See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/382820864

A Review of Forest's Contribution to Mitigating Climate Change

Conference Paper · August 2024

CITATIONS READS
6 256

1 author:

Asif Raihan
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
176 PUBLICATIONS 7,579 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Asif Raihan on 10 August 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Asif Raihan*

Institute of Climate Change, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia

*Corresponding author: [email protected], ORCID ID: 0000-0001-9757-9730

Abstract
Currently, climate change is acknowledged as a major global issue, presenting a possible danger to the environment
and nearly all facets of human existence. Since the inception of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change in 1992, numerous endeavors have been undertaken to alleviate the impact of climate change, however
significant progress remains elusive. Climate change projections indicate that temperatures will persistently increase,
and there will be a greater occurrence of severe weather events that are longer in duration and more intense. In response
to these concerns, the 2015 Paris Agreement was established as the fundamental basis for mitigating the effects of
climate change. Its primary objective is to restrict global warming to below 2 ◦C and ideally limit the temperature
increase to below 1.5 ◦C. In order to accomplish this global objective, concentrated efforts to reduce the impact will
be necessary. Climate change exerts a significant influence on forests, stimulating their expansion while also
presenting hazards to their well-being. On the other hand, forests can help alleviate climate change by significantly
affecting global surface temperatures through their impact on the exchange of energy between the land and the
atmosphere, as well as by absorbing large quantities of carbon dioxide (CO2) through photosynthesis. As a result, the
practice of planting trees and restoring forests has become essential elements of global efforts to reduce the impact of
climate change. This study is to provide a concise overview of the latest research on the contribution of forests to
mitigating climate change, with a particular focus on their ability to absorb and store carbon. The overall effectiveness
of afforestation/reforestation in mitigating climate change depends on careful strategic planning, efficient
implementation, and the specific characteristics of the local forest. Combining afforestation and reforestation with
other carbon removal technologies has the potential to improve the long-term efficiency of carbon storage. In essence,
achieving successful climate change mitigation involves the restoration and establishment of forests, in addition to the
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Keywords: Forest; Climate change; Afforestation; Reforestation; Mitigation; Sustainability

1. Introduction

The climate continuously interacts with natural ecosystems and humans, impacting various elements of life such
as work, nutrition, health, economy, and overall well-being [1]. The industrial revolution has led to the excessive
consumption of fossil fuels and changes in land use [2-9]. As a result, weather patterns have been disturbed, causing
impacts that often exceed the resilience limitations of ecosystems [10-12]. Climate change is associated with various
negative consequences, such as food insecurity, decreased access to and quality of drinkable water, loss of biodiversity,
spread of infectious diseases, damage to infrastructure, and increased strain on public health [13-17]. Therefore, it is
considered one of the most crucial obstacles that the contemporary world confronts [18-25].
The global governmental recognition of climate change as an issue occurred some 50 years ago, and since then,
attempts to reduce its impact have been consistently growing [26-32]. Key achievements in this undertaking comprise
the ratification of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the 1992 United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), commonly referred to as the Earth Summit, the

1
endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, and the formation of the Paris Agreement in 2015. The Paris Agreement
established lofty objectives, seeking to restrict the increase in the global average temperature to significantly less than
2 ◦C compared to pre-industrial levels, intending to cap it at 1.5 ◦C [33]. Aligned with these endeavors, the European
Union has assumed a prominent position in the fight against climate change by spearheading the Green Deal, to attain
climate neutrality by the year 2050 [34].
Recently, there has been a growing emphasis among policymakers and the scientific community on nature-based
solutions as they intensify their efforts to establish measures and policies to address climate change [35-37]. These
solutions consist of a comprehensive framework of integrated ecosystem-based techniques designed to tackle societal
and environmental concerns, considering environmental, social, and economic factors and their interrelationships.
Nature-based solutions encompass the conservation, rehabilitation, and sustainable governance of natural ecosystems,
such as forests, wetlands, grasslands, and coastal regions [38,39]. Given the ability of trees to absorb and store carbon
dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, implementing reforestation initiatives as part of nature-based solutions could be
highly impactful in combating climate change [40].
Aside from their influence on climate, trees and forests provide other supplementary advantages, such as the
preservation of biodiversity, the retention of soil and water, the reduction of air and water pollution, and the promotion
of economic growth [41]. Urban trees have a vital role in reducing the urban heat island effect, which refers to the
phenomenon of higher temperatures in metropolitan regions relative to nearby suburban and rural areas [42,43]. There
is now data indicating that forests have a beneficial impact on individuals' ability to concentrate, manage anxiety and
depression, and improve their general emotional and mental well-being [44]. Forests have a diverse and important
role, offering essential advantages to both the environment and humanity [45].
This review seeks to clarify the function of forests in mitigating climate change by comprehensively analyzing the
various aspects of the underlying interactions. This study examines the influence of trees on climate, including their
ability to remove and store carbon, as well as the impact of biophysical processes like evapotranspiration and surface
albedo. The analysis examines both natural and human-caused disruptions that impact forest ecosystems. Moreover,
it assesses the effectiveness of afforestation and reforestation in capturing and storing carbon, while simultaneously
analyzing their impact on food security. Furthermore, it examines the overall consequences of these acts, as well as
the intricate aspects that influence their efficacy. In summary, this study enhances our comprehension of the connection
between forests and climate, emphasizing the significance of afforestation and reforestation in worldwide endeavors
to alleviate climate change.

2. Forests’ Impact on Climate

Forests are intricate ecosystems abundant with a wide variety of plant and animal life [46]. The Food Agriculture
Organization (FAO) of the United Nations (UN) defines a forest as a land area that is more than 0.5 hectares, with
trees that are at least 5 meters tall or have the potential to attain this height. Additionally, the forest must have a canopy
cover that exceeds 10% [47].
The influence of forests on climate is mostly associated with the biochemical mechanisms of trees, such as
photosynthesis, which affect the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere and play a crucial role in the carbon cycle [48].
Forests contain many plant life, including trees, which absorb and store CO2 from the atmosphere through the process
of photosynthesis [49]. A portion of this carbon is sequestered in the trunks, branches, and roots of trees and plants, as
well as in decaying organic matter and soil [50]. The remaining portion is emitted into the atmosphere as CO2,
primarily through the respiration of trees and plants, as well as the decomposition of deceased organic matter [51].
CO2 emissions can result not only from respiration, but also from forestry activities associated with their management,
as well as from deforestation and degradation caused by natural disturbances such as fires and droughts, and human
interventions such as deforestation for land use change and timber exploitation [52].
The balance between carbon stocks and emissions in forest ecosystems has a significant influence on climate [53].
A forest is considered a net carbon sink when it sequesters and retains more carbon than it releases within a specific
timeframe [54]. Alternatively, it is seen as a carbon emitter [55]. While carbon stocks in forest ecosystems vary due
to factors like biodiversity, tree characteristics, climate, and forest management, globally, forest ecosystems serve as

2
net carbon sinks, helping to reduce the rise in global average temperature [56]. The worldwide forest carbon stock in
2020 was estimated to be around 662 gigatonnes (Gt), with 44% of this carbon assigned to the bulk of trees, including
their root system, wood, bark, and leaves. Another 45% was attributed to soil organic matter, while the remaining
carbon was found in deadwood and litter [47].
Nevertheless, Tubiello et al. [57] have documented those trees functioned as modest net carbon emitters on a
worldwide scale over time intervals spanning from 1990 to 2020. This was likely caused by widespread deforestation
and heightened forest degradation, primarily resulting from human activities [58]. Furthermore, it has been discovered
that trees can be affected by high temperatures and increased Vapor Pressure Deficits (VPDs), leading to disruptions
in their equilibrium by impacting photosynthesis and respiration. This has the potential to weaken the function of
forests as carbon sinks [59]. However, it is crucial to recognize that the modeling and quantification of carbon fluxes
in forest ecosystems are intricate procedures [60]. The outcomes of their work are subject to a significant level of
uncertainty due to the influence of various factors, including the data utilized, the methodology employed, and the
assumptions made [61,62].
In addition to its effect on the carbon cycle, forests have an influence on the climate, particularly at smaller scales
such as local and regional levels, through biophysical processes such as reflection (albedo), evapotranspiration, and
canopy roughness [63]. Forests have a lower albedo compared to dirt, snow, grazing fields, cultivated lands, and low
vegetation due to their dark color [64]. As a result, forests take in a higher proportion of the sun's energy, which leads
to increased warming of the climate at the local and/or regional scale [65]. In addition, a fraction of the solar radiation
is absorbed through evapotranspiration. This process entails the vaporization of water from the soil surface and plants,
as well as transpiration, which involves the movement of water through the root system from the soil to the leaves and
its release as water vapor [66]. Evapotranspiration is the process by which sensible heat, which is caused by an increase
in air temperature, is transformed into latent heat. This latent heat then causes water to shift from a liquid state to a
gaseous state, forming water vapor. In addition, the forest canopy's relatively high roughness promotes the vertical
mixing of air and facilitates the transmission of latent heat (in the form of water vapor) to higher altitudes, resulting
in localized soil cooling [67].
Overall, the impact of biophysical systems on climate is intricate and diverse, contingent upon regional attributes.
Biophysical systems can either amplify or mitigate heat storage, so influencing climate warming or cooling,
accordingly [68,69]. Conversely, the interconnections between biophysical mechanisms and their collective influence
on climate display significant regional variability, making it difficult to accurately quantify [66]. In general, the
warming effect is stronger at higher latitudes due to the low albedo of forests, whereas the cooling effect is weaker
due to evapotranspiration. In tropical climates, the poor albedo of forests leads to an increase in soil temperature.
However, this is balanced out by the high evapotranspiration rates, which induce severe cooling. As a result, there is
a net cooling effect on the climate every year [70]. Conversely, in the boreal forest, the increase in temperature
produced by low albedo is much greater than the decrease induced by evapotranspiration, particularly in winter when
there is usually a lot of snow [71]. The influence of the biophysical mechanisms of temperate woods on climate is yet
unknown. Regardless of the climate zone, the biophysical mechanisms of forests are crucial in mitigating both daily
and yearly temperature variations, as well as regulating severe temperatures in the summer, especially during daylight
hours [71].
Forests are crucial for maintaining climate stability and mitigating climate change [72]. However, it is important
to acknowledge that their capacity to fulfill this function is progressively endangered by a mix of natural and human-
induced stressors [73].

