Visualization of Forest Education Using CiteSpace: A Bibliometric Analysis

Abstract

In recent years, forest education has become a critical element in global environmental governance. This study employed the CiteSpace tool to systematically analyze 2917 titles of the forest education literature from the Web of Science Core Collection. The goal was to explore the spatial and temporal trends, thematic evolution, and emerging research directions in this field. The research shows that in recent years, the annual number of published papers on forest education has been on a continuous upward trend, and the attention to the subject has increased significantly. The research field mainly takes the United States in North America as the core center, with the joint participation of scholars from Europe and Asia. The development trajectory of the discipline shows a trend of gradual expansion toward multidisciplinary intersections and multidisciplinary integration based on traditional forestry and environmental sciences. Research hotspots mainly focus on core issues such as forest management, climate change, ecosystem services, and biodiversity. In recent years, they have expanded to include willingness to pay, prevalence, and student groups. It is expected that the research focus in the coming years will be on the cross-cutting issues of integrating forests with the economy, social public health, environmental protection, and sustainable development.

1. Introduction

Since the Industrial Revolution, the global industrialization process has profoundly reshaped the relationship between humans and nature [1]. Crises such as climate change, environmental pollution, and biodiversity loss are threatening the stability of Earth’s ecosystems and the sustainable development of humanity [2,3]. According to monitoring data from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the global average surface temperature in 2024 increased by about (1.55 ± 0.13) °C compared to the pre-industrial (1850–1900) level, which was approaching the 1.5 °C warming threshold set by the Paris Agreement [4]. Meanwhile, the Protected Planet Report 2024 stated that 17.6% of the world’s terrestrial and inland waters, and 8.4% of marine and coastal areas, had been designated as protected areas for ecological and environmental conservation [5]. Additionally, according to a report by The Lancet Commissions, the number of premature deaths caused by diseases related to environmental pollution reached 9 million in 2017, accounting for 16% of global deaths [6]. Against the backdrop of the worsening global environmental crisis, the way humanity interacts with nature requires profound reflection.

As the largest carbon reservoir in the global terrestrial ecosystem, forests have gained increasing attention due to their multiple value functions. For instance, in the ecological dimension, forests can regulate climate change, mitigate environmental pollution, and protect biodiversity [7,8,9,10]. In the socio-economic dimension, forests provide resources such as timber [11], eco-tourism opportunities [12], and recreational services [13], which are crucial for sustainable development.

In the educational dimension, forest education has been shown to enhance children’s and youth’s knowledge and attitudes regarding forests, as well as to improve their language skills [14], academic performance and cognitive abilities [15], and to foster the development of social relationships [16], independent personalities [17], and creativity [18]. According to current discussions in academia, forest education can be understood in two main categories: First, it is considered an offshoot of environmental education, emphasizing the value of forest ecosystems and sustainable development. For example, a study by the National Forestry Research Institute of Korea defines forest education as “education that recognizes the value of forests and cultivates human resources who practice this concept to achieve sustainable forest development” [19,20]. Similarly, Korean law defines forest education as “education that involves experiencing, exploring, and learning about the various functions of forests in order to understand their importance, acquire knowledge about forests, and cultivate correct values” [21]. Second, forest education is regarded as a form of outdoor education focused on the contribution of nature experiences to children’s cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and social development. In China, forest education is defined as “an outdoor learning process and practice that provides children or youth with opportunities for hands-on experiences in woodland environments as a way to develop self-confidence and self-esteem” [22,23]. In the UK, forest education refers to a form of outdoor education, where core concepts include (1) nature as a classroom, (2) child-centeredness, (3) regular and repeated experiences, and (4) freedom of choice and adventure [24].

