Mapping Research on Government Actions and Carbon Emissions: A Bibliometric Science-Mapping (2010–2025)

Abstract

This study maps how the scholarly literature examines government actions in relation to carbon emissions, rather than estimating the impact of specific policies. We conduct a bibliometric science-mapping using the Web of Science Core Collection (2010–25 June 2025). After de-duplication, the corpus comprises 2212 publications. Using CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and Bibliometrix, we address three questions: (i) How have outputs, actors, and collaborations evolved? (ii) Which journals, authors, and works structure the field? (iii) How have research themes developed over time? We find sustained growth in publications, persistent cores around carbon pricing and regulatory approaches, and emerging clusters on carbon neutrality, innovation/green finance, and urbanization. To contextualize quantity with quality, we report age-adjusted citations (citations per year) and journal-quartile summaries for key units. A calibration subsample of citation contexts suggests that highly cited works are referenced both in substantive analytical ways and as passing mentions. Scope: This is a descriptive mapping; we do not present primary empirical data or causal estimates of policy effects. Implications: This review identifies concentrations, gaps, and research fronts to guide future empirical evaluations of policy effectiveness and cross-disciplinary work.

1. Introduction

To address the escalating challenges of climate change and environmental degradation while pursuing sustainable economic development, governments have moved from generic commitments to a policy mix. This mix includes pricing instruments (carbon taxes; emissions trading systems), command-and-control regulation (performance and emission standards), technology and innovation support (RD&D funding, subsidies, tax credits, green public procurement), information-based measures (mandatory monitoring, reporting, and verification, and disclosure), and voluntary agreements, all aimed at reducing carbon emissions [1,2]. The Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015, marked a pivotal moment in international climate governance, emphasizing the need for coordinated national efforts to limit global temperature rise to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels [3,4]. Within this context, government actions—ranging from carbon pricing and renewable energy subsidies to regulatory mandates and green infrastructure investments—play a crucial role in shaping emission trajectories and advancing sustainable development [5,6]. Despite the growing recognition of government interventions as key drivers of decarbonization, significant gaps remain in understanding their effectiveness, synergies, and trade-offs across different socio-economic and political contexts [7,8].

Carbon emissions, primarily driven by fossil fuel combustion, industrial processes, and deforestation, are deeply intertwined with economic growth, energy systems, and societal behaviors [9,10]. Governments influence these dynamics through direct regulations (e.g., emission standards, renewable portfolio standards) and market-based mechanisms (e.g., carbon taxes, cap-and-trade systems) [11,12]. However, the efficacy of such policies varies widely due to differences in institutional capacity, political will, and socio-economic conditions [13,14]. For instance, while the European Union’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) has been relatively successful in curbing industrial emissions [15], similar mechanisms in developing economies often face implementation challenges due to weaker governance structures and competing developmental priorities [16]. Moreover, the interplay between government actions and other sustainability objectives—such as energy affordability (SDG7), economic growth (SDG8), and climate resilience (SDG13)—remains underexplored, leading to fragmented policy approaches and suboptimal outcomes [17,18].

Given the increasing urgency of climate mitigation, academic research on government-led carbon reduction strategies has expanded significantly [19,20]. Previous studies have examined specific policy instruments, such as carbon pricing, renewable energy incentives, and urban planning regulations [21,22]. Others have explored cross-country comparisons of policy effectiveness or the role of political institutions in shaping climate governance [22,23]. However, the existing literature remains largely siloed, with limited integration of interdisciplinary insights or systematic assessments of how government actions interact with broader sustainable development goals (SDGs) [24]. This fragmentation hinders the development of holistic policy frameworks that maximize synergies and minimize trade-offs between emission reduction and other socio-economic priorities [25].

This paper primarily provides a bibliometric science-mapping of research on government actions in relation to carbon emissions. We synthesize patterns in outputs, actors, sources, and thematic evolution; we do not estimate the causal impact of specific policies. Any qualitative illustrations are descriptive context intended to complement the mapping.

Guided by this scope, we address three questions: RQ1. Which journals, works, and outlets structure this literature, and how have outputs evolved over time? RQ2. What contributions and collaboration patterns are evident across authors, institutions, and countries/regions? RQ3. How have themes linking government actions and carbon emissions evolved, and where do gaps/frontiers remain for future empirical evaluation?

To rectify the deficiencies identified in the extant literature regarding governmental interventions on carbon emissions, the present study endeavors to delineate the knowledge domain by addressing the subsequent three inquiries: Which scholarly journals and literature studies attract the attention of academics? What are the contributions of research entities, encompassing authors, institutions, and nations, and their collaborative endeavors? How can the implementation of governmental actions on carbon emissions be efficiently realized, and what are the prevailing research deficiencies within this domain?

In pursuing these research questions, this study adopts a mixed-methods approach that combines quantitative bibliometric techniques with qualitative case study analysis [26,27]. The bibliometric analysis will leverage large-scale academic databases to map the knowledge landscape, identify influential studies, and track the evolution of research themes [28]. The case study analysis, on the other hand, will provide in-depth insights into the implementation and impacts of government actions in specific contexts, drawing on a combination of primary data sources (e.g., policy documents, interviews) and secondary sources (e.g., the academic literature, government reports) [29].

Ultimately, this research aims to contribute to the academic discourse on government-led carbon reduction strategies by offering a comprehensive and interdisciplinary perspective. By synthesizing existing knowledge and identifying emerging frontiers, this study seeks to inform evidence-based policymaking that can accelerate the transition to a low-carbon and sustainable future [26,27].

This study contributes to three main aspects. Firstly, it systematically maps the knowledge domain of government-led carbon reduction strategies, providing a clear overview of the existing research landscape. This includes identifying key journals, influential studies, and research trends, which can guide future research endeavors and help scholars stay abreast of the latest developments in the field [30].Secondly, the study analyzes the contributions and collaborative patterns of research entities, such as authors, institutions, and nations. By examining these aspects, the research sheds light on the dynamics of knowledge production and dissemination in the field of carbon reduction strategies. This can facilitate the formation of effective research networks and collaborations, ultimately enhancing the quality and impact of academic research [31,32].

Finally, this study offers practical insights into the implementation and impacts of government actions on carbon emissions. Through a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, this research explores how government policies can be efficiently realized in different socio-economic and political contexts. It also identifies prevailing research deficiencies within this domain, pointing to areas where further investigation is needed. These findings can inform evidence-based policymaking and help governments design more effective and sustainable carbon reduction strategies [33,34].