3. Anthropogenic and Natural Forest Disturbances

Human activities, such as deforestation, logging, and wood harvesting for fuel, along with natural phenomena like
storms, fires, droughts, diseases caused by fungi, pests, or insects, and other extreme weather events, constantly exert
stress on forest ecosystems [74]. Due to climate change, it is anticipated that there will be a rise in the frequency and
intensity of natural disturbances, which is dependent on local climate conditions [75-79]. The cumulative impact of
these disruptions poses a significant threat to the long-term viability of forests, compromising their ability to sequester

3
carbon [80]. Between 2005 and 2008, the Amazonian forests had an average carbon loss rate of 0.3 PgC per year [81].
This loss was mainly caused by the extended drought in 2005.
Despite sustained global endeavors in recent decades, deforestation persists as a significant environmental issue
[82]. Between 1990 and 2020, almost 420 million hectares of forests were destroyed worldwide. The rate of
deforestation decreased by 5.6 million hectares per year from 1990 to 2000, and this trend continued until 2015-2020
[47]. Between 2012 and 2021, deforestation was responsible for around 17% of the total annual global CO2 emissions.
This amounts to over 6.6 gigatonnes of CO2 per year, which is equivalent to roughly 1.8 gigatonnes of carbon [83].
The tropics played the biggest role in these emissions [84]. The estimated annual CO2 emissions caused only by
tropical deforestation range from 2.3 to 6.2 gigatonnes [85]. However, it is important to exercise caution when
comparing CO2 emissions since these values are contingent upon the methodology and assumptions utilized in their
computation, as well as the specific time period being considered [86].
Moreover, while wildfires are natural events in forest ecosystems that have a crucial function in regulating
ecological processes and supporting important ecosystem services, as well as promoting the preservation and
improvement of biodiversity, they are also one of the most widespread disturbances that impact forests worldwide
[87]. Although there has been a decline in burnt areas worldwide in the past twenty years, there has been a small rise
in emissions from forest fires [88]. The annual CO2 emissions from wildfires in the Alaskan and Canadian boreal
forests were projected to be 57.1 TgC between 1986 and 2016 [89]. Between 2002 and 2020, the average annual
emissions from wildfires in Siberia were expected to be 80 ± 20 Tg C per year. Nevertheless, there were occasional
significant surges during this timeframe, with the year 2020 registering the greatest emissions at around 350 Tg C per
year [90]. Furthermore, it was projected that the Southeast Australian wildfires emitted approximately 715 Tg CO2
(517–867 Tg CO2) during the summer season of 2019–2020 [91]. Between 2001 and 2018, fires impacted almost 7.2
billion hectares worldwide, with 29% of these fires occurring in tree-covered regions inside the tropics, regardless of
whether they were officially designated as forests [47]. Furthermore, the average yearly global burned forest area
between 2003 and 2012 was 67 million hectares, with over 53 million hectares found in tropical regions [92]. Wildfire
activity in numerous places globally was unusually intense in 2023. Canada was significantly impacted, with severe
and enduring fires spanning from May to October. Consequently, a staggering 7.8 million hectares of forest land were
engulfed in flames, representing more than a quarter of the overall global loss of tree cover. Additionally, an estimated
3 billion tons of CO2 were released into the atmosphere [93]. In the summer of 2023, Greece saw significant wildfires,
mostly on the island of Rhodes and in the northeastern region of the country. The wildfire in the northeastern area was
the largest ever recorded in the history of the European Union. In total, the wildfires in Greece released almost 2
million metric tons of carbon (MtC).
Furthermore, it is crucial to emphasize that climate change is expected to result in a higher occurrence of wildfires
due to elevated temperatures and droughts, with the Mediterranean region being especially susceptible [94-96].
Governments and organizations worldwide have been making significant efforts to improve protection measures
against forest fires in recent years. These efforts can be seen in initiatives by the European Commission, the European
Forest Institute, and the Government of Canada. Nevertheless, implementing rigorous fire control measures can have
many effects on the structure and functioning of forest ecosystems, such as altering the composition of species and
diminishing biodiversity [97]. There is data indicating that active fire suppression practices promote the buildup of
combustible vegetation, which raises the likelihood of large and intense fires, particularly in the context of continued
climate warming. Thus, it is advisable to embrace a comprehensive forest fire management strategy that considers the
mentioned factors and incorporates proactive actions to supplement fire control endeavors [98,99]. Furthermore, apart
from the disruptions, roughly 6 million hectares of forest regions are impacted by severe weather occurrences annually,
4.8 million hectares by illnesses, and 29 million hectares by insects [47]. Given the difficulties in precisely measuring
the forest areas impacted by these disturbances and the lack of consistency in doing so, it is possible that the actual
rates of impact may be even greater [100].
Considering the difficulties presented by both natural and human-caused disruptions, it becomes clear that taking
preventive actions is necessary [101-104]. After comprehending these challenges, the attention turns to examining the
crucial role of afforestation and replanting in the restoration and improvement of forest ecosystems.

4
4. Afforestation and Reforestation

The crucial function of forests in sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere highlights the significance of restoring,
expanding, and effectively managing them to attain the objectives of the Paris Agreement and alleviate climate change
[105]. Based on global research, restoring degraded forest ecosystems has the potential to significantly counterbalance
CO2 emissions caused by the degradation and destruction of forests due to natural or human-induced disturbances
[106]. Due to the environmental and social consequences of forest degradation, the scientific community is particularly
interested in matters concerning the sustainable development and restoration of forests [107]. Tree planting activities
aimed at restoring and expanding forests through afforestation and reforestation campaigns are widely acknowledged
as an effective and economical alternative [108]. These programs are highly esteemed by both stakeholders and the
public [109]. Afforestation is the act of planting trees in places that have not had forest cover for at least 50 years, to
create new forests [110]. On the other hand, reforestation is the process of restoring forests that have been affected by
natural or human-caused disasters [111]. However, the term "reforestation" is frequently used interchangeably to refer
to both practices.
FAO [47] reported that the total area of planted forests resulting from afforestation and reforestation was roughly
294 million hectares, which represents 7% of the global forest coverage. From 1990 to 2020, the global area of planted
forests grew by 123 million hectares. However, the average annual growth rate declined from 5.13 million hectares
during the period of 2000-2010 to 4.06 million hectares during the period of 2010-2020. Significantly, tree planting
activities account for 22% of forests in Asia, whereas in Africa and South America, the corresponding figure is under
2%. In North and Central America, the proportion of planted forests is marginally higher, accounting for 6% of the
overall forest area in both regions. Europe has elevated rates, with human involvement accounting for 30% of forests,
excluding the European segment of Russia. However, if we consider Russia's primarily natural forests, the ratio
decreases to 7%.
Given the emphasis placed on CO2 sequestration in national climate change mitigation agreements, it is essential
to prioritize large-scale afforestation and reforestation efforts as a means of tackling climate change [112]. Although
the land needs and efficacy may vary, these acts play a key role in mitigating the effects of climate change [113]. Many
academics have concentrated on evaluating the efficacy of afforestation/reforestation methods in addressing climate
change by measuring the ability of forests to sequester CO2 [114]. Teo et al. [115] assessed how urban forests might
help mitigate climate change, considering their significance for local populations and the growing number of
afforestation operations in metropolitan areas globally. More precisely, the researchers determined optimal locations
for establishing new forests in 7595 urban centers across the globe. They then computed the potential ability of these
forests to absorb and store CO2 through the aboveground woody biomass, which includes carbon stored in trees,
branches, leaves, and other aboveground vegetation. Based on their research, about 17.6% of the urban areas examined
were deemed possibly appropriate for afforestation. The rate mentioned corresponds to about 10.9 million hectares
and can capture and store 82.4 ± 25.7 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year. In summary, their findings
indicate that planting trees in urban areas could make a substantial contribution to reducing CO2 emissions. This could
potentially offset more than 25% of the emissions produced locally. Nevertheless, upon comparing the rates at which
carbon is stored in urban and non-urban forests, they found that non-urban forests generally outperformed urban
forests.
In addition, Bastin et al. [116] examined the possible alterations in tree coverage and the capacity of forest
ecosystems to store carbon on a global scale, considering the influence of climate, soil, and topographic factors. In
summary, they determined that the restoration of forest ecosystems through afforestation, reforestation, and natural
forest regeneration is among the most efficient approaches for addressing climate change. Based on their calculations,
if we exclude trees, cultivable land, and urban areas, forests can increase by 0.9 billion hectares worldwide, which
could result in the storage of up to 205 gigatons of carbon (GtC). This quantity represents almost 70% of the overall
carbon levels in the atmosphere that are caused by human activities. Nevertheless, some members of the scientific
community have raised concerns about the credibility of the findings [117-120]. Critics have identified simplifications
and flaws in the calculations, such as the exclusion of pre-existing vegetation and soil organic carbon reserves, as well
as the physical effects of forests on the climate. Taylor and Marconi [120] calculated that expanding forests by 0.9

5
billion hectares would result in global carbon stocks ranging from 71.7 to 75.7 GtC, which is almost 40% lower than
the estimates given by Bastin et al. [116].
However, implementing large-scale afforestation/reforestation initiatives, like the ones mentioned before,
necessitates vast expanses of land, some of which may already be utilized (or have the potential to be utilized) for
other purposes, such as food production [121,122]. Hence, the act of planting many trees in regions lacking any past
vegetation could potentially jeopardize both local and global food security. Kreidenweis et al. [123] have highlighted
that a 60% increase in global forest area would lead to the capture of around 860 Gt CO2 by the end of the century.
However, this would also result in food prices jumping by more than four times. Other land-based climate change
mitigation techniques, such as bioenergy production, have yielded similar findings [124-126]. Significantly, a third of
the nations involved in the Bonne Challenge encounter challenges in achieving their objectives without adversely
affecting food production. The challenges arise from their dedication to rejuvenating deteriorated forests and
establishing tree cover that spans over 10% of their entire land area, as specified in the Bonn Challenge [127].
Doelman et al. [128] showed that in order to limit the average world temperature increase to less than 2 ◦C by the
end of the century (relative to pre-industrial times), it is necessary to remove a total of 410 Gt of CO2 from the
atmosphere. In addition, they calculated that in order to reach this goal, it is imperative to increase the size of forests
by nearly 1.1 billion hectares. Based on their calculations, this would lead to a decrease in the amount of food available
and a rise in food prices. As a result, an extra 441 million individuals globally would be at risk of not getting enough
food by the year 2100, compared to the levels observed in 2010. Furthermore, based on the research conducted by
Doelman et al. [128] and other comparable studies [126,129], it can be inferred that emerging nations, namely Africa
and South Asia, which are currently grappling with significant nutrition difficulties, are projected to have the most
substantial repercussions. Although the consequences are highly unpredictable, it is advisable to consider potential
threats to food security and implement appropriate mitigation techniques when implementing climate change
mitigation strategies that involve large-scale land planting [128]. Agroforestry is a land management strategy that
combines the cultivation of trees and shrubs with crops and/or cattle in the same area [130]. It efficiently resolves the
contradiction between forest conservation and food production, making it a promising approach [131]. It encompasses
all four components of the food and nutrition security framework (availability, access, utilization, and stability) while
generating positive economic effects for farmers and providing environmental benefits, such as increased biodiversity
and water quality, improved soil health, and carbon sequestration [132]. Agroforestry offers a harmonious and
enduring solution that benefits both climate change mitigation and adaptation [133].

5. Forests and Afforestation/Reforestation's Climate Change Mitigation Effectiveness

5.1. Forest Features Factors

Forests can capture and retain carbon, which means they can help reduce the impact of climate change [134].
However, the success of afforestation/reforestation initiatives in mitigating climate change varies depending on many
circumstances, and this difference can occur in different locations and over different periods. The elements influencing
this include local climatic conditions, the density and diversity of forest vegetation, the age and type of trees, and soil
properties [121,135,136].
In a study conducted by Li et al. [137], a forest in Southern China consisting of over 2000 fir trees, which were
planted gradually as part of reforestation efforts, was examined. The researchers discovered that as the trees grew
older, the overall amount of carbon stored in the ecosystem rose. In line with prior research [138], they noted that the
rate at which CO2 is stored gradually grew until the trees reached middle age, at which point it reached its highest
point and then slowed down significantly. This emphasizes the impact of tree aging on carbon sequestration rates.
Bernal et al. [139] conducted a comprehensive analysis to evaluate the rate and storage of carbon sequestration in
different forest landscape restoration actions, considering factors such as climatic conditions, latitude, tree age, and
species. The study included actions such as natural forest regeneration and afforestation/reforestation. Based on their
research, the pace at which forest biomass grows, and hence the rate at which carbon is removed from the atmosphere,
was greater in the initial 20 years of forest restoration. Nevertheless, in many instances, particularly in areas of North

