system of strategies to mitigate embodied carbon in the built environment [32]. Chau et al. and Anand et al. have reviewed the application of LCA in the construction industry and pointed out the corresponding challenges and research directions [33,34]. Ma et al. carried out a systematic review of the implementation of the China Act on the Energy Efficiency of Civil Buildings (2008) [31].
Due to its intuitive image and elimination of subjective screening errors, bibliometric analysis has been widely used in literature reviews in many research fields [35]. Up until now, only a few bibliometric studies have focused on the carbon footprint of buildings. For example, Lu et al. systematically summarized green buildings’ strategy, technology, and mode of carbon emission [36]. Luo et al. conducted a comprehensive and objective analysis of the research field of low-carbon buildings in 378 publications [37]. Onat et al. analyzed the research frontier and characteristics of building a carbon footprint from the global supply chain perspective [38]. Sun et al. summarized the construction sector’s carbon peak and neutrality through bibliometric analysis [39]. We can find that the bibliometric analysis of the construction industry’s carbon footprint has also appeared.
In summary, the existing research still lacks the following: (1) Most of the existing carbon footprint bibliometry studies are based on the relevant literature on the global carbon footprint and do not focus on a specific industry to grasp the knowledge structure and development trend of its carbon emissions. (2) The literature review on building carbon emissions identifies the research topic mainly from a subjective point of view and tends to focus on methods and techniques. The review on building carbon emissions needs more quantitative analysis from an objective perspective. (3) Most previous studies used the Chinese CNKI and the international WoS databases to compare Chinese and foreign studies. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish Chinese and foreign literature on building carbon emissions from a unified global literature perspective by using bibliometric analysis.
The aims of this study are as follows: (1) This paper identifies individuals and institutions conducting in-depth research on building carbon emissions in Chinese and foreign articles. It identifies subject categories related to the field. (2) This paper identifies the knowledge base and research focus of building carbon emissions in Chinese and foreign articles through various methods to ensure the reliability of the research results. (3) This paper compares the development process of topics that aroused scholars’ broad interest in Chinese and foreign articles.
This study is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces the data sources and the methods adopted in the follow-up research. Section 3 is a comparative analysis of the research situation on building carbon emissions, followed by keyword analysis and citation analysis. Section 4 discusses the content that needs further research. Section 5 summarizes the main conclusions. The research flowchart is shown in Figure 1.

2. Data and Methods

2.1. Data Collection

The literature data on building carbon emissions research was gathered from the Web of Science Core Collection database. This paper compares a construction carbon emission research analysis between China and non-China. The retrieval formula TS = ((‘building industry’ or ‘building sector’ or ‘construction industry’ or ‘construction sector’) and (‘Carbon emission *’ or ‘Carbon dioxide emission *’ or ‘CO2 emission *’ or ‘CO2e *’ or ‘carbon emit *’ or ‘carbon dioxide emit *’ or ‘CO2 emit’ or ‘carbon footprint *’ or ‘carbon dioxide footprint *’ or ‘CO2 footprint *’ or ‘carbon budget’ or ‘carbon market’ or ‘greenhouse gas’ or ‘greenhouse gases’ or ‘greenhouse gas emission*’ or ‘greenhouse-gas emission *’ or ‘ghg emission*’)), document types = (Article or Review), language = (English), PY = (2008–2022). An asterisk represents singular or plural. In this procedure, 6547 publications were obtained. In this study, the articles with author affiliations with “Not Peoples R China” are foreign articles, and the author affiliations with “Peoples R China” are Chinese articles. When there are multiple affiliations, the distinction between articles is based on the location of the first institution of the first author. Finally, 4993 foreign and 1768 Chinese articles were obtained from the WoSCC database on 31 December 2022. Two datasets of 4993 foreign and 1768 Chinese publications on construction carbon emissions were obtained. Table 1 summarizes the search results.

2.2. Research Tools

Common bibliometric software tools include VOSviewer, CiteSpace, HistCite, SciMat, BibExcel, and RefViz. VOSviewer is developed by Van Eck and Waltman [40]. Through the relationship construction and visualization analysis of literature knowledge units, VOSviewer can realize the drawing of a scientific knowledge graph and show the relationship between structure, evolution, and cooperation in the knowledge domain. Regarding co-occurrence map making, VOSviewer can select the number and type of nodes according to the requirements, and the graph adjustment ability is strong. CiteSpace is a knowledge map visualization tool developed by Chen Chaomei using Java that can analyze the structure of various networks of scientific publications and support networks with mixed node types and link types [35]. The drawing effect of CiteSpace is slightly worse than that of VOSviewer, and the adjustment process is relatively complicated. HistCite, developed by Eugene Garfield, can perform citation frequency statistics for source journals, authors, institutions, and individual papers in the WOS database [41]. Bibliometrix is a powerful literature analysis tool that relies on the R language [42]. It is an object-oriented and relatively easy programming tool that can help scholars to analyze the relevant literature in the field conveniently and visually.
To compare these foreign and Chinese publications, this paper used three bibliometric software tools, VOSviewer 1.6.16, HistCite Pro 2.1, and CiteSpace 5.7.R2, to develop the research results. HistCite is used to conduct journal, author, and institution analyses. VOSviewer is employed to perform the co-citation network analysis of cited references. CiteSpace is used to conduct subject category analysis and high-frequency keyword analysis. The Biblioshiny open-source R-package is engaged to conduct keyword cluster analysis and historical citation network analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Comparative Analysis of the Overview

3.1.1. Publications Analysis

The number and growth of publications in a field are critical indicators to measure the development of a domain. As presented in Figure 2, the number of foreign building carbon emissions articles increased by 21.91% from 44 in 2008 to 1008 in 2022. Chinese articles increased by 406%, from 1 in 2008 to 407 in 2022. The annual growth rates for foreign and Chinese articles are 2.53% and 27.44%, respectively. The numbers of foreign and Chinese publications have shown a steady upward trend. As can be seen from Figure 2, the average citations per year (AC) of foreign publications and Chinese publications reached the highest values in 2009 (96.52) and 2010 (88.69), respectively, and then began to decline in a fluctuating trend. The AC of foreign articles was lower than that of Chinese articles after 2018. Figure 3 shows that the total local citation score (TLCS) and total global citation score (TGCS) of foreign and Chinese articles began to fluctuate and decline after experiencing fluctuating rises for some time. The TLCS of Chinese articles reached its highest value of 624 in 2017 and has been declined since 2019. In 2017, 2019, and 2022, the TLCS of Chinese articles was higher than that of foreign articles. The TGCS of foreign publications was higher than that of Chinese publications during the study period, whereas the gap has gradually decreased since 2018.
The results of articles on building carbon emissions research indicate that foreign and Chinese articles presented a rising trend during 2008–2022, showing that the research on building carbon emissions has attracted increasing attention from foreign and Chinese scholars. Chinese research on building carbon emissions started later than foreign studies. The production and impact of foreign research on construction carbon emissions are generally higher than those of Chinese articles. However, the gap in global impact has gradually narrowed since 2018 due to the reduction of citation accumulation time.

3.1.2. Subject Category Analysis

Which disciplines are involved in carbon emissions in the construction industry? The 4993 foreign articles cover 331 subject categories, and the 1768 Chinese articles cover 182 subject categories. Table 2 shows the top 20 subject categories of foreign and Chinese articles.
The most common categories are ‘Engineering’, ‘Environmental Science and Ecology’, ‘Science and Technology-other Topics’, and ‘Green and Sustainable Science and Technology’ in foreign and Chinese articles. Studying subject categories in foreign articles are earlier than in Chinese articles. Research in the ‘Environmental Science’, ‘Business and Economics’ and ‘Economics’ fields began earlier than other categories in Chinese articles. In contrast, articles on ‘Engineering’, Construction and Building Technology’, ‘Engineering Chemical’, and ‘Engineering Civil’ were published relatively late, but these disciplines have developed rapidly.
This analysis indicates that building carbon emissions is an interdisciplinary research topic involving energy, environment, climate change, economics, chemistry, green development, and other natural sciences. From the perspective of informatics, this research field has significant interdisciplinary attributes.

