Next Article in Journal
The Spatial Correlation Network of China’s Urban Digital Economy and Its Formation Mechanism
Previous Article in Journal
Firm-Level Carbon Productivity, Home Country Environmental Performance, and Firm Performance in the Exporting Meat Industry
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 12
10.3390/su17125379
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Research Status and Trend Analysis of Forestry Carbon Sinks: A Systematic Literature Review

by
Lufeng Gou
,
Wendan Deng
* and
Siwei Yang
*
School of Business, Qingdao University of Technology, Qingdao 266520, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(12), 5379; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17125379
Submission received: 5 May 2025 / Revised: 3 June 2025 / Accepted: 3 June 2025 / Published: 11 June 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
With the increasing severity of global climate change and the growing international attention being paid to carbon emission reduction, forestry carbon sinks have emerged as a key strategy for mitigating climate change and achieving carbon neutrality due to their natural and economic benefits. To identify research hotspots and development trends in forestry carbon sinks, the literature search identified a total of 958 papers from Web of Science (N = 627) and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (N = 331). CiteSpace was used to conduct a visual co-occurrence and comparative analysis of the Chinese and international literature. The results indicated a significant increase in publications on forestry carbon sinks after 2020. English-language research was more deeply embedded in environmental science and ecology, with a focus on leveraging technological innovations for precise carbon sink measurement. In contrast, Chinese-language research placed greater emphasis on policy formulation and optimization related to carbon sinks. Based on the findings, several potential future research directions were proposed to support the sustainable development of forestry carbon sinks.

1. Introduction

Human activities, particularly the extensive use of fossil fuels, have led to a significant rise in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, the global temperature has already increased by 1.1 °C compared with pre-industrial levels [1]. António Guterres called on global leaders to accelerate action at the World Climate Action Summit, stating that leaders of developed countries must commit to achieving net-zero emissions as close as possible to 2040, while leaders of emerging economies must commit to achieving net-zero emissions as close as possible to 2050 [2]. Against the backdrop of global efforts toward carbon neutrality, forestry carbon sinks have gained increasing attention as a nature-based solution to mitigate climate change [3].
The concept of “carbon sinks” was first introduced in the Kyoto Protocol. As defined by the IPCC, carbon sinks are processes, activities, or structures capable of removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere [4]. As a significant carbon storage bank in terrestrial ecosystems [5,6], forests play an increasingly prominent role in mitigating climate change and achieving carbon neutrality. Compared with natural forest carbon sinks, forestry carbon sinks refer to the effective increase in forest carbon stocks through the implementation of human-made activities such as afforestation, reforestation, forest management, and the reduction in deforestation. These sinks not only carry ecological value but also serve socioeconomic functions by facilitating sustainable forestry development, carbon trading mechanisms, and ecological compensation frameworks [7].
Over the past two decades, research on forestry carbon sinks has expanded in scope and depth. Scholars have examined their cost-effectiveness [8,9,10], methods of carbon stock measurement [11], policy frameworks [12], and mechanisms for value realization [13,14]. However, there remains a lack of comprehensive analysis that captures the overall structure and evolution of this research field. In particular, few studies have employed visual analysis to reveal key trends, research hotspots, and the differences between Chinese- and English-language studies.
To address these questions, this paper employs CiteSpace 6.3.R1 software to conduct a bibliometric analysis, addressing the limitations in the quantitative and dynamic evaluation of the literature through co-occurrence and burst detection analyses of the retrieved data. By analyzing the literature from both Chinese and English databases, this study aims to (1) identify the development trends and research hotspots of forestry carbon sink research; (2) examine the differences and similarities in research priorities between Chinese and international academia; and (3) provide insights into emerging trends and potential future directions. The findings are expected to offer a more systematic understanding of the field and support evidence-based decision making for both researchers and policymakers.

2. Data Sources and Research Methodology

This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines for literature collection and screening (Supplementary Materials) and employed visualization software to conduct scientometric analysis on the refined data to examine research trends.

2.1. Data Sources

All the Chinese-language literature was sourced from the “Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI)” and “Peking University’s Chinese Core Journals” sub-databases under the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database [15]. CNKI is the largest and critical Chinese-language database in China, and all articles are peer-reviewed to ensure data authority [16]. The English-language literature was sourced from the Web of Science Core Collection, including Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI). The articles included have undergone a rigorous peer-review process to ensure the reliability and comprehensiveness of the data [17].
The time span for the search was set from the publication year of the first relevant article to 2024. The document types are “Articles” or “Reviews”. The term “Linye Tanhui” has been widely used in China [18]. Thus, considering the subtle differences in term retrieval between Chinese and English databases, the following terms were used in Web of Science (WoS) to ensure comprehensive coverage of the retrieval content: TS = (carbon sinks OR offset carbon emissions) AND (afforestation OR reforestation) OR TS = (forestry carbon sinks). In CNKI, the search strategy was as follows: (SU = Linye Tanhui) OR (SU = Linye Gutan). The detailed search strategy is provided in Table 1.
A preliminary search yielded 350 articles from CNKI and 1345 articles from Web of Science. This study adopted the PRISMA flowchart to meticulously illustrate the data retrieval, selection, inclusion criteria, and processes [19]. As a result, 331 valid articles were obtained from CNKI and 627 valid articles from Web of Science. The detailed screening process is shown below (Figure 1).