6
America, Asia, and Oceania that have significant yearly rainfall, the rate of forest biomass development was observed
to be equal to or greater than the rate observed between 20 and 60 years old.
Bernal et al. [139] noted that the rates at which trees remove CO2 from the atmosphere, independent of their species,
showed a consistent upward trend as the temperature became warmer. Chiquier et al. [135] found that the maximal
capacity of boreal forests in the United Kingdom to capture and store CO2 per hectare was almost six times lower than
that of tropical forests in Brazil. In addition, they noted that increased rainfall levels augmented the capacity of tropical
forests to sequester CO2. In a similar vein, Balima et al. [140] discovered that elevated levels of yearly precipitation
contribute to the accumulation of carbon in the aboveground biomass of trees in West Africa. However, they also noted
that higher average annual temperatures have a detrimental effect. Wang and Huang [141] found that tropical climatic
regions had the largest rate of carbon sequestration from aboveground tree biomass. On the other hand, mild temperate
climate regions showed the maximum carbon sequestration rate from forest soils. The researchers also discovered that
latitude, mean annual rainfall, and the number of frost-free days are key factors in influencing the rate at which carbon
is stored in the soil. This emphasizes that the impact of these parameters on carbon sequestration differs depending on
the climate of the region being studied [141].
Wen and He [142] discovered that temperature and rainfall had a positive correlation with carbon storage in the
vegetation of forests in eastern China while having a negative effect on soil carbon storage. In general, the rate at
which trees develop is influenced by the specific climatic conditions in their surroundings, which in turn impacts their
capacity to absorb and retain carbon in their biomass. The processes of photosynthesis and respiration in trees rely on
climatic factors, including temperature, precipitation levels, and cloud cover. The impact of these factors varies
depending on the specific climatic conditions of each place [143]. There is evidence to suggest that in hot and dry
conditions, respiration can surpass photosynthesis, which undermines the carbon sequestration benefits of forests
[144,145]. The influence of various climatic factors on soil carbon storage in forest ecosystems is intricate, primarily
determined by the equilibrium between organic material inputs into the soil and decomposition processes [142].
Additional variables that can impact the overall amount of carbon stored in forests include the density and
composition of tree species. In line with prior research [136,146], Osei et al. [147] investigated European forest
ecosystems and found that stand density, measured as basal area per hectare, has a significant influence on the amount
of carbon stored in tree woody biomass. However, its impact on soil carbon storage is minimal. Nevertheless, studies
examining coniferous forests of the Pinaceae family have produced conflicting findings. Osei et al. [147] discovered
that broadleaved species, such as beech and oak, store a greater amount of carbon in their aboveground woody biomass
(stem and branches) compared to the soil (forest floor and down to a depth of 40 cm). On the other hand, in the case
of pines, carbon is evenly distributed between these two reservoirs. Additionally, it was noted that in every species
examined, the amount of carbon stored in their coarse root system is less than the amount of carbon stored in their
aboveground biomass. Similarly, Bernal et al. [139] noted fluctuations in the rate at which carbon is stored by various
species within a given climatic region.
Consistent with the research conducted by Bernal et al. [139], other investigations have corroborated that soil
carbon reserves exhibit variability based on the type of tree species present [148]. These observations likely arise from
the influence of a tree's species on the amount and quality of carbon deposition. This, in turn, determines the rate at
which decomposition occurs and the proportion of organic matter that either stays in the soil or is emitted as CO2.
However, although the types of species present and the density of the forest undoubtedly affect the overall amount of
carbon stored and how it is distributed between aboveground woody biomass and soil, research indicates that these
factors alone cannot completely explain the variations in soil carbon storage [147]. These findings suggest that soil
carbon levels in forests can be influenced by additional factors, including climate, soil properties (such as texture,
wetness, and chemical composition), and the topography of the region [149].
Furthermore, there is data suggesting that an increase in tree species diversity has a positive impact on the storage
of soil organic carbon (SOC) in forests [146,150]. Osei et al. [151] conducted a study on mixed stands consisting of
two different species and their pure stands in seven European countries. They found that oak-beech pairs enhanced
carbon storage in the top 10 cm of soil, while pine-oak pairs promoted it at depths of 10-40 cm. Nevertheless, upon
evaluating the overall carbon stocks within the top 40 cm of soil, no notable differences were observed concerning the
presence of the species being investigated. In addition, certain studies indicate that monocultures have better rates of

7
CO2 sequestration, particularly when proper management strategies are employed [152]. However, it has also been
shown that forests with a wide diversity of trees have higher levels of carbon stored above the ground [153,154].
However, in line with prior research [146], Osei et al. [151] determined that while tree diversity may influence the
amount of carbon stored in forest soils, its influence is rather minor when compared to the influence of the specific
tree species present.

5.2. Afforestation/Reforestation Implementation Factors

Forests are intricate ecosystems with numerous interconnected elements that influence their ability to absorb and
store CO2 from the atmosphere. Furthermore, some elements that arise during the execution of
afforestation/reforestation initiatives, such as the loss of soil carbon due to ground preparation prior to tree planting,
may have a significant impact [155]. The afforestation/reforestation processes employed are specifically dictated by
soil properties, such as mineral content, and can result in significant soil carbon releases for an extended period [121].
Moreover, the decomposition rate of deposits can be influenced by meteorological conditions, soil composition, and
moisture levels, which can in turn lead to the rapid mineralization of organic soil carbon and an increase in greenhouse
gas emissions. The combination of these factors, coupled with the slow rate at which young trees absorb and store
CO2 and the rate at which they deposit it into the soil, is expected to lead to a significant decrease in the amount of
carbon stored in the soil. This decrease may hinder the ability of newly established forests to effectively absorb more
carbon than they release during the first decade of their growth [135].
Moreover, the quantity of carbon deposited in the soils of afforested/reforested sites is largely influenced by prior
land use [149]. For instance, there is empirical evidence indicating that the act of planting trees in croplands leads to
an increase in the amount of carbon stored in the soil [156,157]. However, in grasslands and peatlands, the levels of
carbon stored in the soil either remain constant or drop [146]. Friggens et al. [158] arrived at similar findings when
examining soil carbon stores 12 and 39 years following the establishment of pine and oak trees in Scottish peatlands.
Similarly, Hüblová and Frouz [159] found that soil carbon stores are greater following tree planting in regions
previously classified as forests or agricultural fields, as opposed to places that had undergone mining activities. More
precisely, their findings indicate that the planting of coniferous trees in forests, agricultural regions, and soils with low
pH and/or high sand content resulted in a greater accumulation of organic carbon compared to the planting of broadleaf
trees. In contrast, places that had been impacted by mining activity exhibited a contrasting pattern [159].

5.3. Climate Change

Climate change exerts a multifaceted impact on the growth and well-being of forests [160]. Elevated levels of CO2
and increased temperatures associated with climate change have the potential to extend the duration of the growing
season and improve the productivity of forests, potentially leading to higher rates of carbon sequestration [161].
Nevertheless, the favorable influence of this phenomenon exhibits regional disparities, fluctuates among different
types of trees, and relies on the magnitude of the anticipated rise in temperature [162]. Moreover, the increased
frequency and severity of forest disturbances caused by climate change, such as insect infestations, wildfires, droughts,
and storms, can negate the beneficial impact it has on forest growth and productivity. Climate change is predicted to
enhance carbon sequestration in forests situated in the mid to high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, specifically
in Northeast and Central Asia, Northern Europe, and Northwestern America while excluding the effects of forest
disturbances. Conversely, forests in South America and Central Africa are likely to see negative impacts [163].
Furthermore, multiple studies indicate that as the climate rapidly changes, the suitability of local habitats for
species growth and survival will also change. This will lead to certain species experiencing advantages while others
will have difficulties [164,165]. Conducting a comprehensive long-term evaluation of a region's potential to support
each species to be planted is essential. This evaluation significantly affects the growth of the species and, ultimately,
the new forest's capability to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. To ensure that forests and afforestation/reforestation
efforts make a meaningful contribution to a sustainable and resilient future, it is crucial to adopt a well-balanced
approach [166]. This approach should integrate strategic long-term planning to inform future decision-making, along

8
with the implementation of tactics that provide immediate effects on the mitigation of climate change and adaptation
to its consequences [167-171]. The fundamental problem lies in balancing the imperative of conducting thorough
long-term evaluations with the pressing urgency of addressing climate change in the immediate future [172-177].
A notable instance is the investigation carried out by Baggio-Compagnucci et al. [121] about the evaluation of
afforestation as a method for reducing CO2 levels in Scotland. The researchers found that climate fluctuations have
varying effects on the amount of carbon stored in the biomass of different tree species. In addition, it has been
discovered that by 2050, the lowland regions of Scotland will become more suitable for species that typically flourish
in temperate climates with moderate temperatures (such as Pedunculate Oak, Ash, and Wych Elm), while these areas
will become less suitable for species that thrive in cold climates and boreal forests (such as Betula sp.).
However, climate change is anticipated to cause uneven increases in the severity and occurrence of various
disturbances that harm forests, such as heatwaves, fires, droughts, and insect infestations [178]. This will have a
negative impact on their ability to absorb and store CO2, leading to a reduction in their carbon reserves [179].
Furthermore, the influence of climate change on forests, in conjunction with other variables like air pollution and
invasive species, might surpass their capacity to withstand stress, leading to their transformation into grasslands or
savannas. Therefore, in areas heavily impacted by these stressors and projected to become more vulnerable due to
climate change, it is crucial to thoroughly assess the expected benefits of afforestation/reforestation and implement
suitable management strategies to minimize potential negative effects.

5.4. Forest Biophysics

The act of planting trees in places that were previously devoid of forests typically results in a reduction in surface
albedo. When combined with other physical and chemical processes of forests, this can influence the climate in nearby
areas and larger regions, depending on the location on Earth [66]. For example, in tropical locations, planting trees is
a highly effective method to reduce the increase in temperature [180]. The existing climatic conditions in these places
also contribute significantly to the rapid development of trees, resulting in a high rate of CO2 sequestration [181].
However, there is disagreement on the efficiency of afforestation in the boreal forest zone. This is because the
alteration of surface albedo resulting from tree planting is expected to counterbalance the reduction in temperature
that may be accomplished by CO2 sequestration, leading to a local increase in temperature [68].
Breil et al. [69] examined the climatic consequences of afforesting the entire European continent while considering
greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those of the pre-industrial era. Based on their research, the introduction of this
theoretical afforestation would result in an increase in climatic warming in Europe. This emphasizes the dominant
impact of biophysical processes, which surpass the influence of metabolic activities in the studied area. Hence, it is
imperative to consider the collective influence of biophysical and biochemical processes when evaluating the
consequences of afforestation on the local or regional climate [69,135]. Nevertheless, the collective impact of forests
on carbon sequestration and their significance as crucial carbon sinks underscores the necessity of assessing the
cost/benefit requirements on a worldwide level [155]. Regardless of the circumstances, forests make significant
contributions to air and water quality, biodiversity, human well-being, leisure activities, and the availability of forest
products, even if they are linked to local or regional climate warming [182].

6. Effects of Afforestation and Reforestation

In order to optimize the advantages of afforestation/ reforestation in mitigating climate change, it is imperative to
strategically plant suitable tree species in appropriate locations [151]. Nevertheless, in order to guarantee the
effectiveness of afforestation/reforestation as a nature-based solution (NBS), it is imperative to evaluate its influence
on other domains, such as biodiversity preservation/enhancement and economic improvement. For instance, the
process of afforestation in regions like savannahs, grasslands, peatlands, and wetlands aids in the removal of carbon
from the atmosphere. However, it can also have severe negative effects on the local biodiversity [183]. Moreover, it
has the potential to endanger food security [128] and local water supplies, especially in poor nations and arid areas
[184,185]. Hence, in order to guarantee long-term viability and ability to withstand challenges, it is imperative to