3.1.3. Journal Analysis

On the one hand, the statistical analysis of journals on construction carbon emissions can help researchers lock down the core journals in this field to find relevant literature and understand the research status quickly. On the other hand, it can determine whether this field has cross-field characteristics.
Table A1 lists the top 10 journals with the most published foreign and Chinese articles. Seven top journals of foreign and Chinese articles (Journal of Cleaner Production, Sustainability, Energy Policy, Applied Energy, Energy, Energy and Buildings, Energies) overlap, indicating the most important sources of construction carbon emissions research in foreign and Chinese articles. The Journal of Cleaner Production is the most influential, regardless of foreign or Chinese articles. The journal Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, one of the earliest sources in this research field, is also very influential.
As seen from Table A1, the number of articles published is related to the difficulty of the journals. For these top journals in the same ranking level, foreign articles performed better than the Chinese articles in H and TGCS, showing that foreign articles have more influential sources than Chinese articles on construction carbon emissions.

3.1.4. Authors Analysis

Table A2 shows that foreign authors Hong Taehoon and Kucukvar Murat rank first in TA (16, 0.32%) and H (13). The authors Pomponi Francesco and Kucukvar Murat rank first and second in TLCS (86, 80), indicating they also strongly influence foreign construction carbon emission research. In terms of Chinese authors, Cai Weiguang, from Chongqing University, ranks first in TA (40, 2.26%), H (28), TLCS (345), and TGCS (2264), indicating that he is the most authoritative scholar in Chinese construction carbon emission research. Cai Weiguang, Lin Boqiang, Ma Minda, Hong Jingke, and Geng Yong significantly influence Chinese research on construction carbon emissions, considering their high rankings in H and TLCS. Interestingly, the quantity and quality of these top Chinese authors in the field of construction carbon emissions performed better than those of top foreign authors.
The link strength of the authors of foreign and Chinese articles is 409 and 922 (Figure A1 and Figure A2), respectively. The collaboration between Chinese authors is higher than that of foreign authors. Cai Weiguang, Ma Minda, Lin Boqiang, Gong Yong, and Hong Jingke have the highest frequency. However, Lin Boqiang has no connection with other authors, indicating they have yet to cooperate. As can be seen from Figure A1 and Figure A2, some authors form an academic community, with the core authors making outstanding contributions. The authors are generally characterized by small concentrations and large dispersion. Therefore, on the whole, the degree of cooperation is not strong, and extensive collaboration has yet to be formed.

3.1.5. Institutions Analysis

The research institutions that contribute to the development of the discipline provide the soil for the growth of the theoretical foundation of the field, and the cooperation between the institutions can better reflect the spatial structure of the academic community than the researchers.
The top 10 productive institutions producing foreign and Chinese articles in the construction carbon emission field are listed in Table A3. The University of Cambridge has the highest scores of TA (51, 1.02%), TLCS (173), and Centrality (0.07), indicating it is the most influential institution in foreign countries. UCL and Swiss Fed Inst Tech rank second and third in TA (46, 0.92%; 44, 0.88%). For Chinese institutions, Tsinghua University obtains the highest TA (151, 8.54%), TGCS (4833), and centrality (0.29). Chongqing University ranks first in Chinese articles in TLCS (756) and TGCS (5662). An interesting finding is that foreign institutions generally outperformed Chinese institutions regarding TLCS and TGCS. However, among the 10 institutions in Table A3, Chinese institutions with the same ranking performed better than foreign institutions in these two aspects, possibly because Chinese articles focused on more specific fields and methods related to building carbon emissions.
The map density of foreign and Chinese articles is 0.0045 and 0.0115, respectively, (Figure A3 and Figure A4). The cooperation between institutions and organizations studying carbon emissions from the building sector could be strong. In addition, the total number of articles published by institutions engaged in collaborative research is higher than that of non-collaborative research, suggesting that academic exchange and collaboration can effectively promote the development of expertise and increase productivity.

3.2. Comparative Analysis of the Conceptual and Intellectual Structure

3.2.1. Keywords Analysis

Keywords are the most direct clues to grasping the literature research topic. They reflect the hot topics that arouse public concern within a certain time [43]. This paper uses the authors’ keywords to explore the knowledge structure in the field of construction carbon emissions because of the disputed issues on the keyword plus [44,45]. Some keywords showing the same meaning are combined to obtain accurate results; for example ‘carbon emission’, ‘carbon emissions’, ‘carbon dioxide emissions’, and others are merged as ‘CO2 emissions’ [44]. Table A4 lists the top 25 high-frequency keywords. As can be seen from Table A4, circular economy, embodied carbon, green building, mechanical property, and geopolymer are the new hot areas of building carbon emissions research in foreign articles. The Chinese articles’ research in 2008–2012 was characterized by using diverse approaches (input-output analysis, scenario analysis) to measure energy efficiency, carbon emission efficiency, greenhouse gas emission efficiency, etc., to assess the influence of energy and environmental systems. In addition, Beijing, province, city, and other keywords indicate that the research on building carbon emissions in Chinese articles has evident regional characteristics. The focus on urbanization, economic growth, investment, and land use indicates that the study of building carbon emissions in Chinese articles exhibits the characteristics of human science. Foreign articles mainly apply the input-output analysis method in terms of analysis methods of driving factors of carbon emission. In contrast, Chinese papers involve more diversified methods, such as scenario analysis, the Stirpat model, and the LMDI (Logarithmic Mean Divisia Index) method. In addition, foreign articles pay more attention to low-carbon building materials than Chinese articles.
Furthermore, to more intuitively understand the development and importance of the research hotspots, this study draws a thematic map of foreign and Chinese articles on construction carbon emissions using the bibliophily R-package tool. The x-axis in the figure is centrality; the y-axis is density. The higher the centrality, the more influential the topic is, and the greater the influence of this topic on other topics [46]. The higher the density, the better the development of the topic. Therefore, the topics in the upper-right quadrant are important and well developed. These themes, known as motor themes, have high centrality and density. The topics in the upper-left quadrant are very specialized, highly developed, and of marginal importance for the research area. These topics have highly developed internal connections but no significant external ties. The topics in the lower-left quadrant represent disappearing or emerging topics. These topics are marginal and weakly developed. The topics in the lower-right quadrant are important but not well developed for research and are known as the basic theme.
Figure 4 presents the thematic map for foreign articles in the construction carbon emission field. The topics in the upper-right quadrant mainly include ‘energy efficiency’, ‘climate change’, ‘renewable energy’, ‘energy policy’, and ‘optimization’, which indicates that the themes ‘energy efficiency’, ‘climate change’, and ‘energy’ are well developed and important. The topics in the upper-left quadrant are highly developed but unimportant, mainly including ‘compressive strength’, ‘durability’, and ‘mechanical property’. Foreign articles have paid much attention to the performance and properties of building materials in recent years. The topics in the lower-left quadrant are disappearing or emerging themes, including ‘concrete’, ‘recycle’, and ‘machine learning’. The topics in the lower-right quadrant are the core knowledge base of the construction carbon emissions field, mainly consisting of ‘life cycle assessment’, ‘CO2 emission’, ‘sustainability’, ‘greenhouse gas emission’, and ‘circular economy’, and especially the topics that are closely related to building carbon emissions, including ‘environmental impacts’, ‘energy consumption’, ‘built environment’, and ‘sustainable construction’.
Figure 5 shows that Chinese articles’ mature and important themes in the construction carbon emission field are ‘sustainable development’, ‘renewable energy’, ‘energy conservation’, ‘iron and steel industry’, and ‘emission reduction’. It is indicated that these topics are important and well developed in the field of study. The topics in the upper-left quadrant mainly include ‘green building’, ‘optimization’, ‘mechanical property’, and ’land use’. The topics in the lower-left quadrant are few, including ‘compressive strength’ and ‘carbon tax’. These topics are disappearing or emerging. The topics in the lower-right quadrant mainly include ‘CO2 emission’, ‘China’, ‘life-cycle assessment’, ‘greenhouse gas emission’, ‘input-output analysis’, and ‘economic growth’, which form the core knowledge base of the Chinese building carbon emissions research.
Compared to Figure 4 and Figure 5, the topics of ‘renewable energy’, ‘CO2 emission’, ‘life cycle assessment’, ’greenhouse gas emission’, and ‘environmental impact’ are important subjects for foreign and Chinese articles, and the development trend is similar. ‘Climate change’ is an important topic in foreign and Chinese articles, but the development trends are markedly different. Specifically, the topic ‘climate change’ in foreign articles is both important and highly developed, whereas the topic ‘climate change’ in Chinese publications is important but not well developed. The topics ‘carbon tax’ and ‘compressive strength’ are emerging in Chinese articles. The synergy between the construction industry and the steel industry is also a mature and important research topic in Chinese articles. Compared to foreign publications on the construction of carbon emissions that concentrated on a few themes, the thematic direction of Chinese articles is more divergent. It lacks well-developed themes that greatly influence other research themes. The topics of the core knowledge base of Chinese articles are more affluent than those of foreign articles.