2.2. Research Methodology

This paper conducted a scientometric analysis and used the CiteSpace tool to visualize the retrieved literature. Prior to data processing, the parameters were configured as follows: (1) the node type was selected based on the specific requirements of the analysis; (2) the time span was set from the date of the first publication to 2024; (3) the length of each time slice was “1”; and (4) pruning was performed by using the minimum spanning tree method. All other parameters were maintained at their default values.
CiteSpace software can generate collaborative networks, co-occurrence networks, and burst networks to reflect the emerging dynamics and trends of the research subject, as well as the interrelationships between different literature studies within the same field, thus assisting scholars in gaining an overall understanding of the research area [20]. Specifically, collaboration analysis can identify scientific cooperation between countries and institutions; co-occurrence analysis reveals research hotspots within knowledge domains. In CiteSpace, co-occurrence networks can be clustered by using different algorithms. In this study, the log-likelihood ratio algorithm is employed for clustering to identify the main knowledge clusters in the field. Burst analysis determines emerging research frontiers and trends by examining changes in the frequency of keywords, as keywords are derived from the research content and themes of the papers, serving as a refinement of the core topics of research [21].
The maps generated by CiteSpace consist of nodes and lines. The types of nodes represent authors, institutions, countries, keywords, cited references, cited journals, and so on. The size of a node indicates its frequency of citation or occurrence; larger nodes correspond to higher frequencies. The lines represent the relationships between the nodes, with thicker lines indicating stronger connections between them. The betweenness centrality index reflects the extent to which a network node plays a critical role in connecting different relationships. A node with a betweenness centrality value ≥ 0.1 is identified as a key node, potentially demonstrating strong organizational coordination capabilities and significant academic influence [22]. The modularity (Q) value and the mean silhouette (S) value were mainly used to measure the clustering map. If Q > 0.3 and S > 0.7, it indicates that the clustering structure is significant and convincing [23].

3. Results

The distribution of the number of publications can reflect the development dynamics of the research in this field (Figure 2). Since the 21st century, the number of publications on forestry carbon sinks in both WOS and CNKI has shown a steady upward trend. Since 2020, there has been a significant increase in the number of publications, particularly in the WOS database. This surge may be influenced by events such as the Fridays for Future movement [24], as well as the forest fires in Australia and Brazil, which prompted reflection on the relationship between humans and nature. On 5 June 2020, the United Nations officially launched the “Race to Zero” initiative. In the same year, China also set its goals of achieving “carbon peak” and “carbon neutrality”. As many countries joined the carbon removal movement, researchers in the field of forestry carbon sinks have significantly paid increased attention to this area. However, the proportion of publications in this field remains relatively small compared with the total output of the journals involved. Despite differences in publication volume, the overall trend suggests a growing interest in forest carbon sinks among both Chinese and international researchers, which is conducive to the gradual development of a more comprehensive research framework.

3.1. Analysis of Relevant Countries and Issuing Authorities

The article provides statistics on the top 10 countries by number of publications (Table 2). China (184 articles) and the United States (124 articles) are the leading countries in the number of publications. The United States has the highest betweenness centrality, demonstrating the significant influence of its research outcomes in the field. Among the countries with a betweenness centrality greater than 0.1, four are from Europe (Germany, Italy, United Kingdom, and Switzerland), two are from North America (US and Canada), and one is from Asia (China). These countries play a crucial role in advancing the progress and development of forestry carbon sink research.
Regional differences in research activity may stem from several underlying factors. First, policy initiatives play a crucial role. China’s leading publication volume is closely linked to its explicit “Dual Carbon” policy, which identifies enhanced forest carbon sinks as a key strategy, thereby driving substantial national research investment and policy support. Similarly, the active engagement of EU countries is tied to their climate neutrality goals and the financial backing of the Green Deal. Second, institutional capacity and well-established collaboration networks are equally influential. The United States, with the highest betweenness centrality, benefits from a long-standing research tradition in ecology, forestry, environmental science, and climate modeling, fostering talent concentration, interdisciplinary research, and extensive international collaboration. Third, abundant forest resources and geographic positioning are also critical. Most countries with a betweenness centrality above 0.1 are located in Europe and exhibit strong performance in transnational cooperation. Resource-rich regions tend to enjoy geographical advantages. A closer geographical location may make it easier to carry out cooperation. European countries have built dense cooperation networks, including platforms like the European Forest Institute and shared data infrastructures.
Table 3 presents the ranking of institutional publications in CNKI and WOS. Among the top eight Chinese institutions by publication number, six are universities and two are research institutes. Regarding the institutions of English-language articles, two are universities and five are research institutes. Among them, institutions from the United States have the highest betweenness centrality. The indices of Chinese publishing institutions are generally lower than those of international institutions, and there is relatively less collaboration among institutions.