In recent years, a great deal of academic research has been conducted on forest education, covering innovations in teaching methods [25], the development of educational technology [26], and improvements in environmental issues [27,28]. Although previous comprehensive studies have yielded significant results in the field of forest education, recognizing research hotspots and identifying their development trends has become increasingly challenging when relying solely on subjective analysis and traditional literature identification, especially given the rapid development of digital technology and the Internet. Therefore, this study aims to employ CiteSpace visual analysis tools to assess the current state of forest education research, identify key research themes and cooperation networks, and recognize the structural characteristics of the literature co-citation network. It also seeks to analyze the evolution of keyword co-occurrences and construct a knowledge framework with both theoretical depth and practical relevance. This will provide methodological references and innovative insights that can directly inform and guide future research.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Source and Selection Process

The Web of Science (WoS) is an authoritative database with broad subject coverage and extensive literature resources. This study selected the WoS core collection as the data source, which primarily includes the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE, 1982 to present) and the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI, 1999 to present). The reasons for selecting WoS as the data source are as follows: (1) WoS offers data with higher integrity and a longer period, making it more suitable for scientific research needs; (2) WoS provides comprehensive search functionality, enabling more accurate retrieval of relevant data; and (3) WoS is widely recognized and utilized globally as an authoritative index, ensuring that the study’s results are representative and authoritative [29].

To ensure the accuracy of the search and the precision of the analysis, strict adherence to the search guidelines was maintained (Figure 1) (Table 1):

A “subject” search was conducted using the query formula “((TS = (forest education)) OR TS = (forest school)) OR TS = (forest kindergarten)”.

Articles were filtered to include only “Article” or “Review Article”.

The language was filtered to “English”.

The search was conducted on 20 April 2025, with no restriction on publication dates (the earliest literature in this field recorded by WoS dates back to 1982). After deduplication and screening, 2917 valid articles were identified that met the following criteria: (1) focused on research related to forest education or forest environmental education, and (2) paid attention to the relevant extended research on forest education or forest environmental education.

2.2. Research Methodology

This study primarily employs a bibliometric method. Bibliometrics is a quantitative analysis approach that focuses on the external characteristics of scientific and technological literature. It utilizes mathematical and statistical methods to describe, evaluate, and predict the current state of science and technology, as well as the development trends in a given research area. The key feature of bibliometrics is that it relies on quantitative information [30].

In contrast, CiteSpace 6.2. R6 (64-bit) Advanced offers not only descriptive statistics but also correlation analysis, providing a panoramic view of knowledge domains such as highly cited literature, research topics, and keywords. It allows for an intuitive exploration of the developmental lineage of relevant research, the potential power mechanisms, and the research frontiers. The notable advantages of CiteSpace 6.2. R6 (64-bit) Advanced are as follows: (1) Bibliometric Analysis Capabilities: CiteSpace 6.2. R6 (64-bit) Advanced excels in deep literature data analysis, such as burst detection, co-citation analysis, and coupling analysis. It can reveal the evolution and development trends of a research field. Other software, such as VOSviewer (1.6.20), offers some bibliometric functions but lacks burst detection capabilities; (2) Multidimensional Analysis Capabilities: CiteSpace 6.2.R6 (64-bit) Advanced supports analysis of various data dimensions, including authors, institutions, countries, cited literature, cited authors, and cited journals, with the ability to combine single or dual selection functions for a wide range of analyses. In contrast, software like Refviz (2.0) is limited to analyzing subject headings, and while VOSviewer (1.6.20) can handle various data types, it cannot perform group and match analyses; (3) Large Database Processing: CiteSpace 6.2.R6 (64-bit) Advanced is capable of handling large bibliometric datasets, making it suitable for quantitative analysis of expansive bibliographic databases, yielding high-quality results.

In summary, CiteSpace 6.2. R6 (64-bit) Advanced is widely recognized for its powerful data visualization and analysis capabilities. It has been successfully applied to research in fields such as medicine [31], biochemistry [32], materials science [33], and ecology [34,35]. The objective of this study is to utilize CiteSpace 6.2. R6 (64-bit) Advanced to visualize the current research landscape, collaborations, co-citations, and co-occurrence evolution in forest education. This will help reveal the research hotspots, thematic developments, and emerging trends, thus guiding future research directions.