3.2.2. Reference Co-Citation Analysis

Co-citation analysis is a reliable and effective way to explore similar conceptual knowledge structures by finding high-impact articles and determining their co-citation relationships [47]. This study applied the VOSViewer software to conduct a co-citation network analysis of cited references in building carbon emissions.
A total of 220,211 cited references were identified from the 4993 foreign articles. We chose 20 as the minimum number of citations, and 257 cited references meet this threshold. These 257 nodes are divided into 5 clusters, including a red cluster (77 items), a green cluster (52 items), a blue cluster (47 items), a yellow cluster (40 items), and a pink cluster (33 items), presented in Figure 6. Items means the number of articles included in this cluster. Unlike the close relationship between the yellow, blue, and pink clusters, the red and green clusters stand more alone.
The red cluster primarily focuses on input-output analysis [48] and its applications to greenhouse gas emissions [49] and carbon emissions [13]. The yellow and blue clusters mainly concentrate on life-cycle assessment [50,51,52] and its applications to embodied carbon [53] and greenhouse gas emissions [54]. Some articles especially investigate the case of China [55,56]. Articles in the green cluster discuss the properties of cement, concrete, clay, and other building materials [57,58]. It is worth mentioning that the pink cluster only focused on hybrid life-cycle inventory methods [59,60] and their applications to embodied energy in buildings [61,62].
Moreover, 68,750 cited references were identified from the 1768 Chinese articles. We also chose 20 as the minimum number of citations, and 165 references are shown in the co-citation network. These 165 nodes are divided into 4 clusters, including a red cluster (56 items), a green cluster (32 items), a blue cluster (51 items), and a yellow cluster (24 items), as shown in Figure 7. The four clusters of co-citation networks of cited references for Chinese articles are more alone than those for foreign articles. The red and yellow clusters of Chinese articles mainly concentrate on the driving factors of building carbon emissions in China. The methods used include the LMDI model [63,64]), the IPAT-LMDI model [65], the STIRPAT model [20], decoupling analyses [66], and scenario analysis [67]. The green cluster mainly focuses on input-output analysis [68] and its applications on a global scale [13]. Some publications in the green cluster also concentrate on multi-region input-output analysis and its applications to the energy supply chain [69] and embodied energy [70]. The blue cluster mainly focuses on life-cycle assessment and its applications to energy [52], carbon emissions [71], and building materials [72]. Some articles in the blue cluster focus on the combination of life-cycle assessment and input-output analysis [73,74].

3.2.3. Historical Citation Analysis

To better understand the evolution in the field of construction carbon emissions, this paper conducted a historical citation network analysis to obtain the key literature’s relationships and conclude the evolution of research hotpots in the construction carbon emissions field. Figure 8 and Figure 9 show foreign and Chinese publications’ historical citation networks.
Figure 8 shows the citation relationships among the top 15 key articles of foreign research. Five of the articles were about greenhouse gas emissions. Upton et al. studied the impact of wood-based building materials on greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption [75]. By applying input-output and LCA methods, the direct and implied carbon emissions of 238 cases have been studied, including the construction sector in Ireland and the United Kingdom [49,54,76]. Aye et al. found that steel structure prefabricated systems significantly reduce material consumption and carbon emissions compared with traditional concrete construction [77]. Two of the articles were about embodied carbon. De et al. reviewed the existing research methods, tools, and data sets on embodied carbon emissions from buildings [78]. Chastas et al. analyzed the range of embodied emissions in 95 residential buildings and determined the proportional relationship between embodied energy and carbon under different building energy efficiency levels [79]. Using LCA technology, the two papers discuss the differential impacts of the design, construction, use, and demolition of houses on the environment [80,81]. Four of the articles are reviews. Pomponi et al. systematically reviewed the academic knowledge system of strategies to mitigate embodied carbon in the built environment [32]. The application of LCA in the construction industry has been systematically reviewed and pointed out the corresponding challenges and research directions [29,30,34]. Unlike their focus, Giesekam et al. discussed the barriers to using low-carbon building materials in building the economy, technology, practice, and culture [82]. Huang et al. used input-output technology to compare the carbon dioxide emissions of the construction sector in 40 countries around the world [13]. In addition, five papers disconnected from other articles are not presented in Figure 8. The research focuses on environmentally friendly cement and concrete research [58,83], sustainable development of the concrete industry [84], and the carbon dioxide performance of cement [85].
The top 20 locally cited articles of Chinese research are shown in Figure 9. Two articles were about greenhouse gas emissions. Using input-output analysis, Chen et al. studied embodied greenhouse gas emissions in final consumption and international trade [86]. Two articles forecast the carbon reduction potential of the construction sector. Considering low-carbon building policies and emission factors, Tan et al. developed a CAS bottom-up model to evaluate the CO2 emission reduction potential of the construction industry from 2016 to 2050 [67]. Eight articles analyzed the influencing factors of carbon emissions from commercial and residential buildings using different methods, such as LMDI, structural decomposition analysis, production theory decomposition analysis, and econometric model. For example, Lin et al. studied the driving factors influencing energy-related carbon dioxide emissions from commercial and residential buildings in China using three-dimensional LMDI mode [63]. Six articles studied building carbon emissions from the perspective of direct or indirect energy consumption. Hong et al. studied embodied energy in the consumption, interregional trade, and energy use of different building phases in China’s building sector by using a multi-regional input-output model [70,87]. Unlike their focus, Chau et al. systematically reviewed the life cycle carbon emission and energy assessments in building assessments [33]. Ma et al. examined the implementation of the China Act on the Energy Efficiency of Civil Buildings (2008) [31].
Compared to Figure 8 and Figure 9, China’s research on construction carbon emissions lags behind foreign research. After 2014, Chinese articles began to pay more attention to the study of building carbon emissions. We can further find that Chinese articles focus more on the factor decomposition of building carbon emissions. In contrast, foreign articles were not only interested in the factorization of building carbon emissions but also focused on carbon emissions from the construction phase of the construction industry.