3.2. Keyword Co-Occurrence and Cluster Analysis of the Chinese-Language Literature

The keyword co-occurrence network map reveals the research hotspots in a specific field by mining the co-occurrence relationships of keywords (Figure 3). Due to the characteristics of CiteSpace software, the search terms may appear in the graph. After excluding the search terms, keywords such as forestry carbon sink projects and forest carbon sink constitute the first concentric layer of the research theme. These keywords represent core concepts and project-based carriers of forestry carbon sinks. The second concentric layer revolves around terms such as climate change, carbon peak, carbon neutrality, carbon emissions trading, and value realization, highlighting both the climate regulatory function and the economic transformation pathways of forestry carbon sinks. The presence of distinct purple outer rings on these nodes indicates high betweenness centrality, suggesting their bridging role in connecting different thematic areas. This reflects a strong coupling between forestry carbon sink research and China’s “dual-carbon” policy goals, as well as the broader agenda of global climate governance. Further analysis of network density and connection strength reveals that edges such as forestry carbon sink—carbon emissions trading and forestry carbon sink—value realization exhibit relatively high weights. This suggests that carbon market mechanisms and value assessment have emerged as central topics in the current body of Chinese-language research.
The keywords clustering results in Figure 4 show Q = 0.6537 > 0.3 and S = 0.9498 > 0.7, indicating that the clustering results are highly reliable. The clustering results shows that the keyword clusters related to “#0 forestry carbon sink” research include identifiers such as Clean Development Mechanism, forestry carbon sink projects, carbon neutrality, and forest carbon sinks.
By reviewing the existing Chinese literature and knowledge maps, it was found that many scholars explored the importance of forestry in enhancing the carbon sink capacity of forests and mitigating climate change [25,26]. Cao Yani [27] provided a comprehensive discussion on how forestry carbon sinks contribute to climate change mitigation by offsetting carbon emissions and regulating regional hydrological conditions. Another group of scholars have focused on China’s strategic goals of achieving carbon peaking by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060, arguing that afforestation and forest conservation are crucial “carbon removal” pathways and that enhancing forestry carbon sink capacity can play a crucial role in achieving carbon peaking [28,29,30].
Moreover, forestry carbon sink projects have garnered significant attention as an important carbon sink mechanism. Based on project types, forestry carbon sinks can be categorized into two major types: forest management carbon sinks and afforestation carbon sinks, with the latter becoming the dominant form of forestry carbon sinks in China [31]. In terms of development standards, the main classifications include the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), China Certified Emission Reduction (CCER), and voluntary forestry carbon sink projects initiated by enterprises or individuals [32,33]. As China’s carbon market system continues to improve, the demand for CCER has steadily increased, prompting extensive academic research on the trading mechanisms and value assessment of forestry carbon sink projects. Su Lei [34] and Pan, G. [35] explored the valuation of afforestation projects by using the binomial tree option pricing model and the Hartman model, respectively, identifying carbon sinks prices, timber prices, and market uncertainties as key factors influencing project value. Additionally, Zhang Feng [36] and Hu Feng [37] examined forestry carbon sinks transactions from the perspectives of trading regulations and supply–demand balance, offering recommendations for enhancing the trading system and optimizing value realization.

3.3. Keyword Co-Occurrence and Cluster Analysis of the English-Language Literature

By importing the filtered literature from the WOS database into CiteSpace software, we obtained a co-occurrence map of the keywords of the English literature (Figure 5). From these, 293 network nodes were generated, 1664 were connected, and the network density was 0.039. In the keyword co-occurrence network, core terms such as carbon sequestration, climate change, and forest management are strongly associated with concepts like biomass, land-use change, and emissions, underscoring the critical role of forest carbon sinks in climate change mitigation, land-use transition, and the global carbon cycle. The frequent occurrence of keywords such as model and dynamic indicates a prevalent use of modeling approaches to simulate the temporal dynamics of carbon sinks, with carbon accounting and prediction emerging as central themes of investigation. The distribution of keywords encompasses multiple dimensions, including ecological components (biomass and soil carbon), management strategies (forest management and land-use change), policy instruments (Kyoto Protocol), and technical approaches (model and dynamic), reflecting the interdisciplinary nature of forest carbon sink research in the English-language academic literature.
The clustering of the keywords yields the results shown in Figure 6 (S = 0.7362, Q = 0.3938). The clustering demonstrates high reliability and clear separation among clusters. The top three cluster labels are land-use change, Clean Development Mechanism, and ecosystem services.
By reviewing the existing literature and integrating knowledge graphs, it was found that a group of scholars focuses on the impact of climate change on forests and timber markets. Their findings suggest that forest management must adapt to climate change and emphasize that climate-smart forestry is a crucial component of national strategies for implementing actions under the Paris Agreement [38,39,40]. Some scholars have explored the impact of land-use change on achieving climate targets and analyzed the potential of land management measures (such as afforestation and forest conservation) to offset carbon emissions [41,42]. Other studies have investigated the mechanisms of carbon sinks formation, employing various techniques to explore the spatiotemporal distribution of forest carbon sinks. Their research has revealed the regulatory mechanisms of ecosystem net exchange and further confirmed that forests serve as substantial and long-term carbon sinks, highlighting their significance in the carbon flux of the biosphere [43,44,45]. With the development of the carbon market, an increasing number of scholars have studied policy support and economic benefits. Some researchers argue that policy support and economic incentives are crucial measures for enhancing the potential of forestry carbon sinks. Their findings suggest that the rational design of government subsidies and carbon trading prices can promote the optimal strategy of the carbon trading system while simultaneously improving its overall environmental and economic benefits [46,47]. Furthermore, the optimization of technical methodologies has provided new momentum for forestry carbon sink research. Baker, D.F. [48] examined how variations in atmospheric transport models influence CO2 flux inversion and optimized the models, yielding results that contribute to assessing the scale of northern forest carbon sinks. Daigneault et al. [49] employed multiple global forestry sector models to predict forest carbon impacts under 81 Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and climate mitigation scenarios. Mo, L. et al. [50] integrated multiple independent modeling approaches, combining ground survey data with satellite remote sensing to assess the global forest carbon potential. Additionally, some scholars have utilized the CO2FIX model and the FLUS model to analyze carbon storage and land-use changes, revealing the impact of forestry carbon trading on land spatial distribution, particularly the potential for forest expansion and enhanced carbon removal capacity in specific regions [51,52].

