MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214943791 · doi:10.1139/er-2021-0111

Recent advances in carbon footprint studies of urban ecosystems: overview, application, and future challenges

2022· article· en· W4214943791 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Kexin Chen, Mingxia Yang, Xiaolu Zhou, Zelin Liu, Peng Li, Jiayi Tang, Changhui Peng

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCarbon footprintUrban ecosystemEnvironmental scienceFootprintLife-cycle assessmentEcosystemClimate changeEcological footprintEnvironmental resource managementGreenhouse gasUrban metabolismUrban planningSustainable developmentGeographyEcologyUrban densityEngineeringProduction (economics)Civil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban ecosystems are complex systems with anthropogenic features that generate considerable CO2 emissions, which contributes to global climate change. Quantitative estimates of the carbon footprint of urban ecosystems are crucial for developing low-carbon development policies to mitigate climate change. Herein, we reviewed more than 195 urban carbon footprint and carbon footprint related studies, collated the recent progress in carbon footprint calculation methods and research applications of the urban ecosystem carbon footprint, analyzed the research applications of the carbon footprint of different cities, and focused on the need to study the urban ecosystem carbon footprint from a holistic perspective. Specifically, we aimed to: (i) compare the strengths and weaknesses of five existing carbon footprint calculation methods [life cycle assessment, input–output analysis, hybrid life cycle assessment, carbon footprint calculator, and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)]; (ii) analyze the status of current research on the carbon footprint of different urban subregions based on different features; and (iii) highlight new methods and areas of research on the carbon footprint of future urban ecosystems. Not all carbon footprint accounting methods are applicable to the carbon footprint determination of urban ecosystems; although the IPCC method is more widely used than the others, the hybrid life cycle assessment method is more accurate. With the emergence of new science and technology, quantitative methods to calculate the carbon footprint of urban ecosystems have evolved, becoming more accurate. Further development of new technologies, such as big data and artificial intelligence, to assess the carbon footprint of urban ecosystems is anticipated to help address the emerging challenges in urban ecosystem research effectively to achieve carbon neutrality and urban sustainability under global change.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207