4. Discussion

By analyzing the research status of building carbon emissions in Chinese and foreign articles, we find that the current research results are very rich, and the research methods are diversified. However, there are still many research directions worth further exploration.
Clarify the system boundaries of building carbon emissions. Many articles use the life-cycle assessment method to estimate building carbon emissions [52,71,72,73,74]. However, the system boundary of building carbon emissions is not clear, and there are differences in the definition of the building life cycle [80,81]. Different methods and models for analyzing building life cycle carbon emissions lead to different carbon emission results in the whole life cycle of buildings. It is urgent to clarify the boundaries of the life-cycle assessment system to conduct more in-depth research on building carbon emissions in the future. A comprehensive carbon factor database needs to be improved. Most studies use the inventory method to calculate building carbon emissions. Different calculation methods, years, and regions result in significant differences in calculation results. There still needs to be more research on the applicability of carbon emission accounting methods to different types of buildings. In the future, a building carbon emissions calculation based on a specific accounting method should be formed quickly to match building types with carbon emission accounting methods.
Green building, low-carbon building, and zero-carbon building assessment standards should be formulated globally. This includes expanding the scope of assessment from commercial buildings to rural residential buildings, so that all countries can measure and report their building carbon emissions in a consistent and comparable manner. In 2006, the UK announced the planning of ecological towns, requiring new buildings to be “zero-emission” by 2016 [88]. The foreign green building evaluation system is relatively perfect; a relatively good evaluation system is the American LEED system (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) [89], as is the German DGNB (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen). However, the green building evaluation system needs to pay more attention to the building carbon emissions index [90]. Compared to developed countries, studies in developing countries started relatively late in green, sustainable, and low-carbon buildings and have yet to establish widely recognized evaluation standards for low-carbon buildings. Developing countries need to increase policy support for low-carbon research, encourage enterprises to voluntarily comply with the requirements of low-carbon buildings through taxation and other means, strengthen the audit and supervision of the low-carbon status of buildings, and clarify the low-carbon standards. At the same time, researchers need to learn from historical development experience, promote the further development of low-carbon building research, improve the low-carbon building evaluation system, and enrich the research content.
The potential of individual energy conservation and emission reduction. The development of low-carbon buildings and life reflects residents’ pursuit of green life to some extent. However, the public’s understanding of low-carbon awareness is not comprehensive enough, resulting in insufficient trust in low-carbon buildings [91]. Promoting of low-carbon buildings needs to be led by the government and considered from the two aspects of raising public awareness and establishing incentive mechanisms [92]. To ensure end-user participation, the real estate housing market must introduce financial incentives to buy low-carbon buildings [93]. The study found that the public is willing to learn more about renewable resource knowledge and hoped that the government could take corresponding measures to raise awareness of low-carbon buildings [94]. Countries should take the government’s lead to publicize the advantages and benefits of low-carbon buildings, advocate a low-carbon lifestyle, enhance the awareness of low-carbon buildings, and thus increase the market demand for low-carbon buildings. With the shift of emission reduction policy to the consumer side, residents will play a crucial role in reducing carbon emissions.
Building carbon emissions in developing countries. Building carbon emissions is a comprehensive research field with strong practicability, but current research is mainly concentrated in China, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and other major economies. With the improvement of economic development and urbanization, the energy consumption and carbon emissions of non-developed countries worldwide will experience unprecedented levels [95]. China’s urbanization rate has risen from 38% in 2001 to 61% in 2019 [96]. The consumption of large amounts of building materials during urbanization is an important factor driving China’s rapid surge in energy consumption and carbon emissions [97]. India is the world’s fourth-largest emitter, and its energy demand increases with its economy and population [98]. From 2000 to 2017, indirect emissions in India’s construction industry almost tripled. In 2019, the Indian construction sector accounted for 24% of the country’s carbon dioxide emissions. India’s urbanization level will reach 40% in the next decade, which will significantly drive the increase in building carbon emissions [99]. The research on carbon emissions from the building industry in developing countries cannot be ignored [95]. With the decline in the growth rate of the total building stock and the increase in the proportion of recycled building materials, the coordinated development of the construction sector and industry sectors will be more important [2]. The synergy of the emission reduction effect between the construction and building materials manufacturing industries should be considered. Therefore, it is necessary to actively develop interdisciplinary research platforms, establish comprehensive research teams, strengthen openness and cooperation, strengthen connections with foreign universities, and promote transnational and inter-institutional collaborative research.
Carbon tax and carbon trading system. Scholars study allowance allocation from the perspective of efficiency [100,101] or fairness [102,103], trying to establish a reasonable and acceptable allocation scheme. The researchers proposed more than 20 allocation options, but none were widely accepted by climate conference [104]. Moreover, in developing countries such as China, the allowance allocation is led by the government and currently only involves the power sector. Ref. [105] points out that long-term use of the free method will reduce the efficiency of the emission trading system, and proposes a more effective carbon emission trading by auction. Allowance allocation through auction helps to improve the efficiency of emissions trading systems and maximize government revenue [106]. Carbon markets may be the best way to balance development and emissions. With the development of carbon markets, future allowance allocations will be covered by other industries or sectors. Under the market mechanism, how to achieve a fair and effective allowance allocation is a subject worthy of research.
Low-carbon properties of building materials. With the proposal of the “double carbon” goal and the continuous popularization of the concept of green environmental protection, the development of the construction industry has gradually developed in the direction of sustainable development, and the construction side has increasingly recognized the application of green building materials. Energy conservation and emission reduction in the building industry are closely related to the development of building materials. The construction sector has the characteristics of “low carbon on the surface, high carbon hidden” [107]. In the construction industry, the waste of resources and environmental pollution caused by traditional building materials have become urgent problems to be solved. Developing countries lag behind developed countries in the research of low-carbon building materials. However, developing countries are undergoing economic restructuring, and green and low-carbon building materials have enormous development potential. All parties should seize the opportunity, increase investment in the research and development of green and low-carbon building materials, strengthen the ability of technological innovation, improve production efficiency, and save resources by optimizing the production process.

5. Conclusions

This study compares the bibliometric differences between foreign and Chinese articles on building carbon emissions research. Two data sets of 4993 foreign and 1768 Chinese articles from 2008 to 2022 are analyzed using the Web of Science Core Collection database. Specifically, this paper compares aspects of publication object, journal, subject category, author, and institution. It discusses the differences in research trends and hotspots regarding keywords and citation analysis.
(1) The research on building carbon emissions shows a steady upward trend from 2008 to 2022. During the study period, the output and impact of foreign studies on building carbon emissions were generally higher than those of Chinese studies. Building carbon emissions is an interdisciplinary research topic involving the environment, energy, climate change, economics, green development, chemistry, and other natural sciences. The cooperation between institutions and organizations studying carbon emissions from the building sector is relatively weak. The influence of foreign articles on publications, journals, authors, and institutions is generally greater than that of Chinese articles. However, Chinese articles outperformed foreign articles for a few authors and institutions.
(2) Through keyword and citation network analysis, we found that the similarities and differences in conceptual and knowledge structure between foreign and Chinese articles are intertwined. For example, carbon footprint, energy, climate change, environmental impact, and greenhouse gas emissions are the common focus of both foreign and Chinese articles. However, foreign articles tend to focus on the impact of the whole life cycle of buildings on the environment. The low-carbon performance of cement, concrete, and other building materials is a new hot area of building carbon emissions in foreign articles. From the overall characteristics of the publication, the research on building carbon emissions in Chinese articles has prominent regional characteristics.
(3) In terms of the importance of the subject and maturity, the topic of ‘climate change’ in foreign articles is both important and highly developed. In contrast, the topic ‘climate change’ in Chinese publications is important but not well developed. The topics ‘carbon tax’ and ‘compressive strength’ are emerging in Chinese articles. Synergy between the construction industry and the steel industry is also an important research topic in Chinese articles. The topics of the core knowledge base of Chinese articles are more affluent than those of foreign articles. Overall, the thematic direction of Chinese articles is more divergent and lacks well-developed themes that greatly influence other research themes.
Finally, potential future research directions are proposed. Compared with the papers of Sun et al. [39], this study combines VOSviewer, CiteSpace, HistCite, and the latest bibliophily R-package tools, with the help of new search strategies, to more accurately dig out academic hotspots and research trends. More importantly, this paper compares Chinese and foreign literature on building carbon emissions to reduce the subjectivity and one-sidedness of the research on building carbon emissions. Exploring the differences between foreign and Chinese articles on building carbon emissions can further improve the researchers’ ability to explore building carbon footprint research.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.Y.; methodology, J.Y.; software, Y.H.; validation, Q.D.; formal analysis, S.M.; investigation, S.M.; resources, Q.D.; data curation, Y.H.; writing—original draft preparation, J.Y.; writing—review and editing, T.W.; visualization, J.Y.; supervision, T.W.; project administration, T.W.; funding acquisition, T.W. and Y.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number [72104062], the Humanities and Social Science Research Youth Fund project of the Ministry of Education, grant number [21YJC630041], the Guizhou Province Philosophy and Social Science Planning Joint Fund Project, grant number [18GZLH03], and Guizhou Provincial Department of Education Fund Project, grant number YJSKYJJ [2021] 017.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

