The carbon footprint challenge: A holistic review of causes, impacts and global solutions

Introduction

The concept of "footprint" was originally developed by William Rees and Mathis Wackernagel at the University of British Columbia in 1992, with its roots in the idea of the ecological footprint, a metric designed to assess human demands on Earth's ecosystems. Over time, this idea has evolved into the widely recognized term "carbon footprint," which refers to the total volume of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and other greenhouse gases emitted due to the activities of individuals, organizations, events, or products (Carbon Trust, 2007) [17] . In the United States, the average personal carbon footprint is currently estimated at approximately 16 tons, one of the highest globally, while the global average hovers around 4 tons per capita (Bhalawe et al., 2023) [13] . The largest contributors to global CO₂ emissions China, the United States, the European Union, and India together account for roughly 60% of the global total (Crippa et al., 2022) [23] . To prevent a rise in global temperatures by 2°C, a critical threshold beyond which catastrophic climate impacts become more likely, the global average carbon footprint must be reduced to below 2 tons per person by 2050 (Bhalawe et al., 2023) [13] . This goal aligns with the objectives of the Paris Agreement, which aims to limit the global temperature increase to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, with additional efforts to keep the increase to 1.5 °C (Gera, 2018) [33] . The consensus on the severe threat posed by climate change has grown, with significant evidence pointing to human-generated greenhouse gas emissions as the primary driver of environmental degradation. Among greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide accounts for around 70% of total emissions (IPCC, 2007). Major sources of CO₂ emissions include the burning of fossil fuels for heating, electricity production, and transportation (Government of India [GOI], 2015). Furthermore, the indirect emissions associated with the production, transportation, and disposal of goods and services highlight the broad environmental impacts of human activity.

Effectively addressing the diverse challenges posed by climate change requires precise quantification of carbon emissions across all sectors. The principle that "only what is measurable is controllable" underscores the importance of carbon footprint assessments in developing and implementing mitigation strategies. These measurements are essential for reducing emissions and achieving sustainability targets. Although research on carbon footprints has expanded, there remains a lack of comprehensive review studies in the field. Many existing reviews tend to focus on specific methods or applications, often neglecting broader theoretical advancements or research trends. Bibliometric analysis offers a quantitative method for evaluating the literature, identifying key areas of focus, and illuminating the underlying theoretical and knowledge structures within carbon footprint research. This study seeks to fill this gap by conducting a thorough review of the carbon footprint literature using bibliometric techniques. The study has four key objectives: (1) to clarify the concept of the carbon footprint; (2) to identify and analyze the main drivers of carbon footprints; (3) to investigate the environmental and societal effects of carbon footprints; and (4) to explore potential solutions and strategies for effectively mitigating carbon footprints. By synthesizing scattered information and offering a comprehensive understanding of carbon footprint dynamics, this study aims to provide valuable insights for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners working to promote sustainability and address climate change on a global scale.

Methodology 2.1 Study Design

This study employed a systematic literature review combined with bibliometric analysis to synthesize and evaluate existing research on the causes, impacts, and mitigation strategies of the carbon footprint. The methodology was structured in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to ensure a comprehensive and transparent review process.

Data Sources and Search Strategy

A comprehensive search was conducted across multiple academic databases to identify relevant literature published between January 2000 and December 2023. The databases searched included:

The search strategy was developed using a combination of keywords and Boolean operators to capture a broad spectrum of studies related to the carbon footprint. The primary search terms included:  "carbon footprint"  "greenhouse gas emissions"  "climate change"  "carbon footprint measurement methods"  "causes of carbon footprint"  "effects of carbon footprint"  "carbon sequestration"  "renewable energy"  "sustainable agriculture"  "carbon emission reduction strategies"  "mitigation of carbon footprint" These keywords were applied both individually and in combination using Boolean operators (AND, OR) to refine the search results. For example:  ("carbon footprint" OR "greenhouse gas emissions") AND ("climate change" OR "global warming") AND ("mitigation strategies" OR "reduction methods")

Reference lists of relevant articles were also examined to identify additional studies not captured in the initial database searches.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

To ensure the relevance and quality of the included studies, the following inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied: Studies were not excluded based on quality assessment scores; however, the appraisal informed the synthesis and interpretation of findings.

Bibliometric Analysis

A bibliometric analysis was conducted to identify research trends, influential authors, key journals, and collaboration networks within the field of carbon footprint research. Data for the bibliometric analysis were obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus databases. The analysis utilized software tools such as VOSviewer and CiteSpace to visualize:  Publication trends over time.  Co-authorship networks.  Citation analysis to identify highly cited works.  Keyword co-occurrence to reveal emerging themes and research hotspots.

