Urban Forestry: A Bibliometric Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58812/wsnt.v4i03.3145Keywords:
Bibliometric Analysis, Ecosystem Services, Urban Forestry, Urban Greening, VOSviewerAbstract
This study presents a bibliometric analysis of urban forestry research to map its intellectual structure, thematic evolution, and collaboration patterns. A total of 468 Scopus-indexed documents published between 2000 and 2026 were analyzed using VOSviewer through keyword co-occurrence, overlay, and density visualizations, co-authorship analysis at the author, institution, and country levels, and citation analysis. The results show that the field is organized around five interrelated themes: ecological sustainability, management and governance, human–tree interactions, tree planting and canopy management, and greenspace-oriented urbanization. The overlay map indicates a shift from management, policy, and participation topics toward climate change, ecosystem services, biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and remote sensing in recent years. Citation analysis highlights foundational works on the definition, costs, ecosystem benefits, and governance of urban forestry. Co-authorship networks reveal several cohesive research groups connected by a few influential scholars, while institutional collaboration remains limited. At the country level, the United States is the dominant hub, followed by Canada, China, Italy, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Brazil. These findings provide an overview of the development of urban forestry research and indicate directions for future studies.
References
[1] D. Nowak, “Institutionalizing urban forestry as a ‘biotechnology’ to improve environmental quality,” Urban For. Urban Green., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 93–100, 2006, doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2006.04.002.
[2] C. C. Konijnendijk, R. M. Ricard, A. Kenney, and T. B. Randrup, “Defining urban forestry - A comparative perspective of North America and Europe,” Urban For. Urban Green., vol. 4, no. 3–4, pp. 93–103, 2006, doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2005.11.003.
[3] S. Lwasa, F. Mugagga, B. Wahab, D. Simon, J. Connors, and C. Griffith, “Urban and peri-urban agriculture and forestry: Transcending poverty alleviation to climate change mitigation and adaptation,” Urban Clim., vol. 7, pp. 92–106, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.uclim.2013.10.007.
[4] S. Lwasa, F. Mugagga, B. Wahab, D. Simon, J. P. Connors, and C. Griffith, “A meta-analysis of urban and peri-urban agriculture and forestry in mediating climate change,” Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., vol. 13, pp. 68–73, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2015.02.003.
[5] P. Irga, M. Burchett, and F. Torpy, “Does urban forestry have a quantitative effect on ambient air quality in an urban environment?,” Atmos. Environ., vol. 120, pp. 173–181, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2015.08.050.
[6] G. Donovan, “Including public-health benefits of trees in urban-forestry decision making,” Urban For. Urban Green., vol. 22, pp. 120–123, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2017.02.010.
[7] S. K. Behera et al., “Assessment of carbon sequestration potential of tropical tree species for urban forestry in India,” Ecol. Eng., vol. 181, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2022.106692.
[8] G. Janse and C. Konijnendijk, “Communication between science, policy and citizens in public participation in urban forestry-Experiences from the Neighbourwoods project,” Urban For. Urban Green., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 23–40, 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2006.09.005.
[9] M. Kozová, Z. Dobšinská, E. Pauditšová, I. Tomčíková, and I. Rakytová, “Network and participatory governance in urban forestry: An assessment of examples from selected Slovakian cities,” For. Policy Econ., vol. 89, pp. 31–41, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2016.09.016.
[10] T. M. Conway, T. Shakeel, and J. Atallah, “Community groups and urban forestry activity: Drivers of uneven canopy cover?,” Landsc. Urban Plan., vol. 101, no. 4, pp. 321–329, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.02.037.
[11] X. Li, W. Y. Chen, G. Sanesi, and R. Lafortezza, “Remote sensing in urban forestry: Recent applications and future directions,” Remote Sens., vol. 11, no. 10, 2019, doi: 10.3390/rs11101144.
[12] H. César de Lima Araújo, F. Silva Martins, T. Tucunduva Philippi Cortese, and G. M. Locosselli, “Artificial intelligence in urban forestry—A systematic review,” Urban For. Urban Green., vol. 66, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127410.
[13] C. O. Barona et al., “Trends in Urban Forestry Research in Latin America & The Caribbean: A Systematic Literature Review and Synthesis,” Urban For. Urban Green., vol. 47, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126544.
[14] N. Donthu, S. Kumar, D. Mukherjee, N. Pandey, and W. M. Lim, “How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 133, pp. 285–296, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070.
[15] N. van Eck and L. Waltman, “Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping,” Scientometrics, vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 523–538, 2010, doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3.
[16] L. A. Roman et al., “Beyond ‘trees are good’: Disservices, management costs, and tradeoffs in urban forestry,” Ambio, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 615–630, 2021, doi: 10.1007/s13280-020-01396-8.
[17] A. Middel, N. Chhetri, and R. Quay, “Urban forestry and cool roofs: Assessment of heat mitigation strategies in Phoenix residential neighborhoods,” Urban For. Urban Green., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 178–186, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2014.09.010.
[18] C. Konijnendijk, “A decade of urban forestry in Europe,” For. Policy Econ., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 173–186, 2003, doi: 10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00023-6.
[19] K. Clark and K. Nicholas, “Introducing urban food forestry: A multifunctional approach to increase food security and provide ecosystem services,” Landsc. Ecol., vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 1649–1669, 2013, doi: 10.1007/s10980-013-9903-z.
[20] S. A. Nitoslawski, N. J. Galle, C. K. van den Bosc, and J. W. N. Steenberg, “Smarter ecosystems for smarter cities? A review of trends, technologies, and turning points for smart urban forestry,” Sustain. Cities Soc., vol. 51, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2019.101770.
[21] N. M. Gulsrud, K. Hertzog, and I. Shears, “Innovative urban forestry governance in Melbourne?: Investigating ‘green placemaking’ as a nature-based solution,” Environ. Res., vol. 161, pp. 158–167, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2017.11.005.
[22] J. Vogt, R. Hauer, and B. Fischer, “The costs of maintaining and not maintaining the urban forest: A review of the urban forestry and arboriculture literature,” Arboric. Urban For., vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 293–323, 2015.
[23] A. Sæbø, T. Benedikz, and T. B. Randrup, “Selection of trees for urban forestry in the Nordic countries,” Urban For. Urban Green., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 101–114, 2003, doi: 10.1078/1618-8667-00027.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Loso Judijanto, Sintia Permata Sari
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Facebook 
Instagram 
Twitter 
Youtube 
westscience.journals@gmail.com