See Table A1, Table A2, Table A3 and Table A4 and Figure A1, Figure A2, Figure A3 and Figure A4.
Table
Table A1. The top 10 influential journals of foreign and Chinese articles.
Table A1. The top 10 influential journals of foreign and Chinese articles.
Foreign ArticlesChinese Articles
JournalTAHTLCSTGCSPYJournalTAHTLCSTGCSPY
Journal of Cleaner Production362 (7.25)58 55112,5652011Journal of Cleaner Production286 (16.17)5490110,6042010
Sustainability345 (6.91)271130952011Sustainability105 (5.94)181010222014
Energy and Buildings236 (4.72)49 58880922008Applied Energy69 (3.90)33 23833022011
Energies220 (4.40)211717442011Environmental Science and Pollution Research59 (3.33)15 537862013
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews180 (3.60)5566411,4432008Energy Policy58 (3.28)33 35932092008
Energy Policy171 (3.42)46 33162822008Energy58 (3.28)29 15419252010
Applied Energy140 (2.80)41 18359352009Science of the Total Environmental55 (3.11)2821225602010
Construction and Building Materials140 (2.80)4116359982008Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews48 (2.71)3217827532008
Energy105 (2.10)35 16731502008Resource Construction and Recycling44 (2.49)2513917102016
Building and Environment96 (1.92)35 34236752009Energies40 (2.26)12153962011
Note: TA (%) total articles and percentage; H h-index; PYS the start of publications year.
Table
Table A2. The top 10 productive authors of foreign and Chinese articles.
Table A2. The top 10 productive authors of foreign and Chinese articles.
Foreign ArticlesChinese Articles
AuthorTA(%)HTLCSTGCSPYSAuthorTA(%)HTLCSTGCSPYS
Hong Taehoon16 (0.32)13375052009Cai Weiguang40 (2.26)2834522642017
Kucukvar Murat16 (0.32)13807922013Lin Boqinag30 (1.70)2215913462015
Hewage Kasun14 (0.28)10355482015Zuo Jian23 (1.30)165310052013
Tae Sungho13 (0.26)11563132009Ma Minda21 (1.19)2125314912017
Sadiq Rehan12 (2.24)9122122015Hong JingKe21 (1.19)1721210482015
Cabeza Luisa F12 (0.24)8176322011Geng Yong21 (1.19)1713712042011
Pomponi Francesco11 (0.22)12865832015Chen Bin21 (1.19)15678772011
Duic Meven11 (0.22)8122222013Du Qiang18 (1.02)11343452017
Habert Guillaume11 (0.22)10541,0182009Huo Tengfei17 (0.96)141018832017
Lenzen manfred10 (0.20)9246292012Ren Hong16 (0.90)11925982017
Table
Table A3. Top 10 productive institutions of foreign and Chinese articles.
Table A3. Top 10 productive institutions of foreign and Chinese articles.
Foreign ArticlesChinese Articles
InstitutionTATLCSTGCSCentralityPYSInstitutionTATLCSTGCSCentralityPYS
University Cambridge51 (1.02)173 24600.072009Tsinghua University151 (8.54)33748330.292010
UCL46 (0.92)9827280.022014Chinese Academy of Sciences139 (7.86)40048270.232010
Swiss Fed Inst Tech44 (0.88)4713900.052016Chongqing University126 (7.13)75656620.122010
University Seville 43 (0.86)119420.012015Beijing Normal University86 (4.86)15522760.202011
Politecn Milan42 (0.84)498680.022015Hong Kong Polytechinc University75 (4.24)42935560.082013
University Calif Berkeley40 (0.80)6426860.032009North China Electric Power University66 (3.73)4914100.052013
University Leeds38 (0.76)13016900.022014Tianjin University 64 (3.62)18215990.062013
University Melbourne36 (0.72)9325550.022010Beijing Inst Technol58 (3.28)8016290.072009
University Utrecht34 (0.68)3712020.022011University of Chinese Academy of science Cas51 (2.88)12718370.102013
Chalmers Universuty Technoligy32 (0.64)11110370.022012Peking University46 (2.60)14216470.112010
Table
Table A4. The top 25 keywords by frequency of foreign and Chinese articles.
Table A4. The top 25 keywords by frequency of foreign and Chinese articles.
Foreign ArticlesChinese Articles
KeywordsFrequencyCentralityPYSKeywordsFrequencyCentralityPYS
CO2 emission3680.212008CO2 emissions2680.392010
sustainability2870.082009China2280.372009
energy efficiency2650.122008life-cycle assessment520.162015
life-cycle assessment2470.072008energy-consumption500.182011
climate change2130.072008input-output analysis430.092012
renewable energy1160.042010sustainability330.032017
greenhouse-gas emissions1070.122009carbon footprint300.082010
carbon footprint1010.092010climate change280.072012
circular economy950.032013energy efficiency260.072008
energy consumption910.072009carbon neutrality260.012021
environmental impact800.042009scenario analysis220.072011
concrete790.042008driving force190.022016
embodied energy770.042010urbanization190.022016
residential buildings640.092011greenhouse-gas emissions170.022010
compressive strength570.022012Stirpat model160.032016
embodied carbon550.022016environmental impact150.042018
energy policy550.062010Beijing150.042011
cement530.062011residential buildings150.032017
geopolymer500.012018structural path analysis140.032017
durability470.052012economic growth140.032019
optimization430.052008lmdi120.022013
green building410.062013supply chain110.032018
heat pump380.052014renewable energy100.002008
built environment350.022008carbon tax100.022018
mechanical property350.022017land use100.032015
Sustainability 15 10152 g0a1 550
Figure A1. Overlay visualization map of co-authors of foreign articles.
Figure A1. Overlay visualization map of co-authors of foreign articles.
Sustainability 15 10152 g0a1
Sustainability 15 10152 g0a2 550
Figure A2. Overlay visualization map of co-authors of Chinese articles.
Figure A2. Overlay visualization map of co-authors of Chinese articles.
Sustainability 15 10152 g0a2
Sustainability 15 10152 g0a3 550
Figure A3. Co-occurrence knowledge map of cooperative institutions for foreign articles.
Figure A3. Co-occurrence knowledge map of cooperative institutions for foreign articles.
Sustainability 15 10152 g0a3
Sustainability 15 10152 g0a4 550
Figure A4. Co-occurrence knowledge map of cooperative institutions for Chinese articles.
Figure A4. Co-occurrence knowledge map of cooperative institutions for Chinese articles.
Sustainability 15 10152 g0a4