Data Synthesis and Analysis

A thematic synthesis approach was employed to analyze and integrate the findings from the included studies. The synthesis was structured around the four key objectives of this review:  Clarification of the Carbon Footprint Concept: Definitions, measurement methods, and theoretical frameworks were compared and contrasted.  Identification of Main Drivers: Analysis of the primary anthropogenic activities contributing to carbon footprints.

 Investigation of Environmental and Societal Effects:

Examination of the impacts of carbon footprints on climate change, ecosystems, and human societies.  Exploration of Mitigation Strategies: Evaluation of proposed solutions, their effectiveness, and implementation challenges.

Quantitative data were presented using descriptive statistics, while qualitative findings were synthesized narratively. Visual aids such as tables, charts, and graphs were used to enhance the presentation of results.

PRISMA Flow Diagram

The study selection process is illustrated in Figure 1, the PRISMA flow diagram, which details the number of records identified, screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review. Reasons for exclusion at each stage are provided to ensure transparency in the selection process.

Results and Discussion

Types of Emissions

Carbon footprint emissions can be broadly categorized into three main types: direct, indirect, and embodied emissions (Fig. 2). [41] . These emissions, part of Scope 3, are particularly impactful in industries like construction and manufacturing (Malmqvist et al., 2011) [76] . For instance, embodied carbon in building materials like concrete and steel includes emissions from their production and transport to construction sites (Pomponi & Moncaster, 2016) [95] .

Reducing embodied emissions is essential to minimize the overall carbon footprint across product lifecycles.

Causes of the Carbon Footprint

Literature reviews identify several key factors that contribute significantly to carbon footprint emissions (Figs. 3 &4). These include industrial activities, agricultural practices, energy consumption in domestic and commercial sectors, transportation, and land-use changes (Table 1). [57,69] . These processes, particularly energy-inefficient machinery, release significant amounts of carbon dioxide and other GHGs. [34,109] . Deforestation and land-use changes for agriculture also release large amounts of carbon stored in forests and peatlands (FAO, 2020).

Domestic and Commercial Energy Consumption:

The residential and commercial sectors contribute to the carbon footprint mainly through energy consumption for heating, cooling, and electricity, which are often generated using fossil fuels (IEA, 2019). Waste management practices like landfilling also release methane and carbon dioxide, adding to emissions (Barker et al., 2019) [11] . 4. Transportation: Transportation is a significant source of carbon emissions, particularly due to the burning of gasoline and diesel in vehicles, planes, and ships (Sperling & Gordon, 2009) [110] . Increasing global transportation demand and reliance on non-renewable energy sources have escalated emissions from this sector. [45,105] .

Approach to Calculating the Carbon Footprint

Calculating a carbon footprint involves a structured five-step process (Carbon Trust, 2007; Awanthi & Navaratne, 2018) [17,9] [32,22] . This "cradle-to-grave" approach assesses emissions at each stage, from raw material extraction to disposal, and is quantified through environmental lifecycle assessments (Pandey et al., 2011; Shabir et al., 2023) [91,106] .  Organizational Carbon Footprint: Organizational carbon footprints are calculated using a systematic approach, which involves setting clear boundaries for the organization, determining operational emissions (including Scope 1 and Scope 2), and optionally including Scope 3 emissions (Hammerschlag & Barbour, 2003; Loyarte-Lopez et al., 2020) [40,72] . Accurate carbon footprint calculations rely on thorough data collection, and the results are often verified by third parties for credibility.

Effects of Carbon Footprints

Rising concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere pose a significant threat to global ecosystems, with increasing CO₂ levels leading to drastic environmental changes (McMichael & Lindgren, 2011) [78] . Since the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO₂ concentrations have risen from 280 ppm to over 412 ppm, contributing to climate change impacts such as altered temperature patterns, ocean acidification, and ecosystem disruption (Kabir et al., 2023) [60] .

The key impacts of elevated carbon footprints include: [16,1] . These changes threaten both ecosystems and human health.

Food Security: Rising temperatures and altered

precipitation patterns affect global agricultural productivity, threatening food and nutritional security as population growth pressures agricultural systems (Zhang et al., 2021) [123] .

Depletion of Natural Resources: Human activities,

including resource extraction and environmental degradation, contribute to the depletion of natural resources and worsen environmental quality (Joshua & Bekun, 2020; Magazzino et al., 2020) [59,73] . [79,46] . 7. Marine Ecosystem Damage: Marine ecosystems are experiencing rising temperatures, increased CO₂ concentrations, and pollution, which have disrupted species distributions and coral reef ecosystems (Jan et al., 2023) [56] . 8. Habitat Destruction: Human activities, particularly deforestation and urbanization, have led to widespread habitat destruction, reducing biodiversity and contributing to species extinction (Laurance, 2010; Bodo et al., 2021) [66,15] .