9
thoroughly assess all possible hazards. It is recommended that priority be given to planting trees in lands that have
been damaged or destroyed, as well as increasing existing forests [128,186]. This could potentially increase carbon
sequestration and biodiversity, while also enhancing the ecosystem's natural regeneration capacity, thereby positively
impacting its resilience [186].
Planting monocultures, which consist only of non-native tree species, is another example that underscores the
necessity of thoroughly assessing the effects of afforestation/reforestation. This practice is quite prevalent globally,
with eucalyptus, as well as conifers such as pine and spruce, being the most frequently utilized species. North America,
Oceania, Africa, and Asia have the largest percentages of monocultures in descending order. In these regions,
monocultures make up more than 50% of the wooded area that has been produced by afforestation/reforestation [47].
Monocultures provide several benefits, including accelerated growth rates and simplified maintenance, because of
their consistent consistency. As a result, they are extensively utilized for various forest products such as timber, rubber,
paper pulp, charcoal, palm oil, and more [187]. Consequently, they have been linked to the promotion of regional
economic growth by utilizing forest resources and services, as well as generating employment opportunities [188].
Nevertheless, there is compelling data indicating that monocultures do not consistently yield beneficial outcomes for
the economy. There have been other instances where the growth of these woods has been found to worsen social
disparities and poverty [189,190].
In addition, although monocultures have a high rate of carbon sequestration, they are likely to have negative effects
on soil quality and characteristics, local plant and animal life, water availability, and the ability of forests to withstand
extreme weather events, diseases, and pests [183,191,192]. The adverse effects can be exacerbated when measures
designed to improve the productivity of forest biomass, including thinning, soil fertilization, and harvesting with
shorter rotation periods, are implemented [193]. Recently, there has been a growing body of research supporting the
establishment of forests with a high diversity of plant species, either consisting solely of native species or a mix of
non-native and native species [194]. Monocultures are discouraged in favor of this technique because it encourages
biodiversity, has higher resilience, shows superior long-term carbon storage performance, boosts the economy, and
offers a range of socio-environmental advantages [128,186,187, 192]. Furthermore, there is compelling evidence that
the implementation of multispecies plantations has a beneficial impact on forest productivity, which is closely
associated with an increase in the sequestration of carbon in forests [195]. Similarly, based on a recent meta-analysis
study, it has been found that young forests with a mixture of plant species, especially those with four different species,
have an average of 70% larger accumulation of carbon stock above the ground compared to forests with only one
species [196]. To summarize, insufficient planning and ineffective execution of afforestation/reforestation initiatives
can result in elevated CO2 emissions and negative consequences for both humans and ecosystems. Due to the wide
range of tree species, forest types, geographical features, and socio-economic effects of forests, the successful
execution of afforestation/reforestation projects necessitates a comprehensive strategy. Di Sacco et al. [186] proposed
a set of principles to direct the design of these initiatives, to attain the best possible results for mitigating climate
change, preserving biodiversity, and promoting sustainability at both local and global levels. Consistent with Seddon
et al. [197], it was emphasized that it is crucial to include indigenous groups and local communities in every step of
afforestation/reforestation, starting from the initial planning phase to the subsequent monitoring process. Due to their
profound understanding of local requirements, indigenous people can safeguard their interests and make significant
contributions to the overall achievement of the project. Furthermore, Di Sacco et al. [186] stated that effective and
enduring afforestation/reforestation initiatives necessitate cooperation among all parties involved (such as
governments, private sector entities, NGOs, etc.) for their entire duration.
Furthermore, the advantages resulting from afforestation/reforestation for the mitigation of climate change can be
further amplified by integrating them with industrial carbon removal technologies, such as Bioenergy with Carbon
Capture and Storage (BECCS). BECCS is widely recognized as one of the most promising technologies for mitigating
greenhouse gas emissions [198-207]. This process entails the generation of electricity by the burning of biomass, while
simultaneously capturing the resulting CO2 using carbon capture devices and storing it underground or in designated
geological storage sites [208-219]. Projections indicate that by 2050, BECCS has the potential to eliminate anywhere
from 0.5 gigatons to 5 gigatons of CO2 annually [220]. BECCS is commonly deployed at an industrial level and aims
to capture CO2 emissions from industrial activities, with a particular focus on the energy industry [221-230].

10
Nevertheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that when evaluating the carbon footprint and effectiveness of BECCS, one
must carefully examine the emissions linked to its entire lifecycle, which encompass CO2 emissions resulting from
land use change, biomass cultivation, harvest, CO2 capture, transport, and storage.
However, the combination of BECCS with afforestation/reforestation, especially utilizing rapidly growing
plantations, increases the overall ability to remove carbon, making it a feasible choice for reaching aggressive climate
goals. This combination enhances the long-term storage of carbon and increases the efficiency of land use by
overcoming the growth restrictions related to afforestation/reforestation. Furthermore, it enhances the capacity to store
carbon by increasing the amount of organic carbon in the soil throughout the whole lifespan of the plantation. In
summary, combining afforestation/reforestation with BECCS can effectively address the difficulties linked to their
separate implementations and develop a strong system for extracting carbon from the atmosphere.

7. Conclusions

Forests, by means of their biochemical processes, particularly photosynthesis, have a crucial function in extracting
CO2 from the atmosphere and serve as significant reservoirs for carbon. Nevertheless, human activities and natural
disruptions have led to the deterioration and obliteration of vast wooded regions. Given the imminent danger of
accelerated climate change, the fate of forests remains ambiguous. Considering these obstacles, as well as the
numerous socio-environmental advantages that trees provide and the pressing requirement for prompt and resolute
steps to mitigate climate change, afforestation, and reforestation initiatives are receiving growing attention.
The efficacy of afforestation/reforestation in mitigating climate change is contingent upon several aspects,
including the strategic planning and execution of these initiatives, as well as the attributes of forests and the influence
of climate change on them. The potential positive effects of climate change on forest productivity and carbon
sequestration, such as longer growing seasons and faster tree growth rates, are uncertain due to the significant spatial
variations influenced by regional climate patterns, tree species, the extent of temperature increase, and the frequency
and intensity of forest disturbances. Moreover, when implementing afforestation/reforestation projects, it is crucial to
consider the biophysical processes of the forests that influence the climate, as well as the potential consequences of
changes in land use. Therefore, by strategically planning and precisely executing afforestation and reforestation
initiatives, considering the unique attributes of each area, and implementing effective forest management strategies,
we can optimize the advantages of these programs in terms of climate change mitigation and environmental
preservation.
Nevertheless, although forests play a crucial role in capturing and storing CO2, relying exclusively on afforestation
and replanting efforts to address climate change may not provide a full solution, given their constraints and the inherent
drawbacks and compromises involved. Factors such as local weather conditions, tree species, and age directly impact
the rates at which trees store carbon. It takes a considerable amount of time for forests to mature and achieve their
maximum capacity for carbon sequestration. Furthermore, their ability to store carbon is limited, showing a declining
pattern over time. Additionally, the limited supply of land presents a significant obstacle, as it competes with
agriculture for food production and has challenges in terms of suitability for regeneration and afforestation. Moreover,
alterations in temperature and precipitation patterns, along with the occurrence of severe weather events, wildfires,
pest infestations, and the spread of diseases resulting from climate change, pose a threat to the storing of carbon in
forest ecosystems.
However, forests have a significant capacity for carbon sequestration, as they can absorb CO2 through
photosynthesis and store it in their biomass and soils. This emphasizes the essential function that forests have in
maintaining the global carbon balance, making the establishment of new forests and the restoration of existing one’s
critical elements in the effort to combat climate change. Furthermore, the use of these measures alongside other carbon
sequestration technologies would be advantageous, offering a comprehensive solution that enhances the probability
of sustained efficacy in carbon retention. In order to effectively address climate change, it is necessary to have a
holistic approach that includes both repairing degraded forests and creating new ones, as well as making continuous
and escalated efforts to reduce human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.

11
References

1. Raihan, A., Farhana, S., Muhtasim, D. A., Hasan, M. A. U., Paul, A., & Faruk, O. (2022). The nexus between carbon emission, energy use,
and health expenditure: empirical evidence from Bangladesh. Carbon Research, 1(1), 30.
2. Raihan, A., & Tuspekova, A. (2022). Role of economic growth, renewable energy, and technological innovation to achieve environmental
sustainability in Kazakhstan. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 4, 100165.
3. Raihan, A., Muhtasim, D. A., Pavel, M. I., Faruk, O., & Rahman, M. (2022). Dynamic impacts of economic growth, renewable energy use,
urbanization, and tourism on carbon dioxide emissions in Argentina. Environmental Processes, 9(2), 38.
4. Raihan, A., Muhtasim, D. A., Khan, M. N. A., Pavel, M. I., & Faruk, O. (2022). Nexus between carbon emissions, economic growth,
renewable energy use, and technological innovation towards achieving environmental sustainability in Bangladesh. Cleaner Energy
Systems, 3, 100032.
5. Raihan, A., & Tuspekova, A. (2023). The role of renewable energy and technological innovations toward achieving Iceland’s goal of carbon
neutrality by 2040. Journal of Technology Innovations and Energy, 2(1), 22-37.
6. Raihan, A. (2023). An econometric assessment of the relationship between meat consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in the United
States. Environmental Processes, 10(2), 32.
7. Raihan, A. (2023). The influence of meat consumption on greenhouse gas emissions in Argentina. Resources, Conservation & Recycling
Advances, 19, 200183.
8. Raihan, A., Muhtasim, D. A., Farhana, S., Hasan, M. A. U., Paul, A., & Faruk, O. (2022). Toward environmental sustainability: Nexus
between tourism, economic growth, energy use and carbon emissions in Singapore. Global Sustainability Research, 1(2), 53-65.
9. Raihan, A., & Tuspekova, A. (2022). The nexus between economic growth, energy use, urbanization, tourism, and carbon dioxide
emissions: New insights from Singapore. Sustainability Analytics and Modeling, 2, 100009.
10. Raihan, A. (2024). A review of recent advances, challenges, and potential future directions of climate-smart agriculture. Proceedings of
The International Conference on Climate-Smart Agriculture.
11. Borny, N. R., Mostakim, G. M., Raihan, A., & Rahman, M. S. (2024). Synergistic Effects of Rice Straw Return and Nitrogen Fertilizer on
Rhizosphere Bacterial Communities and Soil Fertility. Journal of Soil, Plant and Environment, 3(1), 41-58.
12. Raihan, A. (2020). The Role of Earth Science as a Crucial Aspect of Sustainability Education. Proceedings of The International Conference
on on Earth Sciences and Environment.
13. Raihan, A., Voumik, L. C., Ridwan, M., Ridzuan, A. R., Jaaffar, A. H., & Yusof, N. Y. M. (2023). From growth to green: navigating the
complexities of economic development, energy sources, health spending, and carbon emissions in Malaysia. Energy Reports, 10, 4318-
4331.
14. Himu, H. A., & Raihan, A. (2023). A review of the effects of intensive poultry production on the environment and human health. Journal
of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, 11(2), 203.
15. Akter, S., Voumik, L. C., Rahman, M. H., Raihan, A., & Zimon, G. (2023). GDP, health expenditure, industrialization, education and
environmental sustainability impact on child mortality: Evidence from G-7 countries. Sustainable Environment, 9(1), 2269746.
16. Sharmin, N., Begum, J., Ali, M. R., & Raihan, A. A. (2023). Comparative Study on Fetomaternal Outcome of Pregnancy Between
Adolescent and Adult Women. International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, 8 (1), 871-891.
17. Farhana, S., & Raihan, A. (2022). Comparative study of the prevalence and risk factors associated with diarrhoea among the people of rural
areas and urban slums in Chittagong, Bangladesh. International Journal of Advance Research and Innovative Ideas in Education, 8(3),
1389-1398.
18. Raihan, A., & Tuspekova, A. (2022). The nexus between economic growth, renewable energy use, agricultural land expansion, and carbon
emissions: new insights from Peru. Energy Nexus, 6, 100067.
19. Raihan, A., Muhtasim, D. A., Farhana, S., Hasan, M. A. U., Pavel, M. I., Faruk, O., Rahman, M., & Mahmood, A. (2023). An econometric
analysis of Greenhouse gas emissions from different agricultural factors in Bangladesh. Energy Nexus, 9, 100179.
20. Raihan, A. (2023). Nexus between economic growth, natural resources rents, trade globalization, financial development, and carbon
emissions toward environmental sustainability in Uruguay. Electronic Journal of Education, Social Economics and Technology, 4(2), 55-
65.
21. Raihan, A. (2023). Economic growth and carbon emission nexus: the function of tourism in Brazil. Journal of Economic Statistics, 1(2),
68-80.
22. Sultana, T., Hossain, M. S., Voumik, L. C., & Raihan, A. (2023). Does globalization escalate the carbon emissions? Empirical evidence
from selected next-11 countries. Energy Reports, 10, 86-98.
23. Raihan, A. (2023). The Influence of Digital Transformation on Environmental Sustainability. Proceedings of The 2023 PhD International
Conference on Digital Transformation and Sustainable Development, 16th-17th December 2023, Changsha University of Science &
Technology, China.
24. Isfat, M., & Raihan, A. (2022). Current practices, challenges, and future directions of climate change adaptation in Bangladesh.
International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 3(5), 3429-3437.
25. Golo, M. A., Han, D., Lorente, D. B., Raihan, A., & Altin, M. (2024). Uncovering the Origins of Environmental Vulnerabilities: A Study
of Three South Asian Nations. International Journal of Environmental Research, 18, 72.
26. Raihan, A. (2023). Energy-economy-environment nexus toward sustainable and green development. Proceedings of The Belt & road
Forum: The 8th International Conference on Energy Finance, 8th-9th September 2023, Xi’an University of Technology, China.