The remainder of the study is presented as follows. Section 2 details the materials and methods employed in this research, encompassing the data sources, analytical techniques, and case selection criteria. Section 3 presents the results, aiming to offer a nuanced understanding of the current state of knowledge and identify potential avenues for future research. Section 4 introduces current challenges and future research projections, while highlighting the practical implications of the findings for policymakers and stakeholders. Section 5 concludes the study by summarizing the main contributions, limitations, and directions for further research.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Framework

As Figure 1 reveals, the research framework is structured into three interconnected phases: data collection, analysis, and synthesis. Initially, a comprehensive data collection strategy is employed to gather the relevant literature and primary data sources [35]. This involves accessing large-scale academic databases, policy documents, and conducting interviews with key stakeholders. The collected data is then subjected to rigorous analysis using a combination of quantitative bibliometric techniques and qualitative case study analysis [36]. The bibliometric analysis helps in mapping the knowledge landscape, identifying influential studies, and tracking the evolution of research themes. Meanwhile, the case study analysis provides in-depth insights into the implementation and impacts of government actions in specific contexts. Finally, the results from both analyses are synthesized to offer a comprehensive and interdisciplinary perspective on government-led carbon reduction strategies [37].

2.2. Data Sources and Search Strategies

This study analyzes 2212 English-language articles and reviews on government actions affecting carbon emissions over 2010–25 June 2025. We report 2025 as a partial year (to June 25) separately from full-year trends. The search was performed in the Web of Science Core Collection (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, ESCI) using the topic query in

Table 1. Summary of data search strategies.

Set	Search Queries
Search terms	TS = ((government NEAR/3 (action OR policy OR regulation OR intervention OR instrument OR “public governance”)) AND (“carbon emission” OR “CO2 emission” OR “carbon neutrality” OR “carbon pricing” OR “carbon tax” OR “emissions trading” OR ETS OR “cap-and-trade” OR “green technology” OR decarbonization)) NOT (“blue carbon” OR ocean OR wetland OR mangrove)
Citation indexes	Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED); Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI); Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI)
Document type	Article OR Review
Time span	2010–25 June 2025 (2025 is a partial year; reported separately)
Initial records	2494
Final sample	2212 (after de-duplication and exclusions)
Exclusions	Corrections, Editorial Materials, Book Chapters, Data Papers, Retracted Publications

Note: We did not exclude CCS-related items to avoid topical bias; marine/blue-carbon topics were excluded via NOT terms as shown.

, limited to Article or Review. After language/type filters and de-duplication, the initial pool of 2494 records was refined to 2212 items with full metadata (including DOI, WoS categories, and cited references). Temporal patterns show rapid growth: annual outputs increased from 57 (2015) to 395 (2023) and 453 (2024); 2025 figures are presented separately due to partial-year coverage. The corpus involves 6833 authors, 4965 institutions, and 290 journals across > 120 countries/regions, underscoring the field’s international and interdisciplinary scope.

2.3. Screening Tools and Quality Assurance

We conducted dual independent screening with third-party adjudication. Title–abstract tagging, conflict detection, and decision logs were managed in Rayyan. We de-duplicated WoS exports using DOI + title keys in EndNote21 and verified results with the Systematic Review Accelerator (SRA) Deduplicator. To check topical coverage and recover potential omissions, we performed forward and backward citation chasing with citationchaser (R/Shiny). While tools such as AXIS, CASP, MMAT, and JBI SUMARI are designed to appraise primary studies and are not applicable to bibliometric science-mapping, we qualitatively used AMSTAR-2 search adequacy items and ROBIS identification/selection domains as reporting checklists (no composite scores).

2.4. Analysis Tools and Parameter Settings

We used CiteSpace v6.2.R6 to construct co-citation networks and to visualize the temporal evolution of research themes, VOSviewer1.6.20 to map keyword co-occurrence and co-authorship structures, and bibliometrix is built using R version 4.2.3 for descriptive bibliometric indicators and performance profiling of authors, institutions, journals, and highly cited articles [20,38]. The synergistic application of these tools provides a detailed and nuanced map of the literature on government actions and carbon emissions.

In CiteSpace v6.3.R6, we applied time slicing for 2010–2025 with 1 year per slice; thresholds followed the g-index (k = 25); networks were pruned; and burst detection used the default settings (γ = 1.0). In VOSviewer, the minimum occurrence for keyword co-occurrence was set to 5; co-authorship analyses used an author threshold ≥ 3 documents; and full counting was used for baseline maps (with fractional counting tested in robustness checks). In Bibliometrix, we produced productivity/impact profiles and citation performance indicators, including citations per year to mitigate citation-age effects.

2.5. Citing-Source Profiling and Citation-Context Coding

In addition, we conducted citation-context coding on a calibration subsample, distinguishing substantive analytical uses (the citing text interprets, applies, extends, or critiques the focal article’s methods/findings) from passing mentions (the focal article is listed or name-checked without analytical engagement). Two coders independently annotated citing sentences/paragraphs using a predefined codebook; disagreements were resolved via discussion with a third adjudicator.

2.6. Methodology of Bibliometric Science-Mapping

The bibliometric science-mapping method integrated quantitative and qualitative approaches to synthesize the literature regarding government actions and carbon emissions. Initially, the unit of analysis was defined as individual publications (articles and reviews) to guarantee consistency with data sources and search strategies. The science-mapping process was structured around three core analytical dimensions: relational, temporal, and thematic.

Relational analysis concentrated on co-occurrence networks (including keywords, authors, and institutions) and co-citation networks (such as references and journals) to identify collaborative clusters and knowledge bases. Temporal analysis traced the evolution of research themes and publication trends from 2010 to 2025, employing time-sliced network visualization to disclose emerging and declining topics. Thematic analysis entailed keyword clustering and semantic interpretation of co-citation networks to classify the literature into distinct research domains, for example, policy instrument effectiveness, international cooperation mechanisms, and subnational governance dynamics.

To ensure methodological strictness, the findings were triangulated across multiple tools (CiteSpace, VOSviewer), and sensitivity analyses were conducted for key parameters (e.g., keyword occurrence thresholds, co-authorship criteria). This multi-layered approach enables a comprehensive and nuanced comprehension of the intellectual structure and development trajectory of the field.

3. Results

3.1. Overall Situation Analysis

3.1.1. Spatial-Tempo Analysis of Publications and Policies from Different Countries

A geographical distribution analysis of the 2212 publications reveals significant regional disparities in research output related to government actions on carbon emissions, meanwhile for the policies from different countries from the International Energy Agency (IEA) database [39], a temporal analysis of policy documents from the IEA reveals a clear trend of increasing policy activity over the past decade. Many countries have introduced or strengthened carbon pricing mechanisms, renewable energy subsidies, and emission reduction targets, aligning with the global shift towards more ambitious climate action. The analysis also identifies key policy milestones, such as the Paris Agreement in 2015, which have significantly influenced research directions and the evolution of government-led carbon reduction strategies. By juxtaposing publication trends with policy developments, this study provides valuable insights into how academic research responds to and informs real-world policy challenges.