References

  1. Chen, L.; Huang, L.; Hua, J.; Chen, Z.; Wei, L.; Osman, A.I.; Fawzy, S.; Rooney, D.W.; Dong, L.; Yao, P. Green construction for low-carbon cities: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2023, 21, 1627–1657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zhang, Y.; Hu, S.; Guo, F.; Mastrucci, A.; Zhang, S.; Yang, Z.; Yan, D. Assessing the potential of decarbonizing China’s building construction by 2060 and synergy with industry sector. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 359, 132086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zhu, C.; Li, X.; Zhu, W.; Gong, W. Embodied carbon emissions and mitigation potential in China’s building sector: An outlook to 2060. Energy Policy 2022, 710, 113222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lin, C.; Chiang, W.; Weng, Y.; Wu, H. Assessing the anthropogenic carbon emission of wooden construction: An LCA study. Build. Res. Inf. 2022, 51, 138–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zhang, N.; Luo, Z.; Liu, Y.; Feng, W.; Zhou, N.; Yang, L. Towards low-carbon cities through building-stock-level carbon emission analysis: A calculating and mapping method. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 78, 103633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. National Institute of Standards and Technology. BEES[EB/OL]. Available online: https://www.nist.gov/services-resources/software/bees (accessed on 5 March 2023).
  7. German Sustainable Building Council. DGNB System [EB/OL]. Available online: https://www.dgnb-system.de/en/system/version2018/criteria/building-lifecycle-assessment/ (accessed on 5 March 2023).
  8. Zhang, Z.; Wu, X.; Yang, X.; Zhu, Y. BEPAS-a life cycle building environmental performance assessment model. Build. Environ. 2006, 41, 669–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Li, X.; Su, S.; Zhang, Z.; Kong, X. An integrated environmental and health performance quantification model for pre-occupancy phase of buildings in China. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2017, 63, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lu, H.; Hanandeh, E.A.; Gilbert, B.P. A comparative life cycle eaner Production, materialsic perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 166, 458–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wang, J.; Tingley, D.; Mayfied, M.; Wang, Y. Life cycle impact comparison of different concrete floor slabs considering uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 189, 374–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nadoushani, Z.; Akbarnezhad, A. Effects of structural system on the life cycle carbon footprint of buildings. Energy Build. 2015, 102, 337–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Huang, L.; Krigsvoll, G.; Johensen, F.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, X. Carbon emission of global construction sector. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 1906–1916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Zhang, X.; Wang, F. Life-cycle carbon emission assessment and permit allocation methods:a multi-region case study of China’s construction sector. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 72, 910–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ma, M.; Cai, W. What drives the carbon mitigation in Chinese commercial building sector? Evidence from decomposing an extended Kaya identity. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 634, 884–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lu, Y.; Cui, P.; Li, D. Carbon emissions and policies in China’s building and construction industry: Evidence from 1994 to 2012. Build. Environ. 2016, 95, 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wei, Y.; Zhu, X.; Li, Y.; Tao, Y. Influential factors of national and regional CO2 emission in China based on combined model of DPSIR and PLS-SEM. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 212, 698–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wen, L.; Shao, H. Influencing factors of the carbon dioxide emissions in China’s commercial department: A non-parametric additive regression model. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 668, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Jiang, R.; Li, R. Decomposition and decoupling analysis of life-cycle carbon emission in China’s building sector. Sustainability 2017, 9, 793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Ma, M.; Yan, R.; Cai, W. An extended STIRPAT model-based methodology for evaluating the driving forces affecting carbon emissions in existing public building sector: Evidence from China in 2000–2015. Nat. Hazards 2017, 89, 741–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zha, D.; Zhou, D.; Zhou, P. Driving forces of residential CO2 emissions in urban and rural China: An index decomposition analysis. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 3377–3383. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ma, M.; Shen, L.; Ren, H.; Cai, W.; Ma, Z. How to Measure Carbon Emission Reduction in China’s Public Building Sector: Retrospective Decomposition Analysis Based on STIRRAT Model in 2000–2015. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Zhang, X.; Luo, L.; Skitmore, M. Household carbon emission research: An analytical review of measurement, influencing factors and mitigation prospects. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 103, 873–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Ahmad, A.S.; Hassan, M.Y.; Abdullah, M.P.; Rahman, H.A.; Hussin, F.; Abdullah, H.; Saidur, R. A review on applications of ANN and SVM for building electrical energy consumption forecasting. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 33, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Tetteh, E.K.; Amankwa, M.O.; Yeboah, C.; Amankwa, M.O. Emerging carbon abatement technologies to mitigate energy-carbon footprint- a review. Clean. Mater. 2021, 2, 100020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yang, Z.; Liu, B.; Zhao, H. Energy saving in building construction in China: A review. Int. J. Green Energy 2004, 1, 209–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Han, S.; Yao, R.; Li, N. The development of energy conservation policy of buildings in China: A comprehensive review and analysis. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 38, 102229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ghaffarian Hoseini, A.; Dahlan, N.D.; Berardi, U.; Ghaffarian Hoseini, A.; Makaremi, N.; Ghaffarian Hoseini, M. Sustainable energy performances of green buildings: A review of current theories, implementations and challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 25, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rashid, A.A.; Yusoff, S. A review of life cycle assessment method for building industry. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 45, 244–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Soust-Verdaguer, B.; Llatas, C.; Garcia-Martinez, A. Critical review of bim-based LCA method to buildings. Energy Build. 2017, 136, 110–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ma, M.; Cai, W.; Wu, Y. China act on the energy efficiency of civil buildings (2008): A decade review. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 651, 42–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pomponi, F.; Moncaster, A. Embodied carbon mitigation and reduction in the built environment-What does the evidence say? J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 181, 687–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Chau, C.; Leung, T.; Ng, W. A review on Life Cycle Assessment, Life Cycle Energy Assessment and Life Cycle Carbon Emissions Assessment on buildings. Appl. Energy 2015, 158, 656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Anand, C.K.; Amor, B. Recent developments, future challenges and new research directions in LCA of buildings: A critical review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 67, 408–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. 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] [Green Version]
  36. Lu, W.; Tam, V.W.Y.; Chen, H.; Du, L. A holistic review of research on carbon emissions of green building construction industry. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2020, 27, 1065–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Luo, T.; Tan, Y.T.; Langston, C.; Xue, X. Mapping the knowledge roadmap of low carbon building: A scientometric analysis. Energy Build. 2019, 194, 163–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Onat, N.C.; Kucukvar, M. Carbon footprint of construction industry: A global review and supply chain analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 124, 109783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sun, Z.; Ma, Z.; Ma, M.; Cai, W.; Xiang, X.; Zhang, S.; Chan, M.; Chen, L. Carbon Peak and Carbon Neutrality in the Building Sector: A Bibliometric Review. Buildings 2022, 12, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Garfield, E. From the science of science to Scientometrics visualizing the history of science with HistCite software. J. Informetr. 2009, 3, 173–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informetr. 2017, 11, 959–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Xia, E.; Wang, S.; Wang, J. An analysis of the research status and development trend of crowdfunding based on the theory of scientific knowledge map. Sci. Res. Manag. 2017, 38, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  44. Ho, Y.S. Comments on “Past, current and future of biomass energy research: A bibliometric analysis” by Mao et al. (2015). Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2018, 82, 4235–4237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wu, R.; Xie, Y.; Wang, Y.; Li, Z.; Hou, L. The comparative landscape of Chinese and foreign articles on the carbon footprint using bibliometric analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 35471–35483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Cobo, M.J.; López-Herrera, A.G.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F. An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field. J. Inform. 2011, 5, 146–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wei, F.; Zhang, G. A document co-citation analysis method for investigating emerging trends and new developments: A case of twenty four leading business journals. Inform. Res. Int. Electr. J. 2020, 25, 842. [Google Scholar]