12
27. Raihan, A., Tanchangya, T., Rahman, J., & Ridwan, M. (2024). The Influence of Agriculture, Renewable Energy, International Trade, and
Economic Growth on India’s Environmental Sustainability. Journal of Environmental and Energy Economics, 3(1), 37-53.
28. Raihan, A., Sarker, T., & Zimon, G. (2024). An investigation on the prospects, challenges and policy consequences of renewable energy
technology development for India’s environmental sustainability. WSEAS Transactions on Environment and Development, 20, 365-390.
29. Raihan, A., Zimon, G., Alam, M. M., Khan, M. R., & Sadowska, B. (2024). Nexus between nuclear energy, economic growth, and
greenhouse gas emissions in India. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 14(2), 172-182.
30. Raihan, A., Ridwan, M., Tanchangya, T., Rahman, J., & Ahmad, S. (2023). Environmental Effects of China’s Nuclear Energy within the
Framework of Environmental Kuznets Curve and Pollution Haven Hypothesis. Journal of Environmental and Energy Economics, 2(1), 1-
12.
31. Raihan, A., Voumik, L. C., Rahman, M. H., & Esquivias, M. A. (2023). Unraveling the interplay between globalization, financial
development, economic growth, greenhouse gases, human capital, and renewable energy uptake in Indonesia: multiple econometric
approaches. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(56), 119117-119133.
32. Ridwan, M., Raihan, A., Ahmad, S., Karmakar, S., & Paul, P. (2023). Environmental Sustainability in France: The Role of Alternative and
Nuclear Energy, Natural Resources, and Government Spending. Journal of Environmental and Energy Economics, 2(2), 1-16.
33. Raihan, A., Begum, R. A., Said, M. N. M., & Pereira, J. J. (2022). Relationship between economic growth, renewable energy use,
technological innovation, and carbon emission toward achieving Malaysia’s Paris agreement. Environment Systems and Decisions, 42,
586-607.
34. Raihan, A. (2023). Sustainable development in Europe: A review of the forestry sector’s social, environmental, and economic dynamics.
Global Sustainability Research, 2(3), 72-92.
35. Raihan, A. (2023). The dynamic nexus between economic growth, renewable energy use, urbanization, industrialization, tourism,
agricultural productivity, forest area, and carbon dioxide emissions in the Philippines. Energy Nexus, 9, 100180.
36. Raihan, A., Muhtasim, D. A., Farhana, S., Rahman, M., Hasan, M. A. U., Paul, A., & Faruk, O. (2023). Dynamic linkages between
environmental factors and carbon emissions in Thailand. Environmental Processes, 10, 5.
37. Raihan, A., & Bijoy, T. R. (2023). A review of the industrial use and global sustainability of Cannabis sativa. Global Sustainability Research,
2(4), 1-29.
38. Raihan, A. (2024). The influences of economic progress, natural resources, and capitalization on financial development in the United States.
Innovation and Green Development, 3(2), 100146.
39. Matthew, N. K., Raihan, A., Jamluddin, J., Eusop, M. E. B. M., & Hassin, N. H. (2023). Carbon stock assessment in Ayer Keroh
Recreational Forest. Malayan Nature Journal, 75(3), 541-552.
40. Raihan, A., Begum, R. A., Said, M. N. M., & Pereira, J. J. (2022). Dynamic impacts of energy use, agricultural land expansion, and
deforestation on CO2 emissions in Malaysia. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 29, 477-507.
41. Raihan, A., Voumik, L. C., Zimon, G., Sadowska, B., Rashid, M., & Akter, S. (2024). Prioritising sustainability: how economic growth,
energy use, forest area, and globalization impact on greenhouse gas emissions and load capacity in Poland?. International Journal of
Sustainable Energy, 43(1), 2361410.
42. Raihan, A., Muhtasim, D. A., Farhana, S., Hasan, M. A. U., Pavel, M. I., Faruk, O., Rahman, M., & Mahmood, A. (2022). Nexus between
economic growth, energy use, urbanization, agricultural productivity, and carbon dioxide emissions: New insights from Bangladesh. Energy
Nexus, 8, 100144.
43. Voumik, L. C., Mimi, M. B., & Raihan, A. (2023). Nexus between urbanization, industrialization, natural resources rent, and anthropogenic
carbon emissions in South Asia: CS-ARDL approach. Anthropocene Science, 2(1), 48-61.
44. Hall, C., & Knuth, M. (2019). An update of the literature supporting the well-being benefits of plants: A review of the emotional and mental
health benefits of plants. Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 37(1), 30-38.
45. Raihan, A. (2023). Artificial intelligence and machine learning applications in forest management and biodiversity conservation. Natural
Resources Conservation and Research, 6(2), 3825.
46. Miah, M. D., & Raihan, A. (2017). Trade-offs between implementation of REDD+ program and the forest dependency of ethnic minorities
of CHT: A case study of Khagrachari. The Chittagong University Journal of Science, 39, 1-39.
47. FAO. (2020). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.
48. Raihan, A., Begum, R. A., Said, M. N. M., & Abdullah, S. M. S. (2018). Climate change mitigation potential in Malaysia's forest sector.
Proceedings of Institute of Climate Change Research Colloquium 2018, 11th – 13th August 2018, Melaka, Malaysia.
49. Raihan, A., Begum, R. A., & Said, M. N. M. (2019). Climate Change Mitigation Potential in the Forestry sector of Malaysia. Proceedings
of CWMD International Conference 2019, 19th – 21st September 2019, Kumamoto University, Japan.
50. Miah, M. D., & Raihan, A. (2017). Role of Casuarina shelterbelt for climate change adaptation and mitigation: an evidence from Cox’s
Bazar, Bangladesh. The Chittagong University Journal of Science, 39, 179-190.
51. Raihan, A. (2023). A review of climate change mitigation and agriculture sustainability through soil carbon sequestration. Journal of
Agriculture Sustainability and Environment, 2(2), 23-56.
52. Raihan, A., & Tuspekova, A. (2022). Dynamic impacts of economic growth, renewable energy use, urbanization, industrialization, tourism,
agriculture, and forests on carbon emissions in Turkey. Carbon Research, 1(1), 20.
53. Raihan, A., & Tuspekova, A. (2022). Nexus between energy use, industrialization, forest area, and carbon dioxide emissions: new insights
from Russia. Journal of Environmental Science and Economics, 1(4), 1-11.
54. Raihan, A. (2023). Toward sustainable and green development in Chile: dynamic influences of carbon emission reduction variables.
Innovation and Green Development, 2(2), 100038.

13
55. Raihan, A., Hasan, M. A., Voumik, L. C., Pattak, D. C., Akter, S., & Ridwan, M. (2024). Sustainability in Vietnam: Examining Economic
Growth, Energy, Innovation, Agriculture, and Forests' Impact on CO2 Emissions. World Development Sustainability, 4, 100164.
56. Raihan, A., Muhtasim, D. A., Farhana, S., Pavel, M. I., Faruk, O., & Mahmood, A. (2022). Nexus between carbon emissions, economic
growth, renewable energy use, urbanization, industrialization, technological innovation, and forest area towards achieving environmental
sustainability in Bangladesh. Energy and Climate Change, 3, 100080.
57. Tubiello, F. N., Conchedda, G., Wanner, N., Federici, S., Rossi, S., & Grassi, G. (2021). Carbon emissions and removals from forests: new
estimates, 1990–2020. Earth System Science Data, 13(4), 1681-1691.
58. Raihan, A., Begum, R. A., Said, M. N. M., & Abdullah, S. M. S. (2019). Economic assessment of climate change mitigation through the
forestry sector of Malaysia. Proceedings of Institute of Climate Change Research Colloquium 2019, 8th August 2019, UKM, Malaysia.
59. Crous, K. Y., Uddling, J., & De Kauwe, M. G. (2022). Temperature responses of photosynthesis and respiration in evergreen trees from
boreal to tropical latitudes. New Phytologist, 234(2), 353-374.
60. Raihan, A., Begum, R. A., & Said, M. N. M. (2021). A meta-analysis of the economic value of forest carbon stock. Geografia–Malaysian
Journal of Society and Space, 17(4), 321-338.
61. Friedlingstein, P., O'sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Gregor, L., Hauck, J., ... & Zheng, B. (2022). Global carbon budget 2022.
Earth System Science Data, 14(11), 4811-4900.
62. Feng, H., Wang, S., Zou, B., Yang, Z., Wang, S., & Wang, W. (2023). Contribution of land use and cover change (LUCC) to the global
terrestrial carbon uptake. Science of The Total Environment, 901, 165932.
63. Alibakhshi, S., Naimi, B., Hovi, A., Crowther, T. W., & Rautiainen, M. (2020). Quantitative analysis of the links between forest structure
and land surface albedo on a global scale. Remote Sensing of Environment, 246, 111854.
64. Raihan, A. (2023). A review on the role of green vegetation in improving urban environmental quality. Eco Cities, 4(2), 2387.
65. Li, Y., Zhao, M., Motesharrei, S., Mu, Q., Kalnay, E., & Li, S. (2015). Local cooling and warming effects of forests based on satellite
observations. Nature communications, 6(1), 6603.
66. Bright, R. M., Zhao, K., Jackson, R. B., & Cherubini, F. (2015). Quantifying surface albedo and other direct biogeophysical climate forcings
of forestry activities. Global Change Biology, 21(9), 3246-3266.
67. Bonan, G. B., Patton, E. G., Finnigan, J. J., Baldocchi, D. D., & Harman, I. N. (2021). Moving beyond the incorrect but useful paradigm:
reevaluating big-leaf and multilayer plant canopies to model biosphere-atmosphere fluxes–a review. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology,
306, 108435.
68. Williams, C. A., Gu, H., & Jiao, T. (2021). Climate impacts of US forest loss span net warming to net cooling. Science Advances, 7(7),
eaax8859.
69. Breil, M., Krawczyk, F., & Pinto, J. G. (2023). The response of the regional longwave radiation balance and climate system in Europe to
an idealized afforestation experiment. Earth System Dynamics, 14(1), 243-253.
70. Baker, J. C., & Spracklen, D. V. (2019). Climate benefits of intact Amazon forests and the biophysical consequences of disturbance.
Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 2, 47.
71. Alkama, R., & Cescatti, A. (2016). Biophysical climate impacts of recent changes in global forest cover. Science, 351(6273), 600-604.
72. Raihan, A., & Tuspekova, A. (2022). Dynamic impacts of economic growth, energy use, urbanization, tourism, agricultural value-added,
and forested area on carbon dioxide emissions in Brazil. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 12(4), 794-814.
73. Raihan, A., & Tuspekova, A. (2022). Nexus between emission reduction factors and anthropogenic carbon emissions in India.
Anthropocene Science, 1(2), 295-310.
74. Raihan, A. (2023). A review on the integrative approach for economic valuation of forest ecosystem services. Journal of Environmental
Science and Economics, 2(3), 1-18.
75. Raihan, A., Pereira, J. J., Begum, R. A., & Rasiah, R. (2023). The economic impact of water supply disruption from the Selangor River,
Malaysia. Blue-Green Systems, 5(2), 102-120.
76. Raihan, A., & Himu, H. A. (2023). Global impact of COVID-19 on the sustainability of livestock production. Global Sustainability
Research, 2(2), 1-11.
77. Raihan, A. (2024). A review of digital agriculture toward food security and environmental sustainability. Proceedings of The International
Conference on Digital Agriculture, Food Security, and Environmental Sustainability.
78. Isfat, M., & Raihan, A. (2022). The pursuit of peace in the world through philosophy and culture. International Journal of Advance Research
and Innovative Ideas in Education, 8(3), 2322-2332.
79. Urbee, A. J., Ridwan, M., & Raihan, A. (2024). Exploring Educational Attainment among Individuals with Physical Disabilities: A Case
Study in Bangladesh. Journal of Integrated Social Sciences and Humanities.
80. Jubair, A. N. M., Rahman, M. S., Sarmin, I. J., & Raihan, A. (2023). Tree diversity and regeneration dynamics toward forest conservation
and environmental sustainability: A case study from Nawabganj Sal Forest, Bangladesh. Journal of Agriculture Sustainability and
Environment, 2(2), 1-22.
81. Yang, Y., Saatchi, S. S., Xu, L., Yu, Y., Choi, S., Phillips, N., ... & Myneni, R. B. (2018). Post-drought decline of the Amazon carbon sink.
Nature Communications, 9(1), 3172.
82. Raihan, A., Pavel, M. I., Muhtasim, D. A., Farhana, S., Faruk, O., & Paul, A. (2023). The role of renewable energy use, technological
innovation, and forest cover toward green development: Evidence from Indonesia. Innovation and Green Development, 2(1), 100035.
83. Li, Y., Zhou, L., Wang, S., Chi, Y., & Chen, J. (2018). Leaf temperature and vapour pressure deficit (VPD) driving stomatal conductance
and biochemical processes of leaf photosynthetic rate in a subtropical evergreen coniferous plantation. Sustainability, 10(11), 4063.
84. Raihan, A. (2024). A systematic review of enhancing carbon sequestration through tropical forest management. Proceedings of The
International Conference on Tropical Forests and Climate Change.