Greenhouse Effect Intensification

Solutions to Reduce Carbon Footprint Carbon Sequestration: A Strategy to Mitigate Carbon Footprint

Carbon sequestration is one of the most prominent strategies for mitigating atmospheric CO₂ levels (Lal, 2008) [64] . This process involves capturing and storing carbon in natural reservoirs such as oceans, vegetation, or soils, either through biological or physical mechanisms (Jose, 2009) [58] . Terrestrial ecosystems play a significant role in carbon sequestration, where vegetation, particularly trees, act as carbon sinks during their lifespan, storing carbon in biomass. Upon death, this biomass either contributes to soil carbon or releases CO₂ if combusted (Ramaswamy et al., 2001) [100] . This natural process offers an economically viable method of removing carbon from the atmosphere, storing it within ecosystems (Chavan & Rasal, 2010) [21] . Forests and agroforestry systems, in particular, have been identified as practical solutions for carbon sequestration due to their ability to store significant amounts of CO₂ in both vegetation and soils (Murthy et al., 2013) [83] .

Forests as Carbon Sequestration Agents

Forests store about 19% of the carbon in the Earth's biosphere, with 31% of this carbon in biomass and 69% in soils (IPCC, 2000). Tropical forests, in particular, are notable carbon reservoirs, with estimates suggesting they store approximately 428 billion tonnes of carbon (Lasco, 2001) [65] . Globally, forests sequester about 1.1 billion tonnes of carbon annually.

The Potential of Agroforestry in Carbon Footprint Reduction

Agroforestry, the integration of trees and shrubs into agricultural landscapes, plays a crucial role in enhancing carbon sequestration and mitigating climate change (Bijawan et al., 2016) [14] . Compared to monoculture practices, agroforestry systems sequester more carbon, which can be traded in carbon markets, providing economic incentives to farmers. Timber from agroforestry can also lock in carbon for long periods when used in industries like construction and paper production (Rahangdale & Koshta, 2016) [98] . Agroforestry systems contribute to both climate mitigation and secondary environmental benefits, such as biodiversity restoration, improved watershed hydrology, and enhanced food security (Murthy et al., 2013) [83] . These systems have been shown to store substantial amounts of carbon, particularly in tropical regions (Nair et al., 2009) [85] . The carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry globally has been estimated at 1.9 Pg C over the next 50 years, with substantial opportunities for enhancing carbon storage on degraded lands (Nair et al., 2009) [85] .

Organic Farming as a Strategy to Reduce Carbon Footprint

Organic farming is increasingly seen as a sustainable alternative to conventional agriculture, offering both environmental and health benefits. Excessive use of inorganic fertilizers depletes soil health and contributes to environmental pollution (Albiach et al., 2000) [5] . Organic farming promotes the use of organic matter to enhance soil fertility, reduce dependence on synthetic inputs, and lower greenhouse gas emissions (Quandt, 2021) [97] . The shift toward organic farming is driven by growing consumer awareness of the environmental impacts of conventional farming, which includes soil degradation and the negative effects of chemical fertilizers on human health and ecosystems (Meemken & Qaim, 2018) [80] . Organic farming improves soil quality, enhances microbial activity, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, thus contributing to a reduction in the agricultural carbon footprint.

Installation of Renewable Energy to Reduce Carbon Footprint

Transitioning to renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, hydroelectric, and biomass, is a critical global strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and achieving sustainable development (Kamau, 2024; Rahman et al., 2024) [61,99] . Renewable energy technologies offer substantial reductions in CO₂ emissions compared to fossil fuel-based systems, with solar photovoltaic (PV) systems emitting as low as 20 gCO₂e/kWh compared to over 1,000 gCO₂e/kWh from coal-fired plants (International Energy Agency, 2020) (Fig 5). The global adoption of renewable energy has already had significant impacts; in 2019 alone, renewable energy prevented approximately 2.6 gigatons of CO₂ emissions (IRENA, 2021). Lifecycle assessments confirm that renewable technologies, even considering their production and maintenance, have much lower total emissions compared to fossil fuels (European Commission, 2016).

Countries worldwide are adopting renewable energy technologies as part of their climate action strategies. For instance, India has set ambitious targets under its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), aiming for 50% of its installed power capacity to come from non-fossil fuel sources by 2030 (GOI, 2023) (Table 2). This transition not only reduces carbon emissions but also provides long-term economic and public health benefits by improving air quality and reducing reliance on fossil fuels.

Other Solutions

Several other strategies have been proposed to reduce carbon footprints across various sectors. For example, Accorsi et al.