  48. Swan, L.G.; Ugursal, V.I. Modeling of end-use energy consumption in the residential sector: A review of modeling techniques. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2009, 13, 1819–1835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Acquare, A.A.; Duffy, A.P. Input-output analysis of Irish construction sector greenhouse gas emissions. Build. Environ. 2010, 45, 784–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Ramesh, T.; Prakash, R.; Shukla, K.K. Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An overview. Energy Build. 2010, 42, 1592–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Buyle, M.; Braet, J.; Audenaert, A. Life cycle assessment in the construction sector: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 26, 379–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gabeza, L.F.; Rincon, L.; Vilarino, V.; Perez, G.; Castell, A. Life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) of buildings and the building sector: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 29, 394–416. [Google Scholar]
  53. Pomponi, F.; Moncaster, A. Scrutinising embodied carbon in buildings: The next performance gap made manifes. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 8, 2431–2442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Rock, M.; Saade, M.R.M.; Balouktsi, M.; Passer, A. Embodied GHG emissions of buildings-The hidden challenge for effective climate change mitigation. Appl. Energy 2020, 258, 114107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wu, H.J.J.; Yuan, Z.W.W.; Zhang, L.; Bi, J. Life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emission of an office building in China. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2012, 17, 105–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Mao, C.; Shen, O.; Shen, L.; Tang, L.Y.N. Comparative study of greenhouse gas emissions between off-site prefabrication and conventional construction methods: Two case studies of residential projects. Energy Build. 2013, 66, 165–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Benhelal, E.; Zahedi, G.; Hashim, H. A novel design for green and economical cement manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 22, 60–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Scrivener, K.L.; John, V.M.; Gartner, E.M. Eco-efficient cements: Potential economically viable solutions for a low-CO2 cement-based materials industry. Cem. Concr. Res. 2018, 114, 2–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Crawford, R.H. Validation of a hybrid life-cycle inventory analysis method. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 88, 496–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Crawford, R.H.; Bontinck, P.A.; Stephan, A.; Wiedmann, T.; Yu, M. Hybrid life cycle inventory methods-A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 1273–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Dixit, M.K.; Culp, C.H.; Fernandez-Solis, J.L. System boundary for embodied energy in buildings: A conceptual model for definition. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 21, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Dixit, M.K. Life cycle embodied energy analysis of residential buildings: A review of literature to investigate. embodied energy parameters. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 79, 390–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lin, B.; Liu, H. CO2 mitigation potential in China’s building construction industry: A comparison of energy performance. Build. Environ. 2015, 94, 239–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lin, B.; Liu, H. CO2 emissions of China’s commercial and residential buildings: Evidence and reduction policy. Build. Environ. 2015, 92, 418–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ma, M.; Yan, R.; Du, Y.; Ma, X.; Cai, W.; Xu, P. A methodology to assess China’s building energy savings at the national level: An IPAT-LMDI model approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 143, 784–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Liang, Y.; Cai, W.; Ma, M. Carbon dioxide intensity and income level in the Chinese megacities’ residential building sector: Decomposition and decoupling analyses. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 677, 315–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Tan, X.; Lai, H.; Gu, B.; Zeng, Y.; Li, H. Carbon emission and abatement potential outlook in China’s building sector through 2050. Energy Policy 2018, 118, 429–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Chen, J.; Shen, L.; Song, X.; Shi, Q.; Li, S. An empirical study on the CO2 emissions in the Chinese construction industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 168, 645–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Hong, J.; Shen, Q.; Xue, F. A multi-regional structural path analysis of the energy supply chain in China’s construction industry. Energy Policy 2016, 92, 56–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Hong, J.; Shen, G.; Guo, S.; Xue, F.; Zheng, W. Energy use embodied in China’s construction industry: A multi-regional input-output analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 53, 1303–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Zhang, Z.; Wang, B. Research on the life-cycle CO2 emission of China’s construction sector. Energy Build. 2016, 112, 244–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Bribian, I.Z.; Capilla, A.V.; Uson, A.A. Life cycle assessment of building materials: Comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Build. Environ. 2011, 46, 1133–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hong, J.; Shen, G.; Mao, C.; Li, Z.; Li, K. Life-cycle energy analysis of prefabricated building components: An input-output-based hybrid model. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 2198–2207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Zhang, X.; Wang, F. Hybrid input-output analysis for life-cycle energy consumption and carbon emissions of China’s building sector. Build. Environ. 2016, 104, 188–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Upton, B.; Miner, R.; Spinney, M.; Heath, L.S. The greenhouse gas and energy impacts of using wood instead of alternatives in residential construction in the United States. Biomass Bioenergy 2008, 32, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Geisekam, J.; Barrett, J.; Taylor, P.; Owen, A. The greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation options for materials used in UK construction. Energy Build. 2014, 78, 202–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Aye, L.; Ngo, T.; Crawford, R.H.; Gammampila, R.; Mendis, P. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and energy analysis of prefabricated reusable building modules. Energy Build. 2012, 47, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. De Wolf, C.; Pomponi, F.; Monsaster, A. Measuring embodied carbon dioxide equivalent of buildings: A review and critique of current industry practice. Energy Build. 2017, 140, 68–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Chastas, P.; Theodosiou, T.; Kontoleon, K.J.; Bikas, D. Normalising and assessing carbon emissions in the building sector: A review on the embodied CO2 emissions of residential buildings. Build. Environ. 2018, 130, 212–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Cuellar-France, R.M.; Azapagic, A. Environmental impacts of the UK residential sector: Life cycle assessment of houses. Build. Environ. 2012, 54, 86–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Basbigill, J.; Flager, F.; Lepech, M.; Fischer, M. Application of life-cycle assessment to early stage building design for reduced embodied environmental impacts. Build. Environ. 2013, 60, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Giesekam, J.; Barrett, J.R.; Taylor, P. Construction sector views on low carbon building materials. Build. Res. Inform. 2016, 44, 423–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Damtoft, J.S.; Lukasik, J.; Herfort, D.; Sorrentino, D.; Gartner, E.M. Sustainable development and climate change initiatives. Cem. Concr. Res. 2008, 38, 115–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Meyer, C. The greening of the concrete industry. Cem. Concr. Comp. 2009, 31, 601–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Feiz, R.; Ammenberg, J.; Baas, L.; Eklund, M.; Helgstrand, A.; Marshall, R. Improving the CO2 performance of cement, part I: Utilizing life-cycle assessment and key performance indicators to assess development within the cement industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 98, 272–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Chen, G.; Zhang, B. Greenhouse gas emissions in China 2007: Inventory and input-output analysis. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 6180–6193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Hong, J.; Shen, G.; Feng, Y.; Lau, W.S.T.; Mao, C. Greenhouse gas emissions during the construction phase of a building: A case study in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 103, 249–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Wang, H. London: From “Fog City” to Ecological City. [EB/OL]. Available online: http://www.jjckb.cn/2013-01/31/content_426862.htm1.2013-01-31/2022-02-18 (accessed on 5 March 2023).