Using CiteSpace 6.2.R6 (64-bit) Advanced, the following steps (Figure 1) were taken to obtain data and perform visualization and analysis: (1) The dataset containing 2917 documents was exported from WoS to gather the final data on forest education research before 20 April 2025; (2) the time slice was set from January 1982 to April 2025 (since WoS records the earliest literature in the field starting from 1982), with a one-year interval for each slice. Meanwhile, in order to balance the comprehensiveness and focus of the keyword network and dynamically adapt to the differences in the amount of the literature sliced at different times, the Selection Criteria are set at K = 25. Furthermore, given that the data processing of some node types takes a long time, Pathfinder and Pruning sliced networks are selected in the Pruning option to improve the processing efficiency of nodes.

The home page and selection criteria are illustrated in Figure 2.

The research steps are shown in Figure 3.

3. Results

3.1. Research Overview

3.1.1. Analysis of the Annual Publication Volume

Figure 4 reveals the evolution trend of the annual publication volume of forest education-related research from 1982 to 2024 (the data for 2025 are not included in the figure for the time being due to the expiration of the statistical period). Based on the dynamics of literature growth, forest education research can be divided into three primary phases: (1) The Budding Period (1982–1994), during which the publication volume exhibited a slow upward trend, with an average annual output of 4.6 publications. Research topics primarily focused on forestry education, training, and forest management and policy [36,37,38]; (2) The Initial Development Period (1995–2010), where the number of publications gradually increased, showing significant growth compared to the previous period, with the average number of annual publications rising to 36.5. Research during this phase mainly centered on forestry [39], education [40], and economics and environment [41], as well as biodiversity conservation and related topics [42,43]; (3) The Rapid Growth Period (2011–2024), marked by a substantial increase in the number of publications, with the average number of annual publications reaching 158 (approximately 4.3 times the previous period). This phase witnessed a broadening and deepening of the research focus, particularly in fields such as environmental science [44], forest technology [45], biodiversity conservation, pedagogical research [46], business economics [47] and public environmental and occupational health [48].

The shift in research focus highlights the continuous adaptation of forest education research to the evolving global environmental and social development needs. The sharp increase in the number of published literature fully indicates that, on the one hand, under the background of the globalization, digitalization, and internationalization of scientific research, researchers’ interest in scientific research is constantly increasing. On the other hand, it reflects that the field of forest education is receiving increasing attention from researchers.

3.1.2. Analysis of Journals Published

Table 2 presents the top ten journals with the highest publication volume in the field of forest education research. A detailed analysis reveals the following key points: (1) Most journals are directly related to environmental issues. For instance, Forests ranks first with 108 articles, followed by Sustainability, an open access journal also published by MDPI. Overall, both types of journals are closely linked to environmental research. Forests primarily focuses on academic research related to “forestry”, while Sustainability covers a broader range of topics, including environmental, economic, and societal aspects of sustainable development, making it a comprehensive multidisciplinary journal. (2) There is a notable disparity in the number of publications across journals. The top four journals—Forests, Sustainability, Forest Policy and Economics, and Journal of Forestry—published 108, 102, 88, and 83 articles, respectively, accounting for 13% of the total publications. The next six journals show a declining trend in publication volumes, with the fourth-ranked Journal of Forestry publishing more than double the articles of the fifth-ranked Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, indicating a high concentration of research output on a few platforms within the field. (3) Journals with higher publication volumes tend to have higher impact factors. Specifically, six journals have an impact factor greater than 3, and eight journals have an impact factor above 2. The publication of high-quality journal articles suggests that forest education research has reached a high academic standard, providing a solid foundation and valuable scientific references for future studies.

3.1.3. Analysis of Publication Categories

Table 3 outlines the ten primary categories of applied research in forest education. The data demonstrate that this area of research is broad and encompasses several disciplinary fields, including forestry, environmental science, economics, and educational research. In terms of publication volume, Forestry ranks first with 724 publications, accounting for 24.8% of the total, serving as a foundational and core area of research within the field. Environmental Sciences and Environmental Studies follow in second and third place, with 573 and 491 publications, respectively, indicating that research in forest education is closely tied to broader environmental disciplines. For example, studies focused on raising awareness of environmental issues through education are included in this category [49]. Other significant categories include Ecology, Biodiversity Conservation, Green Sustainable Science and Technology, Economics, Public Environmental Health, and Education and Educational Research, highlighting the interdisciplinary nature of forest education research.