3.4. Analysis of Research Frontiers and Trends in the Chinese-Language Literature

The burst detection graph illustrates the changes in research hotspots over time. The red lines indicate the periods of keyword bursts [53]. To further explore the development trends of research in the Chinese-language literature, this article utilizes CiteSpace to generate a keyword burst detection map.
As shown in Figure 7, research on forest carbon sinks in China originated in 2003, when the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) was proposed, while forestry carbon sinks were first considered the subject of research in 2005. Early studies primarily focused on the impact of forestry carbon sinks on climate change and the low-carbon economy. Starting in 2010, research gradually shifted towards the trading mechanisms of forestry carbon sinks, low-carbon forestry, and the application of financial instruments such as option pricing models. These studies not only established a solid theoretical foundation for the field of forestry carbon sinks but also provided clear guidance for the expansion of subsequent research directions.
With the deepening of research, the field of forestry carbon sinks has progressively expanded. Scholars have begun to focus on the linkages between forestry carbon sinks and carbon neutrality, rural ecological revitalization, and carbon sink markets. These studies not only enhance the practical value of forestry carbon sink but also effectively promote the development of related fields. Furthermore, after 2020, research on the carbon sink market, the value realization of forestry carbon sink projects, cost–benefit analysis, and support policies has increased significantly, providing strong support for the sustainable development of forestry carbon sinks.

3.5. Analysis of Research Frontiers and Trends in the English-Language Literature

To further explore the English-language research frontiers and development trends in this field, the data were imported into CiteSpace to generate the keyword burst map (Figure 8).
In the early stages, research primarily focused on the Kyoto Protocol and carbon sequestration. Notably, the influence of the Kyoto Protocol persisted from 1999 to 2014, highlighting the significance of forestry carbon sink studies within the framework of international climate policies. Meanwhile, the Clean Development Mechanism became a major research focus, reflecting early academic attention paid to market-based carbon removal mechanisms. Subsequently, research gradually deepened into specific technologies and management practices. For instance, land-use change emerged as a significant keyword, with research concentrated between 2007 and 2014. Scholars focused on the impacts of land-use transitions on carbon sinks. The bursts of keywords such as soil carbon and plantations reflected increasing attention paid to ecosystem carbon pool management and human interventions. Around 2010, carbon market and carbon offset became major research hotspots, indicating a growing interest in economic instruments for carbon mitigation. In recent years, keywords such as greenhouse gas emissions and restoration have appeared frequently, shows a gradual shift in research focus toward pathways for achieving global climate targets. Studies have primarily explored the synergistic role of forestry carbon sinks in carbon removal and ecological restoration. Additionally, carbon neutrality has emerged as a rising keyword, with sustained research interest continuing through 2024.