(2017) [22] optimized warehouse design to reduce carbon emissions by 1%, while carbon mineralization techniques in power plants can capture up to 95% of CO₂ emissions (Alturki, 2022) [6] . In the realm of smart cities, IoT-enabled buildings have reduced carbon footprints by over 22% (Asopa et al., 2021) [8] , while sustainable supply chain practices have been adopted by nearly 75% of major international companies (Ghosh et al., 2020) [36] . Furthermore, advancements in product design, such as low-carbon approaches using Weighted Edge Coloured Graphs (He & Yu, 2021) [42] , and alternative construction materials, like geopolymeric mortar, have significantly reduced emissions (Mellado et al., 2014) [81] .

In agriculture, renewable energy integration in dairy farms has cut carbon emissions by 3,920 t CO₂eq (Minoofar et al., 2023) [82] , and optimization of residential building heating systems has minimized both operational and embodied carbon footprints (Pal et al., 2017) [90] . Other innovative solutions, such as transitioning blockchain platforms from Proof of Work (PoW) to Proof of Stake (PoS), have the potential to reduce energy consumption by 99%, highlighting the diverse approaches available for reducing carbon footprints across industries. These solutions underscore the broad range of possibilities for reducing carbon footprints, from energy transitions to sustainable practices in various sectors. Other Energy 10% All emissions from the energy sector that are not directly associated with electricity or heat production, such as fuel extraction, refining, and processing.