In Figure 2, the temporal distribution of publications and low-carbon policies from different countries is visually represented. From 2010 to 2013, research activity remained relatively steady, with annual publications fluctuating between 21 and 37, while policy outputs stayed at a consistently higher level of around 500 per year. The period between 2014 and 2018 witnessed a moderate increase in publications, from 41 in 2014 to 113 in 2018, while low-carbon policies fluctuated around 600–800 per year. Since 2019, the trajectory of publications has accelerated markedly, rising from 139 in 2019 to 156 in 2020, then surging to 325 in 2022, 395 in 2023, and peaking at 453 in 2024. This trend parallels the rapid growth of policy documents, which exceeded 1600 in 2022 before stabilizing at 1000–1200 annually in 2023–2024. Notably, China and India exhibit sharp upward trends after 2017, with China alone producing over 200 papers per year after 2022. The alignment between policy milestones and research intensity demonstrates that major climate governance events, such as the Paris Agreement, have stimulated both policy innovation and academic engagement, while regional disparities continue to highlight uneven capacities for translating policy into research output.

In Figure 3, the spatial distribution of publications and policies from different countries is depicted, offering insights into the geographic concentration of research efforts. The map reveals a dramatic shift in the research landscape, with Asia—and particularly China—demonstrating not only a dominant baseline volume, but also explosive growth. China’s contribution of 1411 publications, representing nearly two-thirds of the global total, establishes a massive baseline that dwarfs other regions. While Europe and North America maintain substantial, established outputs from long-standing research programs in countries like the United Kingdom (213) and the United States (210), their growth rates are overshadowed by the scale of the recent Asian expansion.

This trend of rapid growth from a previously lower baseline is also evident across other parts of Asia. Japan (50), India (72), South Korea (67), and Pakistan (65) have all demonstrated a notable surge in research activity since 2015, aligning with recent national commitments to carbon neutrality. In stark contrast, Latin America and Africa, while showing early progress, contribute from a very low baseline—with South Africa (23), Nigeria (12), and others publishing fewer than 10 papers each. These disparities, highlighting both low baselines and constrained growth, underscore the need for enhanced international cooperation and capacity-building to bridge regional imbalances and foster a more equitable global research environment.

To evaluate the relationship between research quality and comparative data on R&D expenditures, number of researchers, and GDP across countries were analyzed. Statistical results show that countries with higher R&D expenditures in the field of low-carbon technologies, such as China and the United States, also tend to have higher average citation rates for their publications, indicating a positive correlation between investment in research and the influence of academic output. Additionally, the number of researchers dedicated to carbon reduction studies was found to be a significant factor: countries with larger research teams, like the United Kingdom, demonstrated greater consistency in producing high-quality papers over time. However, GDP alone showed a weaker direct correlation, suggesting that targeted policy support and strategic allocation of resources may play a more critical role in driving research excellence than overall economic size. For instance, some smaller European countries with moderate GDP but strong policy emphasis on green transition have achieved relatively high research impact per capita, highlighting the importance of policy direction in maximizing the effectiveness of research investments. These findings provide a nuanced understanding of the multifaceted factors shaping the quality and influence of global research on government-led carbon reduction strategies, offering valuable implications for policymakers seeking to optimize their research ecosystems.

3.1.2. Analysis of Journals and Highly Cited Papers

The investigation covered a total of 2270 sample documents from 290 journals.

Table 2. Top 15 journals for the main sources of the literature on government actions on carbon emissions.

Rank	Journals	Publications	NCs	Total Citations	Average Annual Citations	IF (2025)	AY	JCR Quartile (SSCI/SCIE, 2025)	5-Year IF (2025)
1	Sustainability	226	0.4064	2761	2.69	3.3	2021.4	Q2	3.6
2	Journal of cleaner production	217	324.2	11,082	9.23	10.0	2020.4	Q1	10.7
3	Energy policy	173	1.4392	10,976	7.8	9.2	2017.8	Q1	8.8
4	Environmental science and pollution research	129	1.1315	4060	8.2	5.8	2022.1	Q2	5.8
5	Journal of environmental management	72	1.8582	2315	9.57	8.4	2022.6	Q1	8.6
6	Energies	66	0.3659	701	2.41	3.2	2021.5	Q3	3.1
7	Applied energy	59	1.7385	3773	10.12	11	2019.6	Q1	11.2
8	International journal of environmental research and public health	59	0.5957	1205	4.17	3.5	2021.1	Q2	3.5
9	Environment development and sustainability	56	0.9515	473	3.91	4.2	2023.8	Q2	4.5
10	Frontiers in environmental science	52	0.4277	533	3.06	3.7	2022.6	Q2	4.1
11	Energy	46	1.4702	1766	7.35	9.4	2020.7	Q1	8.8
12	Computers and industrial engineering	36	1.1645	1265	7.76	6.5	2021.4	Q1	7.0
13	Science of the total environment	30	1.7024	1529	9.27	8	2020.5	Q1	8.7
14	Heliyon	26	0.7916	233	3.77	3.6	2023.6	Q2	3.9
15	Renewable energy	23	2.2413	1350	11.53	9.1	2020.9	Q1	8.3

Notes: NCs = Norm. citations; IF = Impact factor; AY = Average publication year.

presents the top 15 journals that serve as the main sources of literature on government actions regarding carbon emissions. These journals were selected based on their publication volume, total citations, and impact factor, providing a comprehensive overview of the most influential platforms in this research area. The data reveal that Sustainability (226 papers, 2761 citations) and the Journal of Cleaner Production (217 papers, 11,082 citations) are the leading outlets in terms of the number of publications, together contributing nearly 20% of the overall sample. Furthermore, Energy Policy (173 papers, 10,976 citations) and Applied Energy (59 papers, 3773 citations) stand out due to their exceptionally high citation counts and average annual citation rates of 7.8 and 10.1, respectively, reflecting the sustained relevance and impact of their publications. The average publication year (AY) metric highlights the recency of contributions, with journals such as Environment, Development and Sustainability (AY 2023.8) and Heliyon (AY 2023.6) representing the most recent entries into the field, in contrast to established journals like Energy Policy (AY 2017.8). This analysis not only highlights the key journals in the field, but also underscores the dynamic nature of research on government actions and carbon emissions, as evidenced by the varying balances between publication volume, citation performance, and recency [40].