14
85. Pearson, T. R., Brown, S., Murray, L., & Sidman, G. (2017). Greenhouse gas emissions from tropical forest degradation: an underestimated
source. Carbon balance and management, 12, 1-11.
86. Raihan, A., Begum, R. A., Said, M. N. M., & Pereira, J. J. (2021). Assessment of carbon stock in forest biomass and emission reduction
potential in Malaysia. Forests, 12(10), 1294.
87. Raihan, A., & Tuspekova, A. (2022). Dynamic impacts of economic growth, energy use, urbanization, agricultural productivity, and forested
area on carbon emissions: new insights from Kazakhstan. World Development Sustainability, 1, 100019.
88. Zheng, B., Ciais, P., Chevallier, F., Chuvieco, E., Chen, Y., & Yang, H. (2021). Increasing forest fire emissions despite the decline in global
burned area. Science advances, 7(39), eabh2646.
89. Zhao, B., Zhuang, Q., Shurpali, N., Köster, K., Berninger, F., & Pumpanen, J. (2021). North American boreal forests are a large carbon
source due to wildfires from 1986 to 2016. Scientific reports, 11(1), 7723.
90. Ponomarev, E., Yakimov, N., Ponomareva, T., Yakubailik, O., & Conard, S. G. (2021). Current trend of carbon emissions from wildfires in
Siberia. Atmosphere, 12(5), 559.
91. van der Velde, I. R., van der Werf, G. R., Houweling, S., Maasakkers, J. D., Borsdorff, T., Landgraf, J., ... & Aben, I. (2021). Vast CO2
release from Australian fires in 2019–2020 constrained by satellite. Nature, 597(7876), 366-369.
92. van Lierop, P., Lindquist, E., Sathyapala, S., & Franceschini, G. (2015). Global forest area disturbance from fire, insect pests, diseases and
severe weather events. Forest Ecology and Management, 352, 78-88.
93. MacCarthy, J., Tyukavina, A., Weisse, M. J., Harris, N., & Glen, E. (2024). Extreme wildfires in Canada and their contribution to global
loss in tree cover and carbon emissions in 2023. Global Change Biology, 30(6), e17392.
94. Dupuy, J. L., Fargeon, H., Martin-StPaul, N., Pimont, F., Ruffault, J., Guijarro, M., ... & Fernandes, P. (2020). Climate change impact on
future wildfire danger and activity in southern Europe: a review. Annals of Forest Science, 77, 1-24.
95. Ruffault, J., Curt, T., Moron, V., Trigo, R. M., Mouillot, F., Koutsias, N., ... & Belhadj-Khedher, C. (2020). Increased likelihood of heat-
induced large wildfires in the Mediterranean Basin. Scientific reports, 10(1), 13790.
96. Rovithakis, A., Grillakis, M. G., Seiradakis, K. D., Giannakopoulos, C., Karali, A., Field, R., ... & Voulgarakis, A. (2022). Future climate
change impact on wildfire danger over the Mediterranean: the case of Greece. Environmental Research Letters, 17(4), 045022.
97. He, T., Lamont, B. B., & Pausas, J. G. (2019). Fire as a key driver of Earth's biodiversity. Biological Reviews, 94(6), 1983-2010.
98. Moreira, F., Ascoli, D., Safford, H., Adams, M. A., Moreno, J. M., Pereira, J. M., ... & Fernandes, P. M. (2020). Wildfire management in
Mediterranean-type regions: paradigm change needed. Environmental Research Letters, 15(1), 011001.
99. Parisien, M. A., Barber, Q. E., Hirsch, K. G., Stockdale, C. A., Erni, S., Wang, X., ... & Parks, S. A. (2020). Fire deficit increases wildfire
risk for many communities in the Canadian boreal forest. Nature communications, 11(1), 2121.
100. Anderegg, W. R., Trugman, A. T., Badgley, G., Anderson, C. M., Bartuska, A., Ciais, P., ... & Randerson, J. T. (2020). Climate-driven risks
to the climate mitigation potential of forests. Science, 368(6497), eaaz7005.
101. Raihan, A. (2024). A Systematic Review of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in Agriculture for Evidence-Based Decision Making
and Sustainability. Global Sustainability Research, 3(1), 1-24.
102. Raihan, A. (2024). A review of the digitalization of the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) toward sustainability. Global Sustainability
Research, 3(2), 1-16.
103. Raihan, A. (2024). Influences of foreign direct investment and carbon emission on economic growth in Vietnam. Journal of Environmental
Science and Economics, 3(1), 1-17.
104. Raihan, A., Voumik, L. C., Nafi, S. M., & Kuri, B. C. (2022). How Tourism Affects Women's Employment in Asian Countries: An
Application of GMM and Quantile Regression. Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies, 1(4), 57-72.
105. Raihan, A., & Tuspekova, A. (2022). Toward a sustainable environment: Nexus between economic growth, renewable energy use, forested
area, and carbon emissions in Malaysia. Resources, Conservation & Recycling Advances, 15, 200096.
106. Raihan, A., Muhtasim, D. A., Pavel, M. I., Faruk, O., & Rahman, M. (2022). An econometric analysis of the potential emission reduction
components in Indonesia. Cleaner Production Letters, 3, 100008.
107. Raihan, A. (2023). The influences of renewable energy, globalization, technological innovations, and forests on emission reduction in
Colombia. Innovation and Green Development, 2(4), 100071.
108. Raihan, A., Begum, R. A., Said, M. N. M., & Abdullah, S. M. S. (2017). A review on forest carbon sequestration as a cost-effective way
to mitigate global climate change. Proceedings of Institute of Climate Change Research Colloquium 2017, 1st – 3rd October 2017, Felda
Residence Trolak, Perak, Malaysia.
109. Raihan, A. (2023). A review of tropical blue carbon ecosystems for climate change mitigation. Journal of Environmental Science and
Economics, 2(4), 14-36.
110. Raihan, A., Begum, R. A., Said, M. N. M., & Abdullah, S. M. S. (2018). Climate change mitigation options in the forestry sector of
Malaysia. Journal Kejuruteraan, 1, 89-98.
111. Raihan, A. (2023). A review of the global climate change impacts, adaptation strategies, and mitigation options in the socio-economic and
environmental sectors. Journal of Environmental Science and Economics, 2(3), 36-58.
112. Raihan, A. (2023). The contribution of economic development, renewable energy, technical advancements, and forestry to Uruguay's
objective of becoming carbon neutral by 2030. Carbon Research, 2, 20.
113. Begum, R. A., Raihan, A., & Said, M. N. M. (2020). Dynamic impacts of economic growth and forested area on carbon dioxide emissions
in Malaysia. Sustainability, 12(22), 9375.
114. Raihan, A., Begum, R. A., Said, M. N. M., & Abdullah, S. M. S. (2019). A review of emission reduction potential and cost savings through
forest carbon sequestration. Asian Journal of Water, Environment and Pollution, 16(3), 1-7.