Recommendations for

References

1. Abram NJ, Henley BJ, Gupta AS, Lippmann TJR, Clarke H, Dowdy AJ, Sharples JJ, Nolan RH, Zhang T, Wooster MJ, Wurtzel JB, Meissner KJ, Pitman AJ, Ukkola AM, Murphy BP, Tapper NJ, Boer MM. Connections of climate change and variability to large and extreme forest fires in southeast Australia. Communications Earth & Environment. 2021;2(1):1-13. doi:10.1038/s43247-020-00065-8.
2. Accorsi R, Bortolini M, Gamberi M, Manzini R, Pilati F. Multi-objective warehouse building design to optimise cycle time, total cost, and carbon footprint. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 2017;92:839-854.
3. Ackbarali DS, Maharaj R. Mini livestock ranching: solution to reducing the carbon footprint and negative environmental impacts of agriculture. Environmental Sustainability and Climate Change Adaptation Strategies. 2017:278-302.
4. Ahima RS. Global warming threatens human thermoregulation and survival. Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2020;130(2):559-561. doi:10.1172/JCI135006.
5. Albiach R, Canet R, Pomares F, Ingelmo F. Content of microbial biomass and enzymatic activities after the application of organic amendments to a horticultural soil. Bioresource Technology. 2000;75(1):43-48. doi:10.1016/S0960-8524(00)00030-4.
6. Alturki A. The global carbon footprint and how new carbon mineralisation technologies can be used to reduce CO₂ emissions. ChemEngineering. 2022;6(1):44. doi:10.3390/chemengineering6010044.
7. Amer EAAA, Meyad EMA, Meyad AM, Mohsin AKM. The impact of natural resources on environmental degradation: a review of ecological footprint and CO₂ emissions as indicators. Frontiers in Environmental Science. 2024;12:1368125. doi:10.3389/fenvs.2024.1368125.
8. Asopa P, Purohit P, Nadikattu R, Whig P. Reducing carbon footprint for sustainable development of smart cities using IoT. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Intelligent Communication Technologies and Virtual Mobile Networks; 2021. p. 52-60. doi:10.1109/ICICV2021.9422670.
9. Awanthia MGG, Navaratne CM. Carbon footprint of an organization: a tool for monitoring impacts on global warming. Procedia Engineering. 2018;212:729-735. doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2018.01.094.
10. Badalingappanavar R, Hanumanthappa M, Veeranna HK, Kolakar S, Khidrapure G. Organic fertilizer management in the cultivation of medicinal and aromatic crops: a review. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2018;3(1):126-129.
11. Barker S, Turner S, Hirst E. Waste management and carbon emissions: a comprehensive review. Environmental Research Letters. 2019;14(7):073002.
12. Bartolini M, Faccio M, Ferari E, Gamberi M, Pilati F. Sustainable distribution of fresh foods: cost, delivery time and three-objective carbon footprint optimisation. Journal of Food Engineering. 2016;2:1-12. doi:10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2016.08.007.
13. Bhalawe S, Nayak D, Pandre BP, Ahirwar RP. An overview study of carbon footprint. Indian Journal of Tropical Biodiversity. 2023;31(1):5-9.
14. Bijawan A, Dobriyal MJR, Thakur TK. Carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry trees (agroforests) in India. New York Science Journal. 2016;9(7):76-81.
15. Bodo T, Gimah BG, Seomoni KJ. Deforestation and habitat loss: human causes, consequences and possible solutions. Journal of Geographical Research. 2021;4:22-30.
16. Bolan S, Padhye LP, Jasemizad T, Govarthanan M, Karmegam N, Wijesekara H, Amarasiri D, Hou D, Zhou P, Biswal BK, Balasubramanian R, Wang H, Siddique KHM, Rinklebe J, Kirkham MB, Bolan N. Impacts of climate change on the fate of contaminants through extreme weather events. Science of the Total Environment. 2024;909:168388. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168388.
17. Carbon Trust. Carbon footprinting: an introduction for organisations. London: The Carbon Trust; 2007. p. 1-5.
18. CDP. Global supply chain report. London: Carbon Disclosure Project; 2022.
19. Chauhan SK, Dhillon WS, Srinidhi HV. Adoption of hortisilvicultural models in Punjab, India. Asia-Pacific Agroforestry Newsletter. 2007;29:12-13.
20. Chavan SB, Dhillon RS, Sirohi C, Uthappa AR, Jinger D, Jatav HS, Chichaghare AR, Kakade V, Paramesh V, Kumari S, Yadav DK, Minkina T, Rajput VD. Carbon sequestration potential of commercial agroforestry systems in IndoGangetic Plains of India: poplar-and eucalyptus-based agroforestry systems. Forests. 2023;14(3):559.
21. Chavan BL, Rasal GB. Sequestered standing carbon stock in selective tree species grown in university campus at Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India. International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology. 2010;2(7):30033007.
22. Chukka NDKR, Arivumangai A, Kumar S, Subashchandrabose R, Reddy YBS, Natrayan L, Debela GC. Environmental impact and carbon footprint assessment of sustainable buildings: an experimental investigation. Adsorption Science & Technology. 2022;2022:1-8.
23. Crippa M, Guizzardi D, Banja M, Solazzo E, Muntean M, Schaaf E, Pagani F, Monforti-Ferrario F, Olivier JGJ, Quadrelli R, Risquez Martin A, Taghavi-Moharamli P, Grassi G, Rossi S, Oom D, Branco A, San-Miguel J, Vignati E. CO₂ emissions of all world countries: JRC/IEA/PBL 2022 report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2022.
24. Davidson EA, Galloway JN, Millar N, Leach AM. N-related greenhouse gases in North America: innovations for a sustainable future. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2014;9:1-8.
25. Dhyani SK, Newaj R, Sharma AP. Agroforestry: its relation with agronomy, challenges, and opportunities. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2009;54:249-266.