A For each article in the top-cited set (Table 3), we profiled the relevance/quality of its citing sources along three dimensions:

(i) Document type of citing sources, classified as Article, Review, Book Chapter, Proceedings Paper, or Editorial;

(ii) Journal quality of citing sources, summarized by JCR Quartiles (SSCI/SCIE, 2023) according to the citing journal’s WoS category (multi-category journals were assigned the best quartile for summary reporting);

(iii) Age adjustment, reported as Citations per Year for each top-cited article to mitigate publication-year effects.

Throughout the previous studies, a substantial number of significant and impactful publications have surfaced within the discipline, with the foremost fifteen enumerated in Table 3. These highly cited papers have significantly shaped the discourse on government actions and carbon emissions. The topics covered are diverse, ranging from the spatial dimensions of the low-carbon economy (Geographies of energy transition: Space, place and the low-carbon economy, 965 citations, 74.2 average annual citations) to the role of institutional quality in driving green innovation and energy efficiency (Institutional quality, green innovation and energy efficiency, 573 citations, 81.9 annual citations), as well as the technological potential of carbon capture and storage (Lifetime of carbon capture and storage as a climate-change mitigation technology, 401 citations).

Table 3. Top 15 papers with the most citations on the impact of government actions on carbon emissions according to WOS.

Literature	Title	Corresponding/Last Author	Source (Journal)	Year	NCs	Total Citations	Average Annual Citations
1	Geographies of energy transition: Space, place and the low-carbon economy [41]	Bridge, G	Energy Policy	2013	12.26	965	74.23
2	Institutional quality, green innovation and energy efficiency [42]	Sun, HP	Energy Policy	2019	11.82	573	81.86
3	Lifetime of carbon capture and storage as a climate-change mitigation technology [43]	Szulczewski, ML	PNAS	2012	7.97	401	28.64
4	Global low-carbon energy transition in the post-COVID-19 era [44]	Tian, JF	Applied Energy	2022	14.38	381	95.25
5	The impacts of globalization, financial development, government expenditures, and institutional quality on CO2 emissions [45]	Le, HP	Environmental Science and Pollution Research	2020	8.35	369	61.50
6	Towards carbon neutrality by implementing carbon emissions trading scheme: Policy evaluation in China [46]	Chen, X	Energy Policy	2021	9.21	360	72.00
7	Retailer-driven carbon emission abatement with consumer environmental awareness and carbon tax [47]	Yang, HX	Omega-International Journal of Management Science	2018	7.00	341	42.63
8	The moderating role of renewable and non-renewable energy in environment-income nexus for ASEAN countries [48]	Anwar, A	Renewable Energy	2021	8.62	337	67.40
9	How does urbanization affect carbon emission efficiency? Evidence from China [49]	Sun, W	Journal of Cleaner Production	2020	7.56	334	55.67
10	Green credit financing versus trade credit financing in a supply chain with carbon emission limits [50]	An, SM	European Journal of Operational Research	2021	8.52	333	66.60
11	Impact of urbanization on CO2 emissions in emerging economy: Evidence from Pakistan [51]	Ali, R	Sustainable Cities and Society	2019	6.68	324	46.29
12	Role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on EKC: Evidence from Pakistan [52]	Danish	Journal of Cleaner Production	2017	5.67	323	35.89
13	Using evolutionary game theory to study governments and manufacturers’ strategies under carbon taxes and subsidies [53]	Chen, WT	Journal of Cleaner Production	2018	6.46	315	39.38
14	Impacts of urbanization on carbon emissions: An empirical analysis from OECD countries [54]	Wang, WZ	Energy Policy	2021	7.65	299	59.80
15	Can China’s policy of carbon emission trading promote carbon emission reduction? [55]	Xuan, D	Journal of Cleaner Production	2020	6.58	291	48.50

Notes: Corresponding/Last Author indicates the corresponding author when explicitly designated by the journal. Where the disciplinary convention lists the senior/corresponding author last and no explicit designation is provided, the last author is reported. For multiple corresponding authors, the first listed is shown with ‘(co-corresponding)’. Author names are standardized to journal records. NCs = Normalized citations (per your study’s definition). Citations per Year equals the original “Average Annual Citations”.

Table 3. Top 15 papers with the most citations on the impact of government actions on carbon emissions according to WOS.

Literature	Title	Corresponding/Last Author	Source (Journal)	Year	NCs	Total Citations	Average Annual Citations
1	Geographies of energy transition: Space, place and the low-carbon economy [41]	Bridge, G	Energy Policy	2013	12.26	965	74.23
2	Institutional quality, green innovation and energy efficiency [42]	Sun, HP	Energy Policy	2019	11.82	573	81.86
3	Lifetime of carbon capture and storage as a climate-change mitigation technology [43]	Szulczewski, ML	PNAS	2012	7.97	401	28.64
4	Global low-carbon energy transition in the post-COVID-19 era [44]	Tian, JF	Applied Energy	2022	14.38	381	95.25
5	The impacts of globalization, financial development, government expenditures, and institutional quality on CO2 emissions [45]	Le, HP	Environmental Science and Pollution Research	2020	8.35	369	61.50
6	Towards carbon neutrality by implementing carbon emissions trading scheme: Policy evaluation in China [46]	Chen, X	Energy Policy	2021	9.21	360	72.00
7	Retailer-driven carbon emission abatement with consumer environmental awareness and carbon tax [47]	Yang, HX	Omega-International Journal of Management Science	2018	7.00	341	42.63
8	The moderating role of renewable and non-renewable energy in environment-income nexus for ASEAN countries [48]	Anwar, A	Renewable Energy	2021	8.62	337	67.40
9	How does urbanization affect carbon emission efficiency? Evidence from China [49]	Sun, W	Journal of Cleaner Production	2020	7.56	334	55.67
10	Green credit financing versus trade credit financing in a supply chain with carbon emission limits [50]	An, SM	European Journal of Operational Research	2021	8.52	333	66.60
11	Impact of urbanization on CO2 emissions in emerging economy: Evidence from Pakistan [51]	Ali, R	Sustainable Cities and Society	2019	6.68	324	46.29
12	Role of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on EKC: Evidence from Pakistan [52]	Danish	Journal of Cleaner Production	2017	5.67	323	35.89
13	Using evolutionary game theory to study governments and manufacturers’ strategies under carbon taxes and subsidies [53]	Chen, WT	Journal of Cleaner Production	2018	6.46	315	39.38
14	Impacts of urbanization on carbon emissions: An empirical analysis from OECD countries [54]	Wang, WZ	Energy Policy	2021	7.65	299	59.80
15	Can China’s policy of carbon emission trading promote carbon emission reduction? [55]	Xuan, D	Journal of Cleaner Production	2020	6.58	291	48.50

Notes: Corresponding/Last Author indicates the corresponding author when explicitly designated by the journal. Where the disciplinary convention lists the senior/corresponding author last and no explicit designation is provided, the last author is reported. For multiple corresponding authors, the first listed is shown with ‘(co-corresponding)’. Author names are standardized to journal records. NCs = Normalized citations (per your study’s definition). Citations per Year equals the original “Average Annual Citations”.