In summary, the analysis of publication categories in forest education research reveals two key characteristics: (1) The field has a clear core, with forestry and environmental research serving as the central focus, gradually expanding into other areas. (2) The research is highly interdisciplinary, covering a wide range of cross-cutting issues such as environmental science and technology, social public health, environmental education, and forest resource management. It is anticipated that future research in forest education will continue to evolve in a more specialized interdisciplinary direction.

3.2. Partnerships

3.2.1. Analysis of Institutional Collaboration

Table 4 provides an overview of the top 15 research institutions with strong collaboration in forest education research. The table includes rankings, frequency of collaboration (counts), centrality, starting year, and institution names. Among the listed institutions, centrality is used to measure the ability of a node to connect other nodes in the network. A higher centrality indicates greater influence within the collaborative network. The analysis reveals the following key characteristics: (1) U.S.-based institutions hold a dominant position, with ten of the top 15 research institutions located in the United States. (2) The University of California system and the Chinese Academy of Sciences play particularly critical roles in the collaborative structure. Although these institutions do not rank highest in terms of collaboration frequency, they exhibit high centrality values of 0.19 and 0.15, respectively. The University of California focuses primarily on forest fire research [50,51,52], while the Chinese Academy of Sciences is dedicated to ecosystem management [53], biodiversity conservation [54], and sustainable natural resource use [55]. (3) In terms of collaboration timing, two institutions—The University of British Columbia and the University of Helsinki—began their collaborative research efforts after 2010. This ongoing influx of new research energy highlights the dynamic development of the field and underscores the growing academic focus on forest education.

3.2.2. Analysis of Regional Cooperation

Table 5 presents the top 15 regions with the most collaborative research in forest education. The analysis reveals the following key findings: (1) The United States leads both in research output and collaborative influence in this field, with 941 articles and a centrality of 0.23. It is the core nation and a leader in forest education research, publishing approximately 3.4 times as many articles as the second-ranked China. (2) Among the top 15 collaborating regions, most are located in Europe (6), followed by Asia (4). The European region demonstrates significantly greater influence than the Asian region. For instance, while China ranks second in terms of the number of publications, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Spain rank third, fifth, and tenth, respectively. However, in terms of centrality, China’s centrality stands at only 0.04, whereas the United Kingdom, Germany, and Spain have centrality values of 0.17, 0.22, and 0.13, respectively, which are substantially higher than China’s. Countries with high and medium centrality serve as “bridges” in forest education research, connecting research efforts across different regions. In contrast, countries with low centrality may rely more on internal or unilateral collaborations. Therefore, the Asian region needs to enhance communication with international researchers and increase its influence within the global research collaboration network.

3.2.3. Analysis of Author Collaboration

Table 6 presents the 15 most collaborative scholars in the field of forest education research. The analysis reveals two key insights: (1) Researchers in this field demonstrate a high level of collaboration, with eight of the top 15 authors participating in four or more collaborative studies, and (2) a core group of authors has emerged in this field. For instance, Janeczko Emilia is the author with the highest number of collaborative publications. In her first collaborative paper published in 2021, she explored the differences in foresters’ and forest tourists’ perceptions of climate change impacts on forests. The study found that foresters were more likely to perceive significant impacts of climate change on forests than tourists [56]. In a more recent study, Janeczko and her collaborators examined the frequency of public forest tourism and changes in public perceptions of forests during the COVID-19 pandemic. They discovered that the frequency of public forest tourism increased during the outbreak, and the public generally regarded forests as safe places for recreation [57].

3.3. Co-Citation Analysis

3.3.1. Author Co-Citation Analysis

Author co-citation refers to the phenomenon in which two authors are cited together in other documents. For instance, if a paper (Literature A) cites both authors C and D, a co-citation relationship is formed between C and D. CiteSpace 6.2. R6 (64-bit) Advanced analyzes the co-citations of authors cited in the literature, revealing potential connections between authors, academic influence, and the evolution of research fields.