26. Dixon RK. Agroforestry systems: sources or sinks of greenhouse gases? Agroforestry Systems. 1995;31(2):99116.
27. Doney SC, Ruckelshaus M, Duffy JE, Barry JP, Chan F, English CA, Galindo HM, Grebmeier JM, Hollowed AB, Knowlton N, Polovina J, Rabalais NN, Sydeman WJ, Talley LD. Climate change impacts on marine ecosystems. Annual Review of Marine Science. 2012;4:11-37.
28. European Commission. European LCA methodology: LCA of electricity generation technologies results and recommendations from the environmental life cycle assessment of electricity generation technologies and applications in the European context. Brussels: European Commission; 2016.
29. European Environment Agency. Renewable energy in Europe 2019: recent growth and knock-on effects. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2019.
30. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Agricultural practices and greenhouse gas emissions: analysis and mitigation strategies. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2020.
31. Gao T, Liu Q, Wang A. A comparative study of carbon footprint and assessment standards. International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies. 2014;9:237-243. doi:10.1093/ijlct/ctt041.
32. Gera M. Climate change mitigation: role of forest sector. Indian Forester. 2018;144(2):177-127.
33. Gerber PJ, Steinfeld H, Henderson B, Mottet A, Opio C, Dijkman J, Falcucci A, Tempio G. Tackling climate change through livestock: a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2013.
34. GHG Protocol. Corporate value chain (Scope 3) accounting and reporting standard. Washington (DC): Greenhouse Gas Protocol; 2021.
35. Ghosh P, Jha A, Sharma R. Managing carbon footprint for a sustainable supply chain: a systematic literature review. Modern Supply Chain Research and Applications. 2020;2:26-41.
36. Government of India. Statistics related to climate change - India 2015. New Delhi: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Central Statistics Office, Social Statistics Division; 2015. p. 21-25.
37. Government of India. Report on optimal generation mix 2030, version 2.0. New Delhi: Government of India; 2023. p. 1-58.
38. Gutti B, Aji MM. Environmental impact of natural resources exploitation in Nigeria and the way forward. Journal of Applied Technology in Environmental Sanitation. 2012;2:95-102.
39. Hammerschlag R, Barbour W. Life-cycle assessment and indirect emission reductions: issues associated with ownership and trading. Seattle (WA): Institute for Lifecycle Environmental Assessment; 2003.
40. Hammond G, Jones C. Embodied carbon: the inventory of carbon and energy (ICE). Bracknell (UK): BSRIA; 2011.
41. He S, Yu Q. Sustainable product design for carbon footprint during the product life cycle. Journal of Engineering Design. 2021;1(1):1-19.
42. Health Affairs. The benefits of renewable energy use in the European Union. Health Affairs. 2018:1-10.
43. Holmner A, Ebi KL, Lazuardi L, Nilsson M. Carbon footprint of telemedicine solutions: unexplored opportunity for reducing carbon emissions in the health sector. PLOS ONE. 2014;9(9):e105040. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0105040.
44. Houghton RA. Carbon emissions from land use and landcover change. Biogeosciences. 2012;9(12):5125-5142.
45. Hsiang S, Kopp RE. An economist's guide to climate change science. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2018;32(4):3-32. doi:10.1257/jep.32.4.3.
46. International Energy Agency. World energy outlook 2019. Paris: International Energy Agency; 2019.
47. International Energy Agency. Global energy review 2020. Paris: International Energy Agency; 2020.
48. International Renewable Energy Agency. Global energy transformation: a roadmap to 2050. Abu Dhabi: International Renewable Energy Agency; 2021.
49. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Land use, land-use change and forestry: a special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.
50. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate change: the scientific basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.
51. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
52. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014.
53. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Global warming of 1.5 °C: an IPCC special report. Geneva: World Meteorological Organization; 2018.
54. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate change 2022: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC; 2022.
55. Jan SA, Khan Z, Shinwari HN, Abdullah A, Ali S, Siddique M, Afridi M, Khan M. Impact of climate change on marine biodiversity: current challenges and future perspectives. Proceedings of the Pakistan Academy of Sciences B: Life and Environmental Sciences. 2023;60:29-47.
56. Jones CM, Kammen DM. Quantifying carbon footprint reduction opportunities for U.S. households and communities. Environmental Science & Technology. 2015;45(9):4088-4095.
57. Jose S. Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agroforestry Systems. 2009;76:1-10.
58. Joshua U, Bekun FV. The path to achieving environmental sustainability in South Africa: the role of coal consumption, economic expansion, pollutant emission, and total natural resources rent. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2020;27:9435-9443. doi:10.1007/s11356-01907546-0.
59. Kabir M, Habiba UE, Khan W, Shah A, Rahim S, RiosEscalante PRD, Farooqi Z, Ali L, Shafiq M. Climate change due to increasing concentration of carbon dioxide and its impacts on the environment in the 21st century: a mini review. Journal of King Saud University Science. 2023;35:102693. doi:10.1016/j.jksus.2023.102693.