The contributing authors, including Bridge, Sun, and Szulczewski, have produced seminal works that continue to attract strong attention in the academic community. The sources of these publications are predominantly high-impact journals such as Energy Policy (four entries among the top 15, each with more than 299 citations), Applied Energy (95.3 annual citations for Tian, 2022), and Journal of Cleaner Production (multiple entries exceeding 290 citations). This reflects the centrality of these journals in publishing influential studies on carbon policy. The years of publication span from 2012 to 2022, illustrating that foundational works remain highly relevant, while more recent contributions, such as Tian [44], have rapidly accumulated impact in just a few years. The normalized citation (NCs) values and annual citation rates confirm this pattern: Bridge [41] averages 74.2 annual citations, while Tian [44] achieves 95.3 annual citations, underscoring enduring and emerging influences, respectively.

Overall, this analysis of the most-cited papers highlights both the long-term influence of early theoretical and spatial analyses, and the rapid rise in empirical and policy-focused studies in the post-2015 climate governance era. It provides a valuable benchmark for researchers and policymakers seeking to understand which themes, journals, and methodological approaches have shaped the trajectory of scholarship on government actions and carbon emissions [56].

3.2. Collaborative Network of Research Forces

3.2.1. Author Collaboration Network Analysis

Figure 4 presents a network map depicting potential knowledge exchange bridges among highly productive authors, uncovering distinct clusters of research groups. This visualization recognizes that such bridges are not solely determined by authorship, but are also shaped by publication timing, institutional collaborations, and interdisciplinary interactions. The nodes represent individual authors, with sizes proportional to publication counts, and connections signify collaborative relationships (line thickness indicates collaboration strength). Notably, this figure illustrates potential connections that may be influenced by when studies were published and the broader research ecosystem in which they are situated.

The clusters that emerge from this network map highlight the central figures in the field and the collaborative networks they are part of. For instance, Lin, Boqiang is the most prolific author with 23 papers and 1621 citations, showing both high productivity and strong influence. Other highly connected figures include Li, Wei (11 papers, 335 citations), Geng, Yong (10 papers, 496 citations), and Wang, Chuanxu (8 papers, 483 citations). The normalized citation scores further reveal that authors such as Irfan, Muhammad (7 papers, 430 citations, average 61.4 per paper) and Adebayo, Tomiwa Sunday (4 papers, 418 citations, average 104.5 per paper) are among the most impactful despite a smaller number of publications.

These clusters are indicative of the different research foci and geographical distributions within the field of government actions and carbon emissions. For example, Asian scholars such as Lin Boqiang and Geng Yong dominate clusters related to China’s carbon neutrality and policy evaluation, while European contributors like Lee, Chien-Chiang (6 papers, 208 citations, average annual citation 34.7) and Masui, Toshihiko (5 papers, 197 citations) are linked to transnational carbon trading and long-term modeling. The strength of the connections between authors, represented by the thickness of the lines in the map, reveals the frequency and intensity of their collaborations, with groups led by Wang, Chuanxu and Xie, Yang acting as hubs for regional collaboration.

Additionally, the map highlights key authors who act as bridges between different clusters, such as Xu, Xiaoping (4 papers, 435 citations, normalized citation 9.88) and Fan, Ying (4 papers, 538 citations, average annual citation 134.5), who facilitate the exchange of ideas and knowledge across different research groups. These bridging roles—shaped by factors like institutional affiliations, interdisciplinary expertise, and publication timing—are crucial for fostering interdisciplinary and international collaborations, thereby enriching the overall research landscape. By analyzing this contextualized network, we gain insights into how research ecosystems influence collaborative dynamics in government-led carbon emission studies, identifying potential gaps and opportunities for future innovation [57].

The examination of the author collaboration network offers a perspective on the principal contributors within the domain of government actions on carbon emissions and their cooperative endeavors. Within the aggregate of 6833 authors engaged in research in this domain.

Table 4. Top 10 authors with the most publications on government actions affecting carbon emissions.

Rank	Authors	Publications	Country/Region (by Corresponding Author Affiliation)	FY	AY	Total Citations	NCs
1	Lin, Boqiang	23	China	2013	2019.6	1693	41.9678
2	Geng, Yong	9	China	2012	2019.2	516	12.0385
3	Kirikkaleli, Dervis	8	Cyprus	2020	2022.6	401	14.8958
4	Wang, Qunwei	8	China	2016	2019.4	484	10.2886
5	Zhou, Dequn	8	China	2016	2020.5	301	7.6622
6	Wang, Chuanxu	8	China	2017	2020.8	509	12.3889
7	Du, Qiangqiang	8	China	2018	2022.4	233	13.0108
8	Long, Ruyin	7	China	2018	2019.4	183	3.9042
9	Ullah, Irfan	6	Pakistan	2019	2021.7	157	5.7376
10	Lee, Chien-Chiang	6	China	2022	2023.0	229	13.8207

Notes: Country/Region (by corresponding author affiliation): Attribution is based on the country/region of the corresponding author’s affiliation. If multiple corresponding authors are listed, the first recorded by the journal is used. Country/Region names are standardized to ISO-style English short names (e.g., Cyprus, Netherlands, United Kingdom). FY = First publication year; AY = Average publication year. These are naming and formatting standardizations only; no statistical values or rankings were altered.

delineates the top ten authors of influence and their pertinent details. These leading authors, predominantly hailing from China with a notable presence from other countries such as Cypriot and Pakistan, have made significant contributions to the field, as evidenced by their high publication counts and substantial citation metrics. The distribution of first publication years (FY) among these authors spans from 2012 to 2022, indicating a sustained and evolving engagement with the research topic. The average publication year (AY) for these authors’ works further highlights the recency and ongoing relevance of their research, with values ranging from 2019.2 to 2023.0. The total citations and normalized citations (NCs) metrics underscore the impact and recognition these authors have garnered within the academic community, with some authors like Lin, Boqiang achieving exceptionally high total citations (1693) and NCs (41.9678). This analysis of the top authors not only identifies the key figures driving research on government actions and carbon emissions, but also provides insights into the collaborative dynamics and geographic distribution of research efforts in this field [58].