4. Discussion

This study conducted a comprehensive analysis of 331 articles from CNKI and 627 articles from WOS on forestry carbon sinks, exploring research hotspots and trends in this field. Overall, the number of publications in the field of forestry carbon sinks has steadily increased since the beginning of the 21st century, with particularly rapid growth being observed after 2020, indicating sustained scholarly interest in this area of research. A comparison between the Chinese and international literature shows that in terms of betweenness centrality among research institutions, the Chinese literature exhibits lower values than its international counterpart. This suggests that collaboration among Chinese research institutions in this field remains relatively weak and that there may be a lack of an efficient and well-established resource-sharing system.
Regarding research hotspots and emerging trends, both Chinese and international studies underscore the pivotal role of forestry carbon sinks in mitigating climate change. However, significant disparities exist in terms of market maturity, regulatory frameworks, and the scope and depth of academic inquiry.
Over the past two decades, international research on forestry carbon sinks has developed into a multidimensional system. Early studies (1998–2010) were anchored by the Kyoto Protocol, focusing on the mechanisms of carbon sinks and the practical implementation of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) [38,48]. This phase reflected the international community’s early institutional efforts to establish market-based instruments for carbon offsetting. Following 2007, as “land-use change” gained prominence [41], research gradually expanded towards the synergistic effects of spatial heterogeneity and management interventions. Topics such as plantation-based carbon sink construction and soil carbon sequestration technologies [44] emerged, signaling a shift from passive measurement toward proactive regulation and optimization. In recent years, a notable trend has been the deepening of research within the fields of environmental science and ecology, with a strong emphasis on technological innovation. Approaches such as multi-model coupling [49] and the integration of remote sensing and ground-based data [50] have overcome the limitations of single-model approaches. China’s research on forestry carbon sinks began relatively late but has developed rapidly in recent years, exhibiting a distinct trajectory characterized by “policy-driven inception, theoretical deepening, and practical expansion”. The evolution of research topics closely aligns with the dynamic progression of the national “dual carbon” strategy. Early studies (2001–2010), guided by the framework of international climate governance, primarily focused on the theoretical interpretation of the ecological functions of forestry carbon sinks [25,26]. However, during this period, studies were predominantly qualitative and macro-level in nature, with limited engagement in systematic carbon accounting or market mechanism analysis. After 2010, driven by the implementation of CDM projects and the acceleration of the national carbon market construction, research priorities gradually shifted toward the design of trading mechanisms and innovation in project valuation methodologies [34]. Two key trends now characterize the current phase of forestry carbon sink research in China. First, research agendas are closely aligned with national strategic priorities. Under the guidance of the “dual carbon” goals [29], scholars have increasingly integrated forestry carbon sinks with broader policy objectives such as rural revitalization, highlighting a growing emphasis on realizing the value of ecological products and services. Second, innovation in policy instruments has become a central focus. In anticipation of the relaunch of the China Certified Emission Reduction (CCER) program, researchers have intensified their exploration of optimized carbon pricing strategies and government subsidy mechanisms [37]. Moreover, increasing attention is being paid to issues such as the clarification of forest property rights and the value realization pathways of forestry carbon sink projects. This reflects a critical transition from conceptual institutional design to concrete and actionable policy implementation.
By comparing the research content of forestry carbon sinks in China and abroad, it can be observed that the primary factors influencing research orientation include the following:
(1)
Policy orientation plays a significant role in shaping the direction and priorities of forestry carbon sink research. At the international level, multilateral climate agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement have explicitly identified forest carbon sinks as essential tools for achieving greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. These agreements have driven extensive global research into carbon sink mechanisms, carbon trading systems, and MRV (Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification) frameworks. In particular, governments in countries such as the European Union, Canada, and Australia have actively promoted the development of carbon markets and the standardization of forestry carbon projects through legislation and financial incentives. These policy measures have steered academic research toward technical approaches and institutional design, with a focus on carbon accounting methodologies, project validation mechanisms, and the valuation of carbon assets.
In China, the policy-driven nature of forestry carbon sink research is even more pronounced. Since the announcement of the “dual carbon” goals—carbon peaking and carbon neutrality—the government has significantly increased policy support for afforestation, the realization of ecological product value, and green finance. This has prompted domestic scholars to concentrate on practical issues such as carbon sink valuation, the development of carbon trading mechanisms, the design of ecological compensation schemes, and the distribution of benefits in forestry carbon projects.
(2)
Differences in research management systems and funding allocation have exerted a notable influence on the direction and nature of academic research. In China, research on forestry carbon sinks primarily relies on nationally designated special projects. This vertically structured management system, while effective in accelerating the implementation of policy objectives, tends to inhibit cross-institutional collaboration. For example, due to constraints imposed by administrative hierarchies, research institutions often face challenges such as data barriers and redundant studies. This stands in contrast to the European Union’s Horizon program, which promotes open and transnational research networks that encourage interdisciplinary and cross-border cooperation. China’s top-down policy implementation has accelerated the development of carbon market infrastructure; however, it has also tended to constrain interdisciplinary innovation. In contrast, international research has benefited from bottom-up experimentation, such as community-driven agroforestry initiatives in Tanzania and Indigenous-led carbon offset programs in Canada. These structural differences help explain why Chinese research tends to place greater emphasis on policy design, whereas the international literature focuses more heavily on ecological modeling and interdisciplinary approaches.

5. Conclusions

This study conducted a systematic review and comparative analysis of selected Chinese and English literature studies in the field of forestry carbon sinks by using CiteSpace software, revealing the current research status, hotspots, and trends in this field. The results indicate that forestry carbon sinks, as a crucial tool for addressing global climate change, demonstrate significant potential in promoting sustainable development and achieving carbon neutrality goals. However, several limitations should be acknowledged. Limited by CiteSpace software, only English-language articles from the WOS database were included. This may result in articles written in other languages being partially overlooked. Furthermore, the limitations of keyword selection may lead to incomplete research findings. Future studies should incorporate research in multiple languages and employ a more diverse set of search terms to achieve a more comprehensive research perspective, thereby capturing the hotspots and development trends in this field more accurately. Additionally, to further deepen research on forestry carbon sinks and enhance the practical application benefit, the following aspects can be explored and expanded.
Firstly, interdisciplinary integration will become a new trend in forestry carbon sink research, particularly through innovative intersections with fields such as ecology, economics, and information science. China, in particular, should focus on promoting interdisciplinary integration by introducing multidisciplinary perspectives to thoroughly explore the comprehensive benefits and sustainable development pathways of forestry carbon sinks in addressing climate change. Meanwhile, although technological methods for carbon sink measurement and monitoring have advanced, several challenges remain. For example, questions persist regarding the consistency of predictions across different models and the potential limitations in integrating ground-based and remote sensing data. In the context of rapid advancements in artificial intelligence, the adoption of AI-based real-time monitoring systems [54] could be explored to further improve the accuracy of carbon sink project monitoring and measurement.
Secondly, research hotspots such as “soil carbon” and “plantations” highlight scholars’ growing attention to ecosystem management and human interventions. However, it is essential to ensure that interventions are designed to promote synergies between biodiversity conservation and forestry carbon sink enhancement. Afforestation with single tree species can lead to a decline in biodiversity, potentially resulting in “green deserts”. It is advisable to consider integrating nature-based solutions (NBSs), designed to provide measurable benefits for biodiversity, as part of the overall framework for sustainable development policies [55]. At the same time, the Green Catalogue of the Green Bond Principles issued by the International Capital Market Association (ICMA) can be referenced to design biodiversity-themed bonds specifically for forestry carbon sink projects [56,57].
Furthermore, in economically underdeveloped regions, the introduction of ecological compensation mechanisms through forestry carbon sink projects can not only promote regional economic development but also achieve ecological protection and rural poverty alleviation. To this end, future research should focus on improving the policy framework. Specifically, a dynamic carbon pricing adjustment mechanism could be established to address regional economic disparities, with carbon price subsidies being implemented in ecologically fragile areas to offset the marginal costs of forestry carbon sink development. Additionally, governments could ensure the long-term operation of such projects by setting up dedicated carbon sink funds and rural revitalization incentive policies. Moreover, international best practices, such as the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), could be referenced to build a more transparent and efficient carbon trading market, thereby enhancing market liquidity and attractiveness.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su17125379/s1. File S1: PRISMA 2020 Checklist. Reference [58] is cited in Supplementary Materials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.D. and L.G.; methodology, L.G.; software, W.D.; validation, S.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, W.D.; writing—review and editing, W.D., L.G. and S.Y.; supervision, S.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research study was supported by the Humanity and Social Science Youth foundation of Ministry of Education of China (grant No. 18YJC790035 and No. 20YJC790164) and The Qingdao Social Science Planning Research Project (grant No: QDSKL2101182).