Table 7 presents the top 15 authors with the highest co-citation frequencies in forest education research. The analysis reveals three key findings: (1) Organizations also engage in co-citation, exerting significant influence. For example, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), as a non-individual author, was co-cited 123 times in this field. Its influential publications primarily analyze the nature and patterns of changes in forest tenure and explore the impacts of governance and social structures on forest ownership, use, and management practices [58]. (2) Despite similar citation frequencies, there are notable differences in the impact of authors. Authors with the highest citation frequency do not always possess the highest academic influence. For example, both Angelsen A and Agrawal A have a co-citation frequency of 72, ranking highest among individual authors. However, the centrality of Agrawal A is 0.23, while Angelsen A’s is only 0.05, indicating that Agrawal A is more academically influential. (3) A group of core researchers has emerged in forest education research. Specifically, in addition to the FAO, six authors have a centrality score of 0.05 or higher: Angelsen A (0.05), Agrawal A (0.23), Berkes F (0.07), Ostrom E (0.06), Ajzen I (0.05), and Costanza R (0.10). Angelsen A’s research focuses on forest conservation [59,60], Berkes F on forest management [61], Ostrom E on the effects of governance regimes on resource use and management [62], Ajzen I on the theory of planned behavior, which is widely applied in environmental education research [63], and Costanza R on the economic value of Earth’s ecosystem services and natural capital [64]. Collectively, these studies, which are foundational to or supportive of forest education, provide an important basis for further research in this area.

3.3.2. Journal Co-Citation Analysis

Journal co-citation analysis refers to the phenomenon in which two academic journals are cited together in a single document, reflecting the relationships between different journals. Table 8 presents the top 15 journals with the highest co-citation frequency. The field of forest education research is significantly influenced by these journals, as 14 of them have an impact factor (IF) greater than 3, and 9 journals have an IF of 6 or higher.

The analysis reveals several key findings: (1) The impact factors (IFs) of Science (ranked 1) and Nature (ranked 10) are 50.3 and 54.4, respectively. The multiple co-citations of high-IF journals indicate that the research in this area is of high scientific quality. (2) In the analysis of centrality, the Journal of Forestry has the highest centrality (0.11), but its IF is the lowest (2.2). This suggests that while the Journal of Forestry plays a central role in the co-citation network of journals in forest education research and is more closely linked to other journals, its influence may be confined to more specific areas. (3) The analysis of co-cited journals shows that forest education research is cross-disciplinary, integrating forests with various fields. For example, Forest Policy and Economics focuses on forest policy and economics, Ecological Economics on ecological economics, Forest Ecology and Management on forest ecology and management, and Landscape and Urban Planning on landscape and urban planning. (4) Among the top 15 journals in terms of citation frequency, no journals are categorized under education. This indicates that research related to forests and the environment continues to dominate the forest education research field, with a pressing need to strengthen cross-disciplinary connections with education.

3.3.3. Co-Citation Analysis of Literature

Co-cited references refer to two references that are cited together in the same document. The analysis of co-cited references helps to reveal the knowledge structure of a research field and identify its research frontiers and the key literature.

Table 9 presents the 15 most frequently cited references. The following research findings emerge from the analysis: (1) The occurrence frequency of R Core Team was twice and it ranked second in the author co-citation analysis. This indicates that the R language, a powerful tool for statistical analysis and data processing, is widely used in forest education research and has become a foundational element in the field’s development [65]. (2) Two studies focus on the scientific exploration of research methods and data processing. For example, Braun V’s study delves into qualitative research methods [66], while Dillman DA’s work addresses the design and effective administration of questionnaires [67]. The exploration of research methods is essential, serving as both the “quality gatekeeper” of academic research and a core tool for advancing knowledge, innovation, and solving complex problems, thus reflecting the rigorous nature of research in the field. (3) Other literature has made significant contributions to the development of forest education. For instance, Angelsen A’s study examines the contribution of environmental income to household income [68], Ardoin NM’s research explores the contribution of environmental education to nature conservation [69], and Estrada A investigates the endangered status of non-human primates [70].