15
115. Teo, H. C., Zeng, Y., Sarira, T. V., Fung, T. K., Zheng, Q., Song, X. P., ... & Koh, L. P. (2021). Global urban reforestation can be an important
natural climate solution. Environmental Research Letters, 16(3), 034059.
116. Bastin, J. F., Finegold, Y., Garcia, C., Mollicone, D., Rezende, M., Routh, D., ... & Crowther, T. W. (2019). The global tree restoration
potential. Science, 365(6448), 76-79.
117. Lewis, S. L., Mitchard, E. T., Prentice, C., Maslin, M., & Poulter, B. (2019). Comment on “The global tree restoration potential”. Science,
366(6463), eaaz0388.
118. Friedlingstein, P., Allen, M., Canadell, J. G., Peters, G. P., & Seneviratne, S. I. (2019). Comment on “The global tree restoration potential”.
Science, 366(6463), eaay8060.
119. Veldman, J. W., Aleman, J. C., Alvarado, S. T., Anderson, T. M., Archibald, S., Bond, W. J., ... & Zaloumis, N. P. (2019). Comment on
“The global tree restoration potential”. Science, 366(6463), eaay7976.
120. Taylor, S. D., & Marconi, S. (2020). Rethinking global carbon storage potential of trees. A comment on Bastin et al.(2019). Annals of
Forest Science, 77, 1-7.
121. Baggio-Compagnucci, A., Ovando, P., Hewitt, R. J., Canullo, R., & Gimona, A. (2022). Barking up the wrong tree? Can forest expansion
help meet climate goals?. Environmental Science & Policy, 136, 237-249.
122. Delzeit, R., Pongratz, J., Schneider, J. M., Schuenemann, F., Mauser, W., & Zabel, F. (2019). Forest restoration: Expanding agriculture.
Science, 366(6463), 316-317.
123. Kreidenweis, U., Humpenöder, F., Stevanović, M., Bodirsky, B. L., Kriegler, E., Lotze-Campen, H., & Popp, A. (2016). Afforestation to
mitigate climate change: impacts on food prices under consideration of albedo effects. Environmental Research Letters, 11(8), 085001.
124. Frank, S., Havlík, P., Soussana, J. F., Levesque, A., Valin, H., Wollenberg, E., ... & Obersteiner, M. (2017). Reducing greenhouse gas
emissions in agriculture without compromising food security?. Environmental Research Letters, 12(10), 105004.
125. Hasegawa, T., Fujimori, S., Havlík, P., Valin, H., Bodirsky, B. L., Doelman, J. C., ... & Witzke, P. (2018). Risk of increased food insecurity
under stringent global climate change mitigation policy. Nature climate change, 8(8), 699-703.
126. Fujimori, S., Wu, W., Doelman, J., Frank, S., Hristov, J., Kyle, P., ... & Takahashi, K. (2022). Land-based climate change mitigation
measures can affect agricultural markets and food security. Nature Food, 3(2), 110-121.
127. Fagan, M. E., Reid, J. L., Holland, M. B., Drew, J. G., & Zahawi, R. A. (2020). How feasible are global forest restoration commitments?.
Conservation Letters, 13(3), e12700.
128. Doelman, J. C., Stehfest, E., van Vuuren, D. P., Tabeau, A., Hof, A. F., Braakhekke, M. C., ... & Lucas, P. L. (2020). Afforestation for
climate change mitigation: Potentials, risks and trade‐offs. Global Change Biology, 26(3), 1576-1591.
129. Hasegawa, T., Fujimori, S., Havlík, P., Valin, H., Bodirsky, B. L., Doelman, J. C., ... & Witzke, P. (2018). Risk of increased food insecurity
under stringent global climate change mitigation policy. Nature climate change, 8(8), 699-703.
130. Raihan, A. (2024). The potential of agroforestry in South Asian countries towards achieving the climate goals. Asian Journal of Forestry,
8(1), 1-17.
131. Rahman, M. S., Fatematuzzora, Raihan, A. (2016). Growth and quality of pineapple at different orientations and distances under litchi
based agroforestry system. Journal of Agroforestry and Environment, 10(1), 17-20.
132. Raihan, A. (2023). A review of agroforestry as a sustainable and resilient agriculture. Journal of Agriculture Sustainability and Environment,
2(1), 49-72.
133. Ali, A. Z., Rahman, M. S., & Raihan, A. (2022). Soil carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems as a mitigation strategy of climate
change: a case study from Dinajpur, Bangladesh. Advances in Environmental and Engineering Research, 3(4), 1-15.
134. Raihan, A., & Tuspekova, A. (2023). Towards net zero emissions by 2050: the role of renewable energy, technological innovations, and
forests in New Zealand. Journal of Environmental Science and Economics, 2(1), 1-16.
135. Chiquier, S., Patrizio, P., Bui, M., Sunny, N., & Mac Dowell, N. (2022). A comparative analysis of the efficiency, timing, and permanence
of CO 2 removal pathways. Energy & Environmental Science, 15(10), 4389-4403.
136. Hofhansl, F., Chacón-Madrigal, E., Fuchslueger, L., Jenking, D., Morera-Beita, A., Plutzar, C., ... & Wanek, W. (2020). Climatic and
edaphic controls over tropical forest diversity and vegetation carbon storage. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 5066.
137. Li, X., Aguila, L. C. R., Wu, D., Lie, Z., Xu, W., Tang, X., & Liu, J. (2023). Carbon sequestration and storage capacity of Chinese fir at
different stand ages. Science of the Total Environment, 904, 166962.
138. Tong, X., Brandt, M., Yue, Y., Ciais, P., Rudbeck Jepsen, M., Penuelas, J., ... & Fensholt, R. (2020). Forest management in southern China
generates short term extensive carbon sequestration. Nature communications, 11(1), 129.
139. Bernal, B., Murray, L. T., & Pearson, T. R. (2018). Global carbon dioxide removal rates from forest landscape restoration activities. Carbon
balance and management, 13, 1-13.
140. Balima, L. H., Kouamé, F. N. G., Bayen, P., Ganamé, M., Nacoulma, B. M. I., Thiombiano, A., & Soro, D. (2021). Influence of climate
and forest attributes on aboveground carbon storage in Burkina Faso, West Africa. Environmental Challenges, 4, 100123.
141. Wang, S., & Huang, Y. (2020). Determinants of soil organic carbon sequestration and its contribution to ecosystem carbon sinks of planted
forests. Global change biology, 26(5), 3163-3173.
142. Wen, D., & He, N. (2016). Forest carbon storage along the north-south transect of eastern China: Spatial patterns, allocation, and influencing
factors. Ecological Indicators, 61, 960-967.
143. Gustafson, E. J., Miranda, B. R., De Bruijn, A. M., Sturtevant, B. R., & Kubiske, M. E. (2017). Do rising temperatures always increase
forest productivity? Interacting effects of temperature, precipitation, cloudiness and soil texture on tree species growth and competition.
Environmental modelling & software, 97, 171-183.
144. Dusenge, M. E., Duarte, A. G., & Way, D. A. (2019). Plant carbon metabolism and climate change: elevated CO 2 and temperature impacts
on photosynthesis, photorespiration and respiration. New Phytologist, 221(1), 32-49.

16
145. Crous, K. Y., Uddling, J., & De Kauwe, M. G. (2022). Temperature responses of photosynthesis and respiration in evergreen trees from
boreal to tropical latitudes. New Phytologist, 234(2), 353-374.
146. Mayer, M., Prescott, C. E., Abaker, W. E., Augusto, L., Cécillon, L., Ferreira, G. W., ... & Vesterdal, L. (2020). Tamm Review: Influence
of forest management activities on soil organic carbon stocks: A knowledge synthesis. Forest Ecology and Management, 466, 118127.
147. Osei, R., Del Río, M., Ruiz-Peinado, R., Titeux, H., Bielak, K., Bravo, F., ... & Ponette, Q. (2022). The distribution of carbon stocks
between tree woody biomass and soil differs between Scots pine and broadleaved species (beech, oak) in European forests. European
journal of forest research, 141(3), 467-480.
148. Cha, J. Y., Cha, Y., & Oh, N. H. (2019). The effects of tree species on soil organic carbon content in South Korea. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Biogeosciences, 124(3), 708-716.
149. Wiesmeier, M., Urbanski, L., Hobley, E., Lang, B., von Lützow, M., Marin-Spiotta, E., ... & Kögel-Knabner, I. (2019). Soil organic carbon
storage as a key function of soils-A review of drivers and indicators at various scales. Geoderma, 333, 149-162.
150. Chen, X., Taylor, A. R., Reich, P. B., Hisano, M., Chen, H. Y., & Chang, S. X. (2023). Tree diversity increases decadal forest soil carbon
and nitrogen accrual. Nature, 618(7963), 94-101.
151. Osei, R., Titeux, H., Bielak, K., Bravo, F., Collet, C., Cools, C., ... & Ponette, Q. (2021). Tree species identity drives soil organic carbon
storage more than species mixing in major two-species mixtures (pine, oak, beech) in Europe. Forest Ecology and Management, 481,
118752.
152. Hou, G., Delang, C. O., Lu, X., & Olschewski, R. (2020). Optimizing rotation periods of forest plantations: The effects of carbon accounting
regimes. Forest Policy and Economics, 118, 102263.
153. McNicol, I. M., Ryan, C. M., Dexter, K. G., Ball, S. M., & Williams, M. (2018). Aboveground carbon storage and its links to stand structure,
tree diversity and floristic composition in south-eastern Tanzania. Ecosystems, 21, 740-754.
154. Standish, R. J., & Prober, S. M. (2020). Potential benefits of biodiversity to Australian vegetation projects registered with the Emissions
Reduction Fund—is there a carbon‐biodiversity trade‐off?. Ecological Management & Restoration, 21(3), 165-172.
155. Raihan, A., & Said, M. N. M. (2022). Cost–benefit analysis of climate change mitigation measures in the forestry sector of Peninsular
Malaysia. Earth Systems and Environment, 6(2), 405-419.
156. Rahman, M. S., Rahman, M. A., Amin, M. H. A., & Raihan, A. (2017). Effect of water stress on the shoot morphology and root architecture
of Azadirachtaindica A. Juss. Seedling under nursery condition. Journal of Science and Technology 15:25-33.
157. Shamsuzzaman, M., Rahman, M. S., & Raihan, A. (2016). Effect of phosphorus and potassium on the growth of Ghora Neem (Melia
azedarach L.) seedlings at the nursery stage. Journal of Innovation & Development Strategy, 10(2), 13-16.
158. Friggens, N. L., Hester, A. J., Mitchell, R. J., Parker, T. C., Subke, J. A., & Wookey, P. A. (2020). Tree planting in organic soils does not
result in net carbon sequestration on decadal timescales. Global Change Biology, 26(9), 5178-5188.
159. Hüblová, L., & Frouz, J. (2021). Contrasting effect of coniferous and broadleaf trees on soil carbon storage during reforestation of forest
soils and afforestation of agricultural and post-mining soils. Journal of Environmental Management, 290, 112567.
160. Lu, X., & Jiang, Y. (2023). Advancements in studying the effects of climate change on forest ecosystems. Advances in Resources Research,
3(4), 151-177.
161. Allen, R. J., Gomez, J., Horowitz, L. W., & Shevliakova, E. (2024). Enhanced future vegetation growth with elevated carbon dioxide
concentrations could increase fire activity. Communications Earth & Environment, 5(1), 54.
162. Venäläinen, A., Lehtonen, I., Laapas, M., Ruosteenoja, K., Tikkanen, O. P., Viiri, H., ... & Peltola, H. (2020). Climate change induces
multiple risks to boreal forests and forestry in Finland: A literature review. Global change biology, 26(8), 4178-4196.
163. Zhao, J., Xie, H., Ma, J., & Wang, K. (2021). Integrated remote sensing and model approach for impact assessment of future climate change
on the carbon budget of global forest ecosystems. Global and Planetary Change, 203, 103542.
164. Walentowski, H., Falk, W., Mette, T., Kunz, J., Bräuning, A., Meinardus, C., ... & Leuschner, C. (2017). Assessing future suitability of tree
species under climate change by multiple methods: a case study in southern Germany. Annals of Forest Research, 60(1), 101-126.
165. MacKenzie, W. H., & Mahony, C. R. (2021). An ecological approach to climate change-informed tree species selection for reforestation.
Forest Ecology and Management, 481, 118705.
166. Jaafar, W. S. W. M., Maulud, K. N. A., Kamarulzaman, A. M. M., Raihan, A., Sah, S. M., Ahmad, A., Saad, S. N. M., Azmi, A. T. M.,
Syukri, N. K. A. J., & Khan, W. R. (2020). The influence of forest degradation on land surface temperature–a case study of Perak and
Kedah, Malaysia. Forests, 11(6), 670.
167. Raihan, A., Ibrahim, S., & Muhtasim, D. A. (2023). Dynamic impacts of economic growth, energy use, tourism, and agricultural
productivity on carbon dioxide emissions in Egypt. World Development Sustainability, 2, 100059.
168. Raihan, A., & Tuspekova, A. (2022). Towards sustainability: dynamic nexus between carbon emission and its determining factors in
Mexico. Energy Nexus, 8, 100148.
169. Raihan, A., Voumik, L. C., Mohajan, B., Rahman, M. S., & Zaman, M. R. (2023). Economy-energy-environment nexus: the potential of
agricultural value-added toward achieving China’s dream of carbon neutrality. Carbon Research, 2(1), 43.
170. Raihan, A. (2023). An econometric evaluation of the effects of economic growth, energy use, and agricultural value added on carbon
dioxide emissions in Vietnam. Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, 7, 665-696.
171. Raihan, A., & Tuspekova, A. (2022). Nexus between economic growth, energy use, agricultural productivity, and carbon dioxide emissions:
new evidence from Nepal. Energy Nexus, 7, 100113.
172. Raihan, A., & Bari, A. B. M. M. (2024). Energy-economy-environment nexus in China: The role of renewable energies toward carbon
neutrality. Innovation and Green Development, 3(3), 100139.