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article, and further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. IPCC. Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2023. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/ (accessed on 19 February 2025).
  2. Guterres, A. Secretary-General’s Remarks at Opening of World Climate Action Summit. 2023. Available online: https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2023-12-01/secretary-generals-remarks-opening-of-world-climate-action-summit-delivered (accessed on 19 February 2025).
  3. Du, X.W. Thoughts on strategies and paths to achieve carbon peaking and carbon neutrality in China. Front. Energy 2023, 17, 324–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. IPCC. Special Report on Climate Change and Land. 2022, p. 807. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2022/11/SRCCL_Annex-I-Glossary.pdf (accessed on 19 February 2025).
  5. Bäckstrand, K.; Lövbrand, E. Planting trees to mitigate climate change: Contested discourses of ecological modernization, green governmentality and civic environmentalism. Glob. Environ. Politics 2006, 6, 50–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hurteau, M.D. The role of forests in the carbon cycle and in climate change. In Climate Change; Letcher, T.M., Ed.; Elsevier Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 561–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zhu, J. Comprehension and Application of Some Legal Issues in the Forestry Carbon Sequestration. Law Appl. 2023, 1, 141–149. [Google Scholar]
  8. Povellato, A.; Bosello, F.; Giupponi, C. Cost-effectiveness of greenhouse gases mitigation measures in the European agro-forestry sector: A literature survey. Environ. Sci. Policy 2007, 10, 474–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nijnik, M.; Pajot, G.; Moffat, A.J.; Slee, B. An economic analysis of the establishment of forest plantations in the United Kingdom to mitigate climatic change. For. Policy Econ. 2013, 26, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. van Kooten, G.C.; Sohngen, B. Economics of Forest Ecosystem Carbon Sinks: A Review. Int. Rev. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2007, 1, 237–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Baccini, A.; Walker, W.; Carvalho, L.; Farina, M.; Sulla-Menashe, D.; Houghton, R.A. Tropical forests are a net carbon source based on aboveground measurements of gain and loss. Science 2017, 358, 230–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Makkonen, M.; Huttunen, S.; Primmer, E.; Repo, A.; Hildén, M. Policy coherence in climate change mitigation: An ecosystem service approach to forests as carbon sink and bioenergy sources. For. Policy Econ. 2015, 50, 153–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zakeri, A.; Dehghanian, F.; Fahimnia, B.; Sarkis, J. Carbon pricing versus emissions trading: A supply chain planning perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 164, 197–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yang, B.W. “Resource curse” or “institutional failure”? An analysis based on China’s forestry carbon sequestration and trading system. China Rural Surv. 2021, 5, 51–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Shen, Q.; Sun, Q.; Zhao, A. Bibliometric analysis of research on China’s rural environmental governance in CNKI and WOS. Front. Environ. Sci. 2024, 12, 1429595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Xu, H.; Lin, X.; Shi, K.; Lin, S.; Zheng, G.; Wang, Q.; Dong, J.; Wang, M. Research Progress and Hotspot Evolution Analysis of Landscape Microclimate: Visual Analysis Based on CNKI and WOS. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 15118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mongeon, P.; Paul-Hus, A. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2016, 106, 213–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lv, H.; Shi, A. Setting the Forestry Carbon Sink Insurance compensation standard for reducing losses from forest fires: An empirical study estimating CO2 emissions from forest fires in a sample of 15 provinces. Front. Environ. Sci. 2023, 11, 1112525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chen, C.M. 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]
  21. Wang, W.; Lu, C. Visualization analysis of big data research based on CiteSpace. Soft Comput. 2020, 24, 8173–8186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Leeuwen, T.N. The application of bibliometric analyses in the evaluation of social science research. Who benefits from it, and why it is still feasible. Scientometrics 2006, 66, 133–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Yan, S.; Pang, M.; Wang, J.; Chen, R.; Liu, H.; Xu, X.; Li, B.; Li, Q.; Kong, F. A comparative study of bibliometric analysis on old adults’ cognitive impairment based on Web of Science and CNKI via CiteSpace. Health Econ. Rev. 2023, 13, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Thunberg, G. Greta Thunberg to World Leaders: ‘How Dare You?’ 2019. Available online: https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/09/1047052 (accessed on 3 May 2025).
  25. Fang, J.Y.; Guo, Z.D.; Pu, S.L.; Chen, A.P. Terrestrial vegetation carbon sinks in China, 1981–2000. Sci. China Ser. D Earth Sci. 2007, 50, 1341–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wang, L. Comparison of some major ways reducing carbon emission or increasing carbon sink. Quat. Sci. 2004, 24, 191–197. [Google Scholar]
  27. Cao, Y.N.; Li, H.Y. The Role of Forestry Carbon Sinks in Climate Change Mitigation. For. Sci. Technol. Inf. 2024, 56, 84–87. [Google Scholar]