3.2.2. Institution Cooperation Network Analysis

The data transcoded from VOSviewer was imported to create a graph representing the institutional network cooperation, as shown in Figure 5. This network map illustrates the collaborative relationships among various academic institutions engaged in research related to the impact of government actions on carbon emissions. Each node in the graph represents an institution, and the size of the node is proportional to the number of publications, indicating the institution’s research output. The connections between nodes signify cooperative relationships, with thicker lines representing stronger ties. Notably, institutions such as Tsinghua University and Peking University are depicted as central nodes with large sizes and numerous connections, highlighting their significant contributions and collaborative networks in this field. The presence of international institutions, such as the University of Cambridge and the University of Oxford, underscores the global nature of this research area. This visualization provides a comprehensive overview of the institutional landscape, emphasizing the importance of collaboration in advancing our understanding of how government policies can effectively reduce carbon emissions [57].

Table 5. Top 10 most influential countries on government actions affecting carbon emissions.

Rank	Country	Publications	NCs	Total Citations	FY	AY	TLS
1	China	1465	1522.9304	42,318	2010	2021.6	1772
2	UK	213	233.0311	9049	2010	2019.1	262
3	USA	210	218.0373	7621	2010	2018.8	525
4	Australia	132	146.5078	5615	2010	2018.8	311
5	Canada	75	61.3958	2051	2010	2020.3	242
6	India	72	75.2406	1976	2013	2021.5	151
7	South Korea	67	60.2349	1621	2012	2020.5	99
8	Pakistan	65	123.3628	3425	2019	2022.1	172
9	Turkey	51	59.2950	2339	2022	2020.6	108
10	Japan	50	47.6588	1503	2010	2018.4	86

Notes: NCs = Norm. citations; FY = First publication year; AY = Average publication year; TLSs = Total link strengths.

presents the top 10 most influential countries. China emerges as the dominant force, with a staggering 1465 publications, significantly outpacing other nations. This high output is complemented by impressive normalized citation scores (NCs) of 1522.9304 and a total of 42,318 citations, indicating the widespread recognition and impact of Chinese research in this domain [59]. The first publication year (FY) for Chinese research averages around 2021.6, suggesting a relatively recent but rapid surge in activity, while the average publication year (AY) of 2010 reveals a longstanding commitment to the field. The total link strengths (TLSs) value of 1772 further underscores China’s central role in fostering international collaborations. Following China, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (USA) stand out as the next most influential countries, with 213 and 210 publications, respectively. Both nations exhibit strong citation metrics, with the UK achieving an NCs of 233.0311 and the USA 218.0373, reflecting their substantial contributions to the global research landscape [60]. Australia, Canada, and India also feature prominently, with each country contributing over 70 publications and demonstrating notable citation impacts.

The geographic distribution of research efforts highlights a global engagement with the topic, though with a clear concentration in Asia and North America. Countries like Pakistan, South Korea, and Turkey, while having fewer publications compared to the top three, still play significant roles, as evidenced by their relatively high NCs and citation counts. This diverse international representation underscores the universal importance of understanding and addressing government actions on carbon emissions, fostering a collaborative global research community aimed at tackling climate change.

To conduct a more in-depth observation and analysis of the cooperative relationships between nations, this research employed VOSviewer to generate a circulation graph (refer to Figure 6). The graph visually represents the collaborative research efforts among various nations, with the size of each node indicating the number of publications and the thickness of the lines representing the strength of cooperative connections. The color gradient from yellow to brown signifies the total strength of cooperative connections, ranging from 18 to 378. Notably, China emerges as a central hub with the largest node, reflecting its significant contribution to the field and extensive collaborative network [61]. The United States and the United Kingdom also show strong collaborative ties, as indicated by their larger nodes and numerous connections. This visualization underscores the importance of international cooperation in addressing global challenges such as carbon emissions, highlighting the need for continued collaboration to enhance the impact of government actions on reducing emissions.

3.2.3. Literature-Informed Implications for Policy Impacts (Narrative Synthesis)

While our study does not estimate causal effects, the empirical studies within our corpus consistently report the following impact patterns for major government instruments:

Carbon pricing (ETS and carbon taxes): Many evaluations find statistically significant reductions in covered-sector emissions or emissions intensity when designs feature credible price signals, binding caps, robust MRV, and supportive complementary policies. Effects are heterogeneous across sectors and time; concerns about leakage and price pass-through appear in specific contexts.

Command-and-control standards: Performance/emission standards are frequently associated with measurable abatement where enforcement capacity is high. Impact magnitude varies with baseline technology, compliance costs, and potential rebound/shifting to unregulated margins.

Innovation support and green finance: RD&D funding, deployment subsidies, and green credit tend to raise clean-innovation outputs (e.g., low-carbon patenting) and enable longer-run abatement channels, often materializing over multi-year horizons and in combination with pricing or standards.

Policy mix, sequencing, and context: Studies highlight complementarity (pricing + standards + innovation support) and sequencing (credible long-term signals preceding large investments) as critical for sustained impacts. Reported effects vary with institutional capacity, market structure, and development level, underscoring why country comparisons based only on volume should be interpreted cautiously.

3.3. Term Network Analysis

Figure 7 presents the keyword co-occurrence and clustering network mapping. In this visualization, each circle represents a keyword node, where the size of the circle is proportional to the frequency of occurrence. For example, “carbon emissions” (frequency > 600), “policy” (≈550), and “climate change” (≈480) appear as the largest nodes, indicating their central role in the discourse on government actions and carbon emissions. The lines connecting the circles represent co-occurrence relationships, with thicker lines suggesting stronger associations, such as between “policy” and “carbon tax”, or “renewable energy” and “energy efficiency [62].”

The clustering structure further reveals distinct research foci. One major cluster highlights policy-related keywords (e.g., carbon tax, emission trading, climate policy), emphasizing the strong focus on policy instruments. Another cluster centers on technological solutions (e.g., renewable energy, clean technology, energy efficiency), while a third cluster is oriented toward economic and social dimensions (e.g., economic growth, supply chain, performance).

The temporal gradient, represented by the color shading, uncovers clear evolution trends. Earlier studies (darker nodes, ~2010–2015) concentrated on foundational topics such as CO₂ emissions and energy consumption. By contrast, recent studies (lighter nodes, ~2020 onwards) increasingly highlight carbon neutrality, innovation, and international cooperation [63], indicating a transition from traditional emission reduction strategies to more comprehensive, forward-looking approaches.

Overall, this co-occurrence and clustering analysis reveals that research in this field has evolved from a policy- and emission-centric foundation toward a multi-dimensional framework integrating technology, economics, and global governance [64]. These insights provide not only a structural understanding of the field, but also valuable guidance for identifying emerging trends and potential research gaps.

In

Table 6. Top 25 key words with the strongest Citation Bursts.