60. Kamau S. Efficiency of renewable energy sources in reducing carbon footprint in developing countries. International Journal of Environmental Sciences. 2024;7(2):1-12.
61. Kiehl JT, Trenberth KE. Earth's annual global mean energy budget. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 1997;78:197-208.
62. Kirby KR, Potvin C. Variation in carbon storage among tree species: implications for the management of a small-scale carbon sink project. Forest Ecology and Management. 2007;246:208-221. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.03.072.
63. Lal R. Carbon sequestration. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 2008;363(1492):815-830.
64. Lasco RD, Sales RF, Estrella R, Saplaco SR, Castillo ASA, Cruz RVO, Pulhin FB. Carbon stocks assessment of two agroforestry systems in the Makiling Forest Reserve, Philippines. Philippine Agricultural Scientist. 2001;84(4):401-407.
65. Laurance WF. Habitat destruction: death by a thousand cuts. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
66. Lazard. Lazard's levelized cost of energy analysis, version 14.0. New York: Lazard; 2020.
67. Le Treut H, Somerville R, Cubasch U, Ding Y, Mauritzen C, Mokssit A, et al. Historical overview of climate change science. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, et al., editors. Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007. p. 93-127.
68. Lee K, Na Y. Industrial energy consumption and carbon emissions: a comparative analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2017;141:722-735.
69. Liu W, Lin C, Chiu C, Tsao Y, Wang Q. Minimising the carbon footprint for the time-dependent heterogeneous-fleet vehicle routing problem with alternative paths. Sustainability. 2014;6:4658-4684.
70. Liu W, Yao S, Wang J, Liu M. Trends and features of agroforestry research based on bibliometric analysis. Sustainability. 2019;11:3473. doi:10.3390/su11123473.
71. Loyarte-Lopez E, Barral M, Morla JC. Methodology for carbon footprint calculation towards sustainable innovation in intangible assets. Sustainability. 2020;12:1629. doi:10.3390/su12041629.
72. Magazzino C, Bekun FV, Etokakpan MU, Uzuner G. Modeling the dynamic nexus among coal consumption, pollutant emissions and real income: empirical evidence from South Africa. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2020;27:8772-8782. doi:10.1007/s11356-01907345-7.
73. Mahato A, Upadhyay S, Sharma D. Global water scarcity due to climate change and its conservation strategies with special reference to India: a review. Plant Archives. 2022;22:64-69.
74. Malhi GS, Kaur M, Kaushik P. Impact of climate change on agriculture and its mitigation strategies: a review. Sustainability. 2021;13:1318.
75. Malmqvist T, et al. Life cycle assessment in the building sector: overview of drivers and barriers. Building and Environment. 2011;46(5):1133-1140.
76. Mbow C, Smith P, Skole D, Duguma L, Bustamante M. Achieving mitigation and adaptation to climate change through sustainable agroforestry practices in Africa. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2014;6:8-14. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.09.002.
77. McMichael AJ, Lindgren E. Climate change: present and future risks to health, and necessary responses. Journal of Internal Medicine. 2011;270:401-413. doi:10.1111/j.13652796.2011.02415.x.
78. McMichael AJ. Globalization, climate change, and human health. New England Journal of Medicine. 2013;368(14):1335-1343. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1109341.
79. Meemken EM, Qaim M. Organic agriculture, food security, and the environment. Annual Review of Resource Economics. 2018;10:39-63. doi:10.1146/annurev-resource100517-023252.
80. Mellado A, Catalan C, Bouzan N, Borrachero MV, Monzo JM, Paya J. Carbon footprint of geopolymeric mortar: study of the contribution of the alkaline activating solution and assessment of an alternative route. RSC Advances. 2014;3:1-21.
81. Minoofar A, Gholami A, Eslami S, Hajizaden A, Gholami A, Zandi M, Ameri M, Kazem HA. Renewable energy system opportunities: a sustainable solution toward cleaner production and reducing carbon footprint of large-scale dairy farms. Energy Conversion and Management. 2023;293:117554.
82. Murthy IK, Gupta M, Tomar S, Munsi M, Tiwari MR, Hegde GT, Ravindernath NH. Carbon sequestration potential of agroforestry systems in India. Journal of Earth Science and Climate Change. 2013;4(3):1-7. doi:10.4172/2157-7617.1000131.
83. Mutuo PK, Cadisch G, Albrecht A, Palm CA, Verchot L. Potential of agroforestry for carbon sequestration and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from soils in the tropics. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems. 2005;71:4354. doi:10.1007/s10705-004-5285-6.
84. Nair PKR, Kumar BM, Nair VD. Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science. 2009;172:10-23. doi:10.1002/jpln.200800030.
85. Nair PKR, Nair VD, Kumar BM, Showalter JM. Carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems. Advances in Agronomy. 2010;108:237-307. doi:10.1016/S00652113(10)08005-3.
86. Negash M, Starr M. Biomass and soil carbon stocks of indigenous agroforestry systems on the south-eastern Rift Valley escarpment, Ethiopia. Plant and Soil. 2015;393:95107. doi:10.1007/s11104-015-2469-6.
87. National Intelligence Council. India: the impact of climate change to 2030. Washington (DC): Joint Global Change Research Institute and Battelle Memorial Institute; 2009. p. 3-18.
88. Oelbermann M, Morgan S, Echarte L. Elevated carbon dioxide and temperature effects on soil properties from sole crops and intercrops. Soil Use and Management. 2022;38:435-447. doi:10.1111/sum.12752.