  28. Jiang, X.; Huang, Z.H. Analysis of China’s forestry carbon sink potential under the new economic normal. China Rural Econ. 2016, 11, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hu, A.G. China’s goal of achieving carbon peak by 2030 and its main approaches. J. Beijing Inst. Technol. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2021, 21, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Liu, H.; Wang, H.; Nong, H.; He, Y.; Chen, Y.; Wang, H.; Yu, M. Opportunities and implementation pathway for China’s forestry development under the “Dual Carbon” strategy. Carbon Res. 2024, 3, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cao, X.L.; Cheng, B.D. Market Development of Forestry Carbon Sequestration Project of China Certified Emission Reduction: Current Situation, Challenges and Suggestions. Environ. Prot. 2018, 46, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wu, H.J.; Shi, H.Q.; Wang, J.W.; Liao, W.M. The Development Context and Prospect of Forestry Carbon Sink in the New Century—Visual Analysis Based on the CiteSpace. China Agron. Bull. 2023, 39, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Xu, S. Forestry offsets under China’s certificated emission reduction (CCER) for carbon neutrality: Regulatory gaps and the ways forward. Int. J. Clim. Change Strateg. Manag. 2024, 16, 140–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Su, L.; Pan, M.Y.; Chen, L.R. Binary Tree Option Pricing Model Assess the Value of Forestry Carbon Sink Projects. For. Econ. Issues 2020, 40, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Pan, G.; Zhang, S.; Peng, H. The Value Evaluation of Forestry Carbon Sinks by Binomial Tree Real Options Based on Hartman Model. Issues For. Econ. 2023, 43, 209–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhang, F. Compliance Governance System Construction of Forestry Carbon Sequestration Trading. J. East China Univ. Politics Law 2024, 27, 109–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hu, F. Optimization path of the guarantee mechanism for realizing the value of forestry carbon sink from the perspective of new quality productive forces. Price Mon. 2024, 12, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sohngen, B.; Mendelsohn, R.O. Valuing the impact of large-scale ecological change in a market: The effect of climate change on US timber. Am. Econ. Rev. 1998, 88, 686–710. [Google Scholar]
  39. Keenan, R.J. Climate change impacts and adaptation in forest management: A review. Ann. For. Sci. 2015, 72, 145–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Verkerk, P.J.; Costanza, R.; Hetemäki, L.; Kubiszewski, I.; Leskinen, P.; Nabuurs, G.J.; Potočnik, J.; Palahí, M. Climate-Smart Forestry: The missing link. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 115, 102164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Peng, S.-S.; Piao, S.; Zeng, Z.; Ciais, P.; Zhou, L.; Li, L.Z.X.; Myneni, R.B.; Yin, Y.; Zeng, H. Afforestation in China cools local land surface temperature. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 2915–2919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Harper, A.B.; Powell, T.; Cox, P.M.; House, J.; Huntingford, C.; Lenton, T.M.; Sitch, S.; Burke, E.; Chadburn, S.E.; Collins, W.J.; et al. Land-use emissions play a critical role in land-based mitigation for Paris climate targets. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 2938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Baldocchi, D.D. ‘Breathing’ of the terrestrial biosphere: Lessons learned from a global network of carbon dioxide flux measurement systems. Aust. J. Bot. 2008, 56, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Luyssaert, S.; Schulze, E.-D.; Börner, A.; Knohl, A.; Hessenmöller, D.; Law, B.; Ciais, P.; Grace, J. Old-growth forests as global carbon sinks. Nature 2008, 455, 213–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Pan, Y.; Birdsey, R.A.; Fang, J.; Houghton, R.; Kauppi, P.E.; Kurz, W.A.; Phillips, O.L.; Shvidenko, A.; Lewis, S.L.; Canadell, J.G.; et al. A Large and Persistent Carbon Sink in the World’s Forests. Science 2011, 333, 988–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. He, Y.; Ren, Y. Can carbon sink insurance and financial subsidies improve the carbon sequestration capacity of forestry? J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 397, 136618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Huang, P.Q.; Long, S.Q.; Zhang, S.H.; Chen, H. Optimal strategy of forestry carbon sink trading under government subsidy based on stochastic differential game of carbon emission reduction. J. Ind. Manag. Optim. 2024, 21, 1328–1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Baker, D.F.; Law, R.M.; Gurney, K.R.; Rayner, P.; Peylin, P.; Denning, A.S.; Bousquet, P.; Bruhwiler, L.; Chen, Y.; Ciais, P.; et al. TransCom 3 inversion intercomparison: Impact of transport model errors on the interannual variability of regional CO2 fluxes, 1988–2003. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 2006, 20, GB1002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Daigneault, A.; Baker, J.S.; Guo, J.; Lauri, P.; Favero, A.; Forsell, N.; Johnston, C.; Ohrel, S.B.; Sohngen, B. How the future of the global forest sink depends on timber demand, forest management, and carbon policies. Glob. Environ. Change Hum. Policy Dimens. 2022, 76, 102582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mo, L.; Zohner, C.M.; Reich, P.B.; Liang, J.; de Miguel, S.; Nabuurs, G.-J.; Renner, S.S.; Hoogen, J.v.D.; Araza, A.; Herold, M.; et al. Integrated global assessment of the natural forest carbon potential. Nature 2023, 624, 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ma, X.; Wu, L.; Zhu, Y.; Wu, J.; Qin, Y. Simulation of Vegetation Carbon Sink of Arbor Forest and Carbon Mitigation of Forestry Bioenergy in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 13507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Feng, S.; Chen, K. The Impact of Forestry Carbon Sink on Land Use Space Based on FLUS Model. Processes 2023, 11, 608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhang, Y.; Li, C.; Ji, X.; Yun, C.; Wang, M.; Luo, X. The knowledge domain and emerging trends in phytoremediation: A scientometric analysis with CiteSpace. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 15515–15536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wang, G.G.; Lu, D.; Gao, T.; Zhang, J.; Sun, Y.; Teng, D.; Yu, F.; Zhu, J. Climate-smart forestry: An AI-enabled sustainable forest management solution for climate change adaptation and mitigation. J. For. Res. 2025, 36, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Seddon, N.; Smith, A.; Smith, P.; Key, I.; Chausson, A.; Girardin, C.; House, J.; Srivastava, S.; Turner, B. Getting the message right on nature-based solutions to climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 2021, 27, 1518–1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. McFarland, B.J. Green Bonds, Landscape Bonds, and Rainforest Bonds. In Conservation of Tropical Rainforests; Evans, D.H., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 409–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. ICMA. Green Bond Principles: Voluntary Process Guidelines for Issuing Green Bonds. 2021. Available online: https://www.icmagroup.org/assets/documents/Sustainable-finance/2021-updates/Green-Bond-Principles-June-2021-100621.pdf (accessed on 19 March 2025).
  58. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 17 05379 g001
Figure 1. Data collection procedure.
Figure 1. Data collection procedure.
Sustainability 17 05379 g001
Sustainability 17 05379 g002
Figure 2. Number of publications.
Figure 2. Number of publications.
Sustainability 17 05379 g002
Sustainability 17 05379 g003
Figure 3. Chinese keyword co-occurrence map.
Figure 3. Chinese keyword co-occurrence map.
Sustainability 17 05379 g003
Sustainability 17 05379 g004
Figure 4. Chinese keyword clustering map.
Figure 4. Chinese keyword clustering map.
Sustainability 17 05379 g004
Sustainability 17 05379 g005
Figure 5. English keyword co-occurrence map.
Figure 5. English keyword co-occurrence map.
Sustainability 17 05379 g005
Sustainability 17 05379 g006
Figure 6. English keyword clustering map.
Figure 6. English keyword clustering map.
Sustainability 17 05379 g006
Sustainability 17 05379 g007
Figure 7. Chinese keyword burst map.
Figure 7. Chinese keyword burst map.
Sustainability 17 05379 g007
Sustainability 17 05379 g008
Figure 8. English keyword burst map.
Figure 8. English keyword burst map.
Sustainability 17 05379 g008
Table 1. Search strategy.
Table 1. Search strategy.
Data SourceCNKIWeb of Science
Citation indexesCSSCI; Peking University’s Chinese Core JournalsSSCI; SCIE
Years2003–20241992–2024
LanguageChineseEnglish
Searching topic#1 (Linye Tanhui)#1 (carbon sinks OR offset carbon emissions) AND (afforestation OR reforestation)
#2 (Linye Gutan)#2 (forestry carbon sinks)
#1 OR #2#1 OR #2
Document types“Articles” or “Reviews”
Table 2. Top 10 countries by number of publications.
Table 2. Top 10 countries by number of publications.
No.CountryNumber of
Publications		Betweenness
Centrality
1China1840.16
2United States of America1240.67
3Canada570.11
4Germany450.21
5United Kingdom350.14
6Australia340.05
7France270.08
8Finland250.03
9Italy210.12
10Switzerland190.10
Table 3. Rankings of high-producing institutions in forestry carbon sink publications.
Table 3. Rankings of high-producing institutions in forestry carbon sink publications.
CNKIWOS
Issuing InstitutionNumber of Articles
Issued		Betweenness CentralityIssuing InstitutionNumber of Articles
Issued		Betweenness Centrality
College of Economics and Management, Beijing Forestry University460.04Chinese Academy of Sciences (China)680.19
College of Economics and Management, Northeast Forestry University270United States Department of Agriculture (USA)380.23
College of Economics and Management, Nanjing Forestry University210.01University of California System (USA)260.12
Zhejiang Agriculture and Forestry University220.01University of Helsinki (Finland)200.01
College of Economics, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University170.02Canadian Forest Service (Canada)140.04
Institute of Forestry Science and Technology Information, China Academy of Forestry Sciences120Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (France)100.05
College of International Trade, Shanxi University of Finance and Economics70International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (Australia)90.07
State Forestry Administration Survey, Planning and Design Institute60Paris-Saclay University (France)80.04
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

Gou, L.; Deng, W.; Yang, S. Research Status and Trend Analysis of Forestry Carbon Sinks: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2025, 17, 5379. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17125379

AMA Style

Gou L, Deng W, Yang S. Research Status and Trend Analysis of Forestry Carbon Sinks: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability. 2025; 17(12):5379. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17125379

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gou, Lufeng, Wendan Deng, and Siwei Yang. 2025. "Research Status and Trend Analysis of Forestry Carbon Sinks: A Systematic Literature Review" Sustainability 17, no. 12: 5379. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17125379

APA Style

Gou, L., Deng, W., & Yang, S. (2025). Research Status and Trend Analysis of Forestry Carbon Sinks: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability, 17(12), 5379. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17125379

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