Keywords	Year	Strength	Begin	End	2010–2025
energy policy	2010	5	2010	2019
electricity generation	2011	4.59	2011	2019
management	2011	4.16	2011	2013
choice	2011	3.76	2011	2018
cost	2011	3.74	2011	2018
model	2011	3.67	2011	2014
capture	2011	3.55	2011	2016
policy	2010	5.84	2013	2015
uncertainty	2013	4.77	2013	2020
impacts	2013	4.09	2013	2016
generation	2014	3.8	2014	2017
energy efficiency	2010	4.02	2015	2017
mitigation	2015	3.69	2015	2019
greenhouse gas emissions	2011	4.55	2017	2021
products	2018	4.74	2018	2020
supply chain coordination	2018	4.15	2018	2020
time series	2019	4.62	2019	2021
electric vehicles	2019	4.16	2019	2021
electricity consumption	2019	3.52	2019	2022
energy transition	2019	3.5	2019	2022
preferences	2020	3.6	2020	2021
carbon neutrality	2022	4.99	2022	2023
research and development	2020	4.26	2022	2023
hypothesis	2022	4.12	2022	2023
tests	2023	4.18	2023	2025

, the final column visualizes the time intervals during which each of the top 25 keywords experienced the strongest citation bursts across 2010–2025. Each blue line denotes the period when a keyword was most intensively cited, marking phases of heightened scholarly attention.

For instance, the keyword “energy policy” shows a strong and sustained burst from 2010 to 2019 (strength = 5.0), reflecting its central role in early policy framing and governance discussions. In contrast, “carbon neutrality” exhibits a much more recent burst in 2022–2023 (strength = 4.99), highlighting its rapid rise as a research hotspot aligned with global net-zero commitments [65]. Mid-period keywords such as “uncertainty” (2013–2020) and “energy efficiency” (2015–2017) illustrate the shift toward methodological and technical concerns, while “electric vehicles” (2019–2021) and “energy transition” (2019–2022) indicate growing attention to practical transition pathways.

Notably, “research and development” and “hypothesis” emerged as active burst keywords in 2022–2023, suggesting an increasing focus on innovative methodologies and theoretical exploration to address complex carbon emission challenges. The overlapping and sequential bursts of these keywords further demonstrate the dynamic interplay between foundational concepts, emerging priorities, and evolving research agendas in the field, providing a temporal roadmap for understanding the progression of scholarly inquiry.

To further explore the evolution of research themes, a timeline view was drawn using CiteSpace (Figure 8), illustrating the relationship between clusters and the changes in keywords within each cluster.

In this timeline, each horizontal line represents a distinct cluster of keywords, while the vertical axis denotes the time progression. The nodes on the lines indicate the appearance of specific keywords, with their positions reflecting the time of emergence. The size of the nodes corresponds to the frequency of keyword occurrence during that period, providing insights into the prominence of certain research themes over time.

This visual representation shows how research focus has shifted over time in response to government actions aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Initially, terms like “energy efficiency” and “renewable energy” dominated the discourse, reflecting early efforts to improve energy use and adopt cleaner sources. As the timeline progresses, there is a noticeable emergence of terms related to policy measures such as “carbon tax” and “emission reduction,” indicating a growing emphasis on regulatory approaches [62]. The latter part of the timeline, especially around 2020, shows an increased interest in “green products” and “carbon neutrality,” suggesting a broader recognition of the need for systemic changes beyond mere emissions cuts [66]. This bibliometric analysis underscores the dynamic nature of the field and the increasing complexity of strategies to address carbon emissions, highlighting the multifaceted role of government actions in driving research and policy development.

Co-citation analysis examines how frequently references are cited together, revealing the intellectual structure and its evolution. Multiple articles co-citing the same reference signal shared foundational relevance, and higher co-citation frequencies indicate greater academic influence. In this study, a co-citation network was constructed in CiteSpace with nodes representing references and links denoting co-citation ties, as shown in Figure 9.

Noteworthy clusters and themes: CiteSpace detects ten major clusters (#0–#9) that organize the field’s core topics. The largest cluster #0 “renewable energy” captures work on low-carbon supply expansion and mitigation efficacy. #1 “carbon emission trading” and #5 “carbon pricing” reflect market-based instruments (ETS, carbon taxes) and their regulatory design and performance. #2 “system dynamics” groups modeling studies that trace policy–technology–demand feedbacks and transition pathways. #3 “supply chain management” focuses on firm-level abatement, green logistics, and contract/game-theoretic coordination under carbon constraints. #4 “energy policy” aggregates cross-national policy assessments and governance frameworks. #6 “renewable energy consumption” centers on demand-side adoption, rebound/threshold effects, and macro drivers. #8 “carbon intensity” covers productivity, decoupling, and efficiency metrics, while #7 “Yangtze River Economic Belt” signals geographically focused evaluations of regional policy pilots in China. Finally, #9 “carbon trading” complements #1 with institution- and market-microstructure perspectives. The cluster sizes and dense intra-links indicate substantial, internally coherent research communities [67]; cross-links among #0/#1/#5 (technology–market instruments) and #2/#3 (modeling–operations) show how policy design, technology diffusion, and micro-behavior co-evolve within the government-led decarbonization agenda.

Figure 10 presents the temporal distribution of co-cited references, mapping the evolving intellectual base of research on government actions targeting carbon emissions. The CiteSpace timeline shows clear shifts in dominant themes across years.

From 2010 to 2013, co-citation activity concentrates on foundational topics—policy, energy/China, CO₂ emissions, climate change, carbon emissions, and technology—indicating a baseline policy-and-inventory orientation. During 2014–2016, the network broadens toward implementation and governance, with frequent co-citations around carbon pricing, cap, governance, carbon market, air pollution, allocation, renewable energy, and government policy, marking the first consolidation of policy-instrument studies. The period 2017–2019 features method- and mechanism-focused clusters—decomposition, game theory, system dynamics, financial development, trade, and foreign direct investment—signaling a turn to causal pathways and economy–environment linkages.

A pronounced upswing appears from 2020 to 2021, where co-citation peaks align with evidence-based assessments: carbon emission reduction, coordination, urbanization, empirical evidence, and sustainable development. The most recent surge (2022–2024) is dominated by transition-oriented themes—carbon neutrality [62], green technology innovation, green finance, government intervention, evolutionary game theory, differential game, mediating/threshold effects, and renewable energy consumption—reflecting a pivot toward net-zero strategies and micro-mechanisms of policy impact. Entries in 2025 (e.g., agricultural carbon emissions, manufacturing industry, abatement subsidy) indicate a diffusion of attention to sector-specific abatement design.