89. Pal SK, Takano A, Alanne K, Siren K. A life cycle approach to optimising carbon footprint and costs of a residential building. Building and Environment. 2017;15:132.
90. Pandey D, Agrawal M, Pandey JS. Carbon footprint: current methods of estimation. Environ Monit Assess. 2011;178(14):135-160. doi:10.1007/s10661-010-1678-y.
91. Paramesh V, Kumar RK, Rajanna GA, Gowda S, Nath AJ, Madival Y, Jinger D, Bhat S, Toraskar S. Integrated nutrient management for improving crop yields, soil properties, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2023;7:1-13. doi:10.3389/fsufs.2023.1173258.
92. Peng Y, Xu H, Wang Z, Li L, Shang J, Li B, et al. Effects of intercropping and drought on soil aggregation and associated organic carbon and nitrogen. Soil Use Manag. 2023;39:316-328. doi:10.1111/sum.12866.
93. Pimm SL, Raven P. Biodiversity: extinction by numbers. Nature. 2000;403:843-845.
94. Pomponi F, Moncaster A. Embodied carbon in the built environment: breaking the cycle. Build Environ. 2016;113:60-72.
95. Precedence Statistics. Fertilizer market global industry analysis, size, share, growth, trends, and forecast 20232032. 2023. p. 1-150.
96. Quandt A. Agroforestry trees for improved food security on farms impacted by wildlife crop raiding in Kenya. Trees For People. 2021;4:100069. doi:10.1016/j.tfp.2021.100069.
97. Rahangdale CP, Koshta LD. Biomass production and carbon sequestration potential under different land use systems in Jabalpur District of Madhya Pradesh. Adv Life Sci. 2016;5(21):9638-9642.
98. Rahman MM, Mohanty AK, Rahman MH. Renewable energy, forestry, economic growth, and demographic impact on carbon footprint in India. J Environ Stud Sci. 2024;14:415-427. doi:10.1007/s13412-024-00912-6.
99. Ramaswamy V, Boucher O, Haigh J. Radiative forcing of climate change. In: Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, et al., editors. Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001. p. 349-416.
100. Rees W. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity. Environ Urban. 1992;4(2):121-130.
101. Rees WE, Wackernagel M. Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island: New Catalyst Books; 1996.
102. Santoro A, Venturi M, Bertani R, Agnoletti M. Role of forests and agroforestry systems in FAO GIAHS programme. Forests. 2020;11:860. doi:10.3390/f11080860.
103. Saxena A, Chandel A, Dash AK, Gupta SK, Sampath KV, Pandey JP. Optimal economic sustainable clean energy solution with reduced carbon footprint. IEEE Trans Sustain Comput. 2023;8(3):1-5.
104. Seto KC, Güneralp B, Hutyra LR. Global forecasts of urban expansion to 2030 and impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;109(40):1608316088.
105. Shabir I, Dash KK, Dar AH, Pandey VK, Fayaz U, Srivastava S, Nisha R. Carbon footprints evaluation for sustainable food processing systems. Future Foods. 2023;7:100215. doi:10.1016/j.fufo.2023.100215.
106. Shi X, Xia H, Liu W, Chen X, Lackner KS, Buterin V, Stocker TF. Confronting the carbon footprint challenge of blockchain. 2023.
107. Siddiqui AS, Prashant. Optimal cumulative cost strategy for integrated thermal-solar distribution system. Int J Green Energy. 2022;20(3):237-256.
108. Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z, Gwary D, Janzen H, Kumar P, et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2008;363(1492):789-813.
109. Sperling D, Gordon D. Two billion cars: driving toward sustainability. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009.
110. The Nature Conservancy. Carbon footprint calculator. 2024. Available from: https://www.nature.org
111. Tran IA, Anayath R, Pai AS, Kamath N, Shenoy S, Harikrishnan A. Minimising carbon footprint for environmentally friendly printing. Proc ICEE-2012. 2012;37:514-527.
112. Trenberth KE, Dai A, van der Schrier G, Jones PD, Barichivich J, Briffa KR, et al. Global warming and changes in drought. Nat Clim Change. 2014;4:17-22. doi:10.1038/nclimate2067.
113. Ustun. Carbon footprint reduction in energy sector with higher penetration of renewable energy resources. In: Reducing carbon footprint in different sectors for sustainability. IntechOpen; 2024. doi:10.5772/intechopen.1005769.
114. Valls-Val K, Bovea MD. Carbon footprint in higher education institutions. Clean Technol Environ Policy. 2021;23:2523-2542. doi:10.1007/s10098-021-02180-2.
115. Vasconcelos BRD, Lavoie JM. Is dry reforming the solution to reduce the carbon footprint of natural gas? Int J Energy Prod Manag. 2018;3(1):44-56.
116. Wackernagel M, Rees W. Our ecological footprint: reducing human impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers; 1998.
117. Wiedmann T, Minx J. A definition of carbon footprint. 2008. p. 1-9. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net
118. World Resources Institute. Greenhouse gas protocol: corporate accounting and reporting standard. Washington (DC): WRI; 2015.
119. Wu X, Lu Y, Zhou S, Chen L, Xu B. Impact of climate change on human infectious diseases. Environ Int. 2016;86:14-23. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2015.09.007.
120. Xue N, Lu J, Gu D, Lou Y, Yuan Y, Li G, et al. Carbon footprints and carbon neutrality potential of electrodialysis desalination. Water Res. 2023;232:119716.
121. Zafar SA, Hameed A, Nawaz MA, Wei MA, Noor MA, Hussain M, Rahman M. Heat tolerance in rice (Oryza sativa L.) under climate change. J Integr Agric. 2018;17(4):726738. doi:10.1016/S2095-3119(17)61718-0.
122. Zhang Y, Niu H, Yu Q. Impacts of climate change and increasing carbon dioxide on crop yields in China. Ecol Indic. 2021;125:107588.