17
173. Ghosh, S., Hossain, M. S., Voumik, L. C., Raihan, A., Ridzuan, A. R., & Esquivias, M. A. (2023). Unveiling the Spillover Effects of
Democracy and Renewable Energy Consumption on the Environmental Quality of BRICS Countries: A New Insight from Different
Quantile Regression Approaches. Renewable Energy Focus, 46, 222-235.
174. Raihan, A. (2023). Nexus between Greenhouse gas emissions and its determinants: the role of renewable energy and technological
innovations towards green development in South Korea. Innovation and Green Development, 2(3), 100066.
175. Raihan, A. (2023). Energy, economy, and environment nexus: New evidence from China. Energy Technologies and Environment, 1(1), 68-
80.
176. Raihan, A. (2024). The influence of tourism on the road to achieving carbon neutrality and environmental sustainability in Malaysia: the
role of renewable energy. Sustainability Analytics and Modeling, 4, 100028.
177. Raihan, A., Atasoy, F. G., Atasoy, M., Ridwan, M., & Paul, A. (2022). The role of green energy, globalization, urbanization, and economic
growth toward environmental sustainability in the United States. Journal of Environmental and Energy Economics, 1(2), 8-17.
178. Peñuelas, J., & Sardans, J. (2021). Global change and forest disturbances in the Mediterranean basin: Breakthroughs, knowledge gaps, and
recommendations. Forests, 12(5), 603.
179. Vacek, Z., Vacek, S., & Cukor, J. (2023). European forests under global climate change: Review of tree growth processes, crises and
management strategies. Journal of Environmental Management, 332, 117353.
180. Raihan, A. (2024). Enhancing carbon sequestration through tropical forest management: A review. Journal of Forestry and Natural
Resources, 3(1), 33-48.
181. Ménard, I., Thiffault, E., Kurz, W. A., & Boucher, J. F. (2023). Carbon sequestration and emission mitigation potential of afforestation and
reforestation of unproductive territories. New Forests, 54(6), 1013-1035.
182. Raihan, A. (2023). A concise review of technologies for converting forest biomass to bioenergy. Journal of Technology Innovations and
Energy, 2(3), 10-36.
183. Seddon, N., Chausson, A., Berry, P., Girardin, C. A., Smith, A., & Turner, B. (2020). Understanding the value and limits of nature-based
solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 375(1794), 20190120.
184. Schwärzel, K., Zhang, L., Montanarella, L., Wang, Y., & Sun, G. (2020). How afforestation affects the water cycle in drylands: A process‐
based comparative analysis. Global change biology, 26(2), 944-959.
185. Zhang, T., Yang, J., Winrich, A., Will, R. E., & Zou, C. B. (2024). Trade-off of ecosystem productivity and water use related to afforestation
in southcentral USA under climate change. Science of The Total Environment, 915, 170255.
186. Di Sacco, A., Hardwick, K. A., Blakesley, D., Brancalion, P. H., Breman, E., Cecilio Rebola, L., ... & Antonelli, A. (2021). Ten golden rules
for reforestation to optimize carbon sequestration, biodiversity recovery and livelihood benefits. Global Change Biology, 27(7), 1328-1348.
187. Liu, C. L. C., Kuchma, O., & Krutovsky, K. V. (2018). Mixed-species versus monocultures in plantation forestry: Development, benefits,
ecosystem services and perspectives for the future. Global Ecology and Conservation, 15, e00419.
188. Nambiar, E. S., Harwood, C. E., & Kien, N. D. (2015). Acacia plantations in Vietnam: research and knowledge application to secure a
sustainable future. Southern Forests: A Journal of Forest Science, 77(1), 1-10.
189. Malkamäki, A., D’Amato, D., Hogarth, N. J., Kanninen, M., Pirard, R., Toppinen, A., & Zhou, W. (2018). A systematic review of the socio-
economic impacts of large-scale tree plantations, worldwide. Global Environmental Change, 53, 90-103.
190. Hofflinger, A., Nahuelpan, H., Boso, À., & Millalen, P. (2021). Do large-scale forestry companies generate prosperity in indigenous
communities? The socioeconomic impacts of tree plantations in southern Chile. Human Ecology, 49(5), 619-630.
191. Hong, W., Yang, J., Luo, J., Jiang, K., Xu, J., & Zhang, H. (2020). Reforestation Based on Mono-Plantation of Fast-Growing Tree Species
Make It Difficult to Maintain (High) Soil Water Content in Tropics, a Case Study in Hainan Island, China. Water, 12(11), 3077.
192. Pinnschmidt, A., Yousefpour, R., Nölte, A., & Hanewinkel, M. (2023). Tropical mixed-species plantations can outperform monocultures in
terms of carbon sequestration and economic return. Ecological Economics, 211, 107885.
193. Sing, L., Metzger, M. J., Paterson, J. S., & Ray, D. (2018). A review of the effects of forest management intensity on ecosystem services
for northern European temperate forests with a focus on the UK. Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research, 91(2), 151-164.
194. Messier, C., Bauhus, J., Sousa‐Silva, R., Auge, H., Baeten, L., Barsoum, N., ... & Zemp, D. C. (2022). For the sake of resilience and
multifunctionality, let's diversify planted forests!. Conservation Letters, 15(1), e12829.
195. Feng, Y., Schmid, B., Loreau, M., Forrester, D. I., Fei, S., Zhu, J., ... & Fang, J. (2022). Multispecies forest plantations outyield
monocultures across a broad range of conditions. Science, 376(6595), 865-868.
196. Warner, E., Cook-Patton, S. C., Lewis, O. T., Brown, N., Koricheva, J., Eisenhauer, N., ... & Hector, A. (2023). Young mixed planted forests
store more carbon than monocultures—a meta-analysis. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 6, 1226514.
197. Seddon, N. (2022). Harnessing the potential of nature-based solutions for mitigating and adapting to climate change. Science, 376(6600),
1410-1416.
198. Raihan, A. (2023). A comprehensive review of artificial intelligence and machine learning applications in energy consumption and
production. Journal of Technology Innovations and Energy, 2(4), 1-26.
199. Raihan, A. (2023). An Overview of the Implications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Sixth Generation (6G) Communication Network.
Research Briefs on Information and Communication Technology Evolution, 9, 120-146.
200. Raihan, A. (2023). A Comprehensive Review of the Recent Advancement in Integrating Deep Learning with Geographic Information
Systems. Research Briefs on Information and Communication Technology Evolution, 9, 98-115.
201. Raihan, A. (2023). Nexus between economy, technology, and ecological footprint in China. Journal of Economy and Technology, 1, 94-
107.
202. Raihan, A. (2023). Nexus between information technology and economic growth: new insights from India. Journal of Information
Economics, 1(2), 37-48.

18
 203. Raihan, A. (2023). Economy-energy-environment nexus: the role of information and communication technology towards green
development in Malaysia. Innovation and Green Development, 2(4), 100085.
204. Debnath, B., Taha, M. R., Siraj, M. T., Jahin, M. F., Ovi, S. I., Bari, A. B. M. M., Islam, A. R. M. T., & Raihan, A. (2024). A grey approach
to assess the challenges to adopting sustainable production practices in the apparel manufacturing industry: Implications for sustainability.
Results in Engineering, 22, 102006.
205. Raihan, A., Bala, S., Akter, A., Ridwan, M., Eleais, M., & Chakma, P. (2024). Advancing environmental sustainability in the G-7: The
impact of the digital economy, technological innovation, and financial accessibility using panel ARDL approach. Journal of Economy and
Technology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ject.2024.06.001
206. Rahman, M., Raihan, A., Muhtasim, D. A., Farhana, S., & Faruk, O. (2022). A Review on Voltammetry Potentiostat Devices to Detect
Leptospirosis. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 3(6), 1810-1817.
207. Raihan, A. (2023). The role of ICT and FDI on the Indian economy. Proceedings of The Pacific Rim Conference for Digital Technology
and Green Growth 14th – 17th July 2023, Mie University, Japan.
208. Raihan, A., Rashid, M., Voumik, L. C., Akter, S., & Esquivias, M. A. (2023). The dynamic impacts of economic growth, financial
globalization, fossil fuel energy, renewable energy, and urbanization on load capacity factor in Mexico. Sustainability, 15(18), 13462.
209. Sultana, T., Hossain, M. S., Voumik, L. C., & Raihan, A. (2023). Democracy, green energy, trade, and environmental progress in South
Asia: Advanced quantile regression perspective. Heliyon, 9(10), e20488.
210. Voumik, L. C., Islam, M. J., & Raihan, A. (2022). Electricity production sources and CO2 emission in OECD countries: static and dynamic
panel analysis. Global Sustainability Research, 1(2), 12-21.
211. Voumik, L. C., Ridwan, M., Rahman, M. H., & Raihan, A. (2023). An Investigation into the Primary Causes of Carbon Dioxide Releases
in Kenya: Does Renewable Energy Matter to Reduce Carbon Emission?. Renewable Energy Focus, 47, 100491.
212. Raihan, A. (2023). Green energy and technological innovation towards a low-carbon economy in Bangladesh. Green and Low-Carbon
Economy. https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewGLCE32021340
213. Raihan, A., & Voumik, L. C. (2022). Carbon emission dynamics in India due to financial development, renewable energy utilization,
technological innovation, economic growth, and urbanization. Journal of Environmental Science and Economics, 1(4), 36-50.
214. Raihan, A., & Voumik, L. C. (2022). Carbon emission reduction potential of renewable energy, remittance, and technological innovation:
empirical evidence from China. Journal of Technology Innovations and Energy, 1(4), 25-36.
215. Raihan, A., Tanchangya, T., Rahman, J., Ridwan, M., & Ahmad, S. (2022). The influence of Information and Communication Technologies,
Renewable Energies and Urbanization toward Environmental Sustainability in China. Journal of Environmental and Energy Economics,
1(1), 11-23.
216. Raihan, A. (2023). Exploring Environmental Kuznets Curve and Pollution Haven Hypothesis in Bangladesh: The Impact of Foreign Direct
Investment. Journal of Environmental Science and Economics, 2(1), 25-36.
217. Raihan, A. (2023). An overview of the energy segment of Indonesia: present situation, prospects, and forthcoming advancements in
renewable energy technology. Journal of Technology Innovations and Energy, 2(3), 37-63.
218. Raihan, A. (2024). The interrelationship amid carbon emissions, tourism, economy, and energy use in Brazil. Carbon Research, 3, 11.
219. Raihan, A. (2024). Nexus between natural resources, financial development, economic growth, and ecological footprint in Malaysia.
Proceedings of The International Conference on Natural Resources and Sustainable Development.
220. Fuss, S., Lamb, W. F., Callaghan, M. W., Hilaire, J., Creutzig, F., Amann, T., ... & Minx, J. C. (2018). Negative emissions—Part 2: Costs,
potentials and side effects. Environmental research letters, 13(6), 063002.
221. Raihan, A. (2024). Environmental impacts of the economy, tourism, and energy consumption in Kuwait. Kuwait Journal of Science, 51(4),
100264.
222. Raihan, A. (2024). Energy, economy, financial development, and ecological footprint in Singapore. Energy Economics Letters, 11(1), 29-
40.
223. Raihan, A., Voumik, L.C., Esquivias, M.A., Ridzuan, A.R., Yusoff, N.Y.M., Fadzilah, A.H.H., & Malayaranjan, S. (2023). Energy trails of
tourism: analyzing the relationship between tourist arrivals and energy consumption in Malaysia. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites, 51,
1786–1795.
224. Raihan, A., Voumik, L. C., Yusma, N., & Ridzuan, A. R. (2023). The nexus between international tourist arrivals and energy use towards
sustainable tourism in Malaysia. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11, 575.
225. Raihan, A., Voumik, L. C., Akter, S., Ridzuan, A. R., Fahlevi, M., Aljuaid, M., & Saniuk, S. (2024). Taking flight: Exploring the relationship
between air transport and Malaysian economic growth. Journal of Air Transport Management, 115, 102540.
226. Voumik, L. C., Rahman, M. H., Rahman, M. M., Ridwan, M., Akter, S., & Raihan, A. (2023). Toward a sustainable future: Examining the
interconnectedness among Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), urbanization, trade openness, economic growth, and energy usage in Australia.
Regional Sustainability, 4, 405-415.
227. Raihan, A. (2024). Dynamic impacts of public-private partnership investment in energy, economic growth, renewable energy, and financial
development on ecological footprint in Brazil. Proceedings of The International Conference on Energy and Environment.
228. Raihan, A. (2024). Dynamic impacts of economic growth, renewable energy, natural resources, and globalization toward environmental
sustainability in Jordan. Proceedings of The International Conference on Climate Change and Natural Resources Management for
Sustainable Development.
229. Raihan, A. (2024). Influences of the economy, trade, technology innovation, and ICT on Malaysia’s carbon emissions. Proceedings of The
International Conference on Economy, Technology, and Environment.
230. Ahmad, S., Raihan, A., & Ridwan, M. (2024). Role of economy, technology, and renewable energy toward carbon neutrality in China.
Journal of Economy and Technology 2, 138-154.

19

View publication stats