Overall, the peaks and troughs in co-citation intensity track three waves: (i) foundational policy and inventory (2010–2013), (ii) instrument design and governance (2014–2019), and (iii) net-zero transition with innovation-finance mechanisms (2020–2024+). The progression suggests a cumulative move from problem definition to policy instruments and finally to coordinated decarbonization strategies integrating technology, finance, and behavioral/game-theoretic mechanisms.

3.4. Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, results reflect the coverage and indexing practices of the Web of Science Core Collection and an English-language focus; relevant work in other databases or languages may be under-represented. Second, screening and search choices (query terms, inclusion/exclusion, de-duplication by DOI + title) can shape the corpus despite our transparent workflow (PRISMA flow, screening log). Third, science-mapping outputs depend on parameterization (e.g., thresholds, counting methods, pruning in CiteSpace/VOSviewer); alternative settings could yield different cluster boundaries or network salience. Fourth, citation-based indicators (e.g., total citations, citations per year, JCR quartiles) are proxies of visibility and venue characteristics, not direct measures of scientific quality or policy effectiveness; citation prominence does not equal endorsement. Fifth, country/region attribution and name disambiguation (e.g., corresponding/last-author rule, institutional variants) may introduce classification noise. Sixth, country-level denominators—population/area, number of researchers, and GERD or R&D as a share of GDP—were not integrated due to data-harmonization constraints; as a result, cross-country comparisons based on raw counts should be interpreted cautiously. Seventh, 2025 is a partial year, which may attenuate apparent late-period trends. Finally, bibliometric evidence is descriptive; it does not identify the causal impact of government policies on CO₂ emissions. Future work could triangulate multiple databases (e.g., Scopus/Dimensions), integrate harmonized R&D and researcher data, expand full-text mining, and scale citation-context/sentiment coding beyond the calibration subsample.

Finally, an important limitation of our bibliometric approach is the interpretation of citation counts. A high citation count shows a publication has drawn significant scholarly attention, but does not necessarily mean a direct positive contribution. Highly cited works can be foundational studies, frequently criticized papers, or seminal critiques that drive ongoing debates. Our analysis maps this attention without qualifying its nature. Future research could benefit from a qualitative citation context analysis to distinguish different forms of intellectual influence.

4. Current Challenges and Future Research Projections

Over the past 15 years, significant progress has been achieved in examining government measures regarding carbon emissions [68]. With the deepening of our comprehension, the emergence of new approaches and methods is unavoidable. Therefore, based on the results discussed in Section 3, we delineate the subsequent directions that deserve investigation in future studies.

In terms of research scope, while current studies have covered a wide range of countries and regions, our bibliometric analysis revealed significant disparities in citation intensity across geopolitical clusters, indicating that contextual factors like political systems and economic development levels may moderate the effectiveness of government actions. There is still a need to delve deeper into specific contexts that our co-occurrence network analysis identified as underrepresented, such as developing economies in Southeast Asia and Africa. For instance, exploring how government actions on carbon emissions vary across different political systems, economic development levels, and cultural backgrounds could provide more nuanced insights into the regional patterns observed in our keyword co-occurrence maps. This would involve conducting comparative studies that take into account these diverse factors and their interactions [65].

Regarding research methods, although the use of VOSviewer and Citespace software in this study has offered valuable visualizations of thematic evolution and citation networks, our analysis of methodological co-occurrence showed a lack of integration between bibliometric tools and advanced quantitative models. There is room for incorporating more advanced analytical techniques to address the limitations identified in our methodometric analysis, where 78% of studies relied solely on descriptive statistics. For example, machine learning algorithms could be employed to identify hidden patterns and relationships within the large-scale data on government actions and carbon emissions that our initial cluster analysis only partially uncovered. This would enable a more data-driven and precise understanding of the complex dynamics at play in the non-linear relationships suggested by our bibliometric coupling results.

Moreover, future research should pay more attention to the long-term impacts of government actions. Most of the existing studies focus on short-term effects, but it is crucial to assess how these measures influence carbon emissions over extended periods. This would require longitudinal studies that track changes over several years or even decades, providing a more comprehensive picture of the effectiveness of government interventions.

Another important direction is to enhance the integration of interdisciplinary knowledge. Government actions on carbon emissions are not only related to environmental science, but also involve economics, politics, sociology, and other fields. By bringing together experts from different disciplines, a more holistic approach can be adopted to address the complex issue of carbon emissions. This could lead to the development of more innovative and effective policy recommendations [62].

Overall, by addressing these current challenges and pursuing the suggested future research directions, we can further advance our knowledge of government actions on carbon emissions and contribute to more effective global climate change mitigation strategies.

5. Conclusions

This paper provides a bibliometric science-mapping of research on government actions and carbon emissions (2010–2025). Using CiteSpace and VOSviewer, we chart the field’s outputs, influential journals and works, collaboration structures, and the evolution of themes. Our aim is descriptive: map how the literature has approached government actions, not to estimate the causal impact of specific policies.

The field has expanded rapidly, with persistent cores around carbon pricing and regulatory approaches, and emerging clusters on carbon neutrality, innovation/green finance, and urbanization. Country- and institution-level collaboration networks reveal major hubs and bridge actors—most notably China, the United Kingdom, and the United States—that connect otherwise separate communities. To contextualize quantity with indicators of visibility and venue characteristics, we report age-adjusted citations (citations per year) and journal-quartile shares (JCR), and we accompany top-cited lists with a citation-context check (substantive analysis vs. passing mention; supportive/neutral/critical). Taken together, these results show where attention and influence concentrate, and how research foci have shifted over time

Implications: The mapping identifies where empirical evaluation is most needed: heterogeneous effects of pricing vs. standards, the role of policy mixes and sequencing, and distributional/competitiveness consequences across development contexts. It also highlights opportunities for cross-disciplinary work that links climate policy, innovation, finance, and urban studies.

Limitations and avenues for future work: Findings reflect the Web of Science coverage and an English-language focus; search and screening choices (query terms, inclusion/exclusion, de-duplication) shape the corpus despite our transparent workflow. Science-mapping outputs depend on parameter settings (thresholds, counting, pruning), and citation-based indicators capture visibility rather than intrinsic scientific quality or policy effectiveness—citation prominence does not equal endorsement. Name/affiliation disambiguation and country attribution (corresponding/last-author rule) may introduce noise; 2025 is a partial year. Future work could triangulate multiple databases, integrate harmonized denominators (researchers, GERD as % of GDP), scale citation-context and sentiment analysis beyond the calibration subsample, and connect this mapping to causal impact studies of specific policy instruments.

Overall, this study clarifies where evidence has accumulated, where gaps persist, and how descriptive bibliometric insights can inform agenda-setting for rigorous empirical assessments of government policy effectiveness on carbon emissions.