  89. Lee, Y.S.; Kim, S.K. Indoor Environmental Quality in LEED-Certified Buildings in the US. J. Asain Archit Build. 2008, 7, 293–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Liu, Z.; Dong, X.; Gao, P. Construction and applied research of low-carbon building evaluation index system. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2017, 61, 012157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Paula, M.; Robert, L.; Lai, F. Heat metering: Socio-technical challenges indistrict-heated social housing. Build. Res. Inform. 2015, 43, 197–209. [Google Scholar]
  92. Ma, Z.; Xie, P. The Study of the Restrain on the Development of Low-Carbon Building. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2012, 209, 485–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Martek, I.; Hosseini, M.R.; Shrestha, A.; Edwards, D.; Seaton, S.; Costin, G. End-user engagement: The missing link of sustainability transition for Australian residential buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 224, 697–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Sadaf, A.; Munjur, E.; Moula, R.L. Social acceptability of using low carbon building: A survey exploration. Int. J. Sustain. Energy 2020, 39, 10. [Google Scholar]
  95. Goldemberg, J. The evolution of the energy and carbon intensities of developing countries. Energy Policy 2020, 137, 111060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. NBS. China Statistical Yearbook; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  97. BERC. Annual Report on China Building Energy Efficiency; China Architecture and Building Press: Beijing, China, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  98. Energy Information Administration. Analysis—Energy Sector Highlights. 2020. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/international/overview/country/IND (accessed on 13 December 2021).
  99. RMI, India. Reducing Embodied Carbon Is Key to Meeting India’s Climate Targets. 2021. Available online: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/ (accessed on 13 December 2021).
  100. Miao, Z.; Geng, Y.; Sheng, J. Efficient allocation of CO2 emissions in China: A zero sum gains data envelopment model. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 4144–4150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Wang, K.; Zhang, X.; Wei, Y.-M.; Yu, S. Regional allocation of CO2 emissions allowance over provinces in China by 2020. Energy Policy 2013, 54, 214–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Ringius, L.; Torvanger, A.; Holtsmark, B. Can multi-criteria rules fairly distribute climate burdens?: OECD results from three burden sharing rules. Energy Policy 1998, 26, 777–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Rose, A.; Stevens, B.; Edmonds, J.; Wise, M. International Equity and Differentiation in Global Warming Policy. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1998, 12, 25–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Wei, Y.-M.; Zou, L.-L.; Wang, K.; Yi, W.-J.; Wang, L. Review of proposals for an Agreement on Future Climate Policy: Perspectives from the responsibilities for GHG reduction. Energy Strategy Rev. 2013, 2, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Matthes, F.C.; Neuhoff, K. Auctioning in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme; Öko-Institut: Berlin, Germany; University of Cambridge: Cambridge, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  106. Hepburn, C.; Grubb, M.; Neuhoff, K.; Matthes, E.; Tse, M. Auctioning of EU ETS phase II allowances: How and why? Clim. Policy 2006, 6, 137–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Liu, H.; Li, J.; Sun, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhao, H. Estimation Method of Carbon Emissions in the Embodied Phase of Low Carbon Building. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2021, 2020, 8853536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 10152 g001 550
Figure 1. The research flow chart.
Figure 1. The research flow chart.
Sustainability 15 10152 g001
Sustainability 15 10152 g002 550
Figure 2. Annual distribution of TA and AC of foreign and Chinese articles.
Figure 2. Annual distribution of TA and AC of foreign and Chinese articles.
Sustainability 15 10152 g002
Sustainability 15 10152 g003 550
Figure 3. Annual distribution of TLCS and TGCS of foreign and Chinese articles.
Figure 3. Annual distribution of TLCS and TGCS of foreign and Chinese articles.
Sustainability 15 10152 g003
Sustainability 15 10152 g004 550
Figure 4. Thematic map for foreign articles.
Figure 4. Thematic map for foreign articles.
Sustainability 15 10152 g004
Sustainability 15 10152 g005 550
Figure 5. Thematic map for Chinese articles.
Figure 5. Thematic map for Chinese articles.
Sustainability 15 10152 g005
Sustainability 15 10152 g006 550
Figure 6. The five clusters map of co-citation references for foreign articles.
Figure 6. The five clusters map of co-citation references for foreign articles.
Sustainability 15 10152 g006
Sustainability 15 10152 g007 550
Figure 7. The four clusters map of co-citation references for Chinese articles.
Figure 7. The four clusters map of co-citation references for Chinese articles.
Sustainability 15 10152 g007
Sustainability 15 10152 g008 550
Figure 8. The historical citation network of foreign articles.
Figure 8. The historical citation network of foreign articles.
Sustainability 15 10152 g008
Sustainability 15 10152 g009 550
Figure 9. The historical citation network of Chinese articles.
Figure 9. The historical citation network of Chinese articles.
Sustainability 15 10152 g009
Table
Table 1. Retrieval strategies to acquire data.
Table 1. Retrieval strategies to acquire data.
DatabaseWoS Core Collection
Retrieval modeTS = ((‘building industry’ or ‘building sector’ or ‘construction industry’ or ‘construction sector’) and (‘Carbon emission *’ or ‘Carbon dioxide emission *’ or ‘CO2 emission *’ or ‘CO2e *’ or ‘carbon emit *’ or ‘carbon dioxide emit *’ or ‘CO2 emit’ or ‘carbon footprint *’ or ‘carbon dioxide footprint *’ or ‘CO2 footprint *’ or ‘carbon budget’ or ‘carbon market’ or ‘greenhouse gas’ or ‘greenhouse gases’ or ‘greenhouse gas emission *’ or ‘greenhouse-gas emission *’ or ‘ghg emission *’))
Foreign articlesChinese articles
Publication typeArticle; ReviewArticle; Review
Country/RegionNot Peoples R. ChinaPeoples R. China
languageEnglishEnglish
Year2008–20222008–2022
Retrieval time31 December 202231 December 2022
Retrieval results49931768
Note: TS is the subject words, including the title, abstract, and keywords; * is singular or plural.
Table
Table 2. Top 20 subject categories of foreign and Chinese articles.
Table 2. Top 20 subject categories of foreign and Chinese articles.
Foreign ArticlesChinese Articles
Subject CategoriesCountCentralityYearSubject CategoriesCountCentralityYear
Engineering18220.072008Environmental Science and Ecology9730.082009
Environmental Science and Ecology17290.022008Engineering6730.142010
Energy and Fuels15060.052008Environmental Science 6280.162008
Science and Technology-other Topics12700.022008Science and Technology-other Topics5800.252009
Green and Sustainable Science and Technology11780.012008Green and Sustainable Science and Technology5420.052009
Environmental Science8420.182008Engineering, Environmental4180.062009
Construction and Building Technology7590.032008Energy and Fuels4220.212009
Engineering, Environmental7340.012008Construction and Building Technology1440.062010
Engineering, Civil5640.082008Business and Economics1190.152008
Materials Science4650.142008Engineering Chemical990.042010
Business and Economics2820.072008Engineering, Civil980.012011
Chemistry2290.062008Thermodynamics780.022010
Engineering Chemical2160.022008Economics730.212008
Economics2080.102008Materials Science590.232010
Thermodynamics2040.042008Meteorology and Atmosphere Science420.042015
Physics1310.022008Materials Science, Multidisciplinary350.072010
Chemistry, Physical1070.032008Chemistry340.312010
Environmental Studies910.102008Geology320.132011
Chemistry, Multidisciplinary820.052011Geosciences, Multidisciplinary190.012015
Mechanics790.022008Computer science190.152013
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

Yang, J.; Wang, T.; Hu, Y.; Deng, Q.; Mo, S. Comparative Analysis of Research Trends and Hotspots of Foreign and Chinese Building Carbon Emissions Based on Bibliometrics. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10152. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310152

AMA Style

Yang J, Wang T, Hu Y, Deng Q, Mo S. Comparative Analysis of Research Trends and Hotspots of Foreign and Chinese Building Carbon Emissions Based on Bibliometrics. Sustainability. 2023; 15(13):10152. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310152

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yang, Jiaojiao, Ting Wang, Yujie Hu, Qiyun Deng, and Shu Mo. 2023. "Comparative Analysis of Research Trends and Hotspots of Foreign and Chinese Building Carbon Emissions Based on Bibliometrics" Sustainability 15, no. 13: 10152. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310152

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