3.4. Co-Occurrence Evolution

3.4.1. Co-Occurrence of Keywords

Table 10 presents the 15 most frequently occurring keywords within the field of forest education research. Among these, management, forest, conservation, and impacts are centrally positioned, with the largest nodes, each appearing more than 200 times, indicating their significance in the field. These keywords highlight the primary focus of research, which centers on promoting forest conservation through effective forest management [71] and examining the impacts of forest management on forest conservation. Additionally, terms such as climate change, ecosystem services, and biodiversity emerged frequently. Such nodes mainly focus on the impact of forest schools or forest education on climate change [72], and how to enhance people’s awareness of ecosystem services [73] and biodiversity [74] through forest education. Other notable keywords include attitudes, perceptions, community, behavior, and knowledge. Studies often focus on individuals’ attitudes [75], perceptions [10], and behaviors [76] towards forests, as well as the roles and functions of communities in forest education [77].

3.4.2. Keyword Clustering

Keyword clustering is the process of grouping keywords in scientific literature based on their co-occurrence relationships, placing keywords with similar themes and interrelationships into the same cluster. This analysis aids in identifying the research hotspots within the field of forest education. Using CiteSpace 6.2.R6 (64-bit) Advanced, the keywords of forest education were clustered and analyzed, resulting in 11 cluster labels for forest education research (Figure 5). The cluster labels, numbered from #0 to #10, indicate the number of keywords included in each cluster, with smaller numbers corresponding to clusters with more keywords and higher research relevance. The identified clusters are as follows: #0 Ecological Foundations, #1 Forest School, #2 Forest Management, #3 Willingness to Pay, #4 Risk Factors, #5 Primate Research, #6 Climate Change, #7 Latin America, #8 Conservation Education, #9 Population Dynamics, and #10 Strategy.

Based on the co-occurrence relationships and clustering of keywords, the relevant literature was manually reviewed and summarized to further refine the research themes in forest education. These themes can be categorized into three primary areas: ecological conservation-related studies (including clusters #0 Ecological Foundations, #2 Forest Management, #4 Risk Factors, #6 Climate Change, #5 Primate, #9 Population Dynamics, and #10 Strategy); education-related studies (including clusters #1 Forest School, #4 Risk Factors, and #8 Conservation Education); and social and economic studies (including clusters #3 Willingness to Pay and #7 Latin America).

3.4.3. Analysis of Research Hotspots

Keyword emergence refers to the significant increase in the frequency of specific keywords over a given period. Through the analysis of keyword emergence, researchers can gain insights into the emerging research foci, understand the dynamics of the research frontier, and predict future trends within a particular field. In the emergence graph, “Start” and “End” denote the beginning and end times of keyword emergence, respectively, while “Strength” indicates the sudden change intensity of the emergent keyword. In the emergent word analysis of CiteSpace, intensity is used to quantify the degree of frequency change of keywords within a specific time period (defined by “Begin” and “End”). The core logic is: By comparing the word frequency within this period with that of the background period (the distribution of word frequency before and after emergence), calculate the significant growth rate of the word frequency. The higher the intensity value is, the more intense the increase in the literature’s attention on the keyword during the mutation period is, and the stronger its dominance over the research hotspots in the field is. The calculation of emergence intensity is based on Kleinberg’s (2002) state transition model. For details, please refer to [78,79].

CiteSpace 6.2. R6 (64-bit) Advanced was employed to analyze the emergent keywords in forest education, identifying the top 30 keywords with the highest emergence intensity (Figure 6). The development of these keywords unfolds in distinct stages, each characterized by different research hotspots. Specifically, (1) the “budding period” (1982–1994) primarily focused on basic concepts, with no major hotspots emerging. However, several keywords appeared for the first time, including “forest” (first appearing in 1991 with an intensity of 5.44, becoming a hotspot in 2002–2005), “grow” (first appearing in 1991 with an intensity of 5.44, also a hotspot in 2002–2005), “growth” (first appearing in 1993 with an intensity of 6.32, a hotspot from 2004–2012), and “responses” (first appearing in 1994 with an intensity of 5.08, becoming a hotspot in 2009–2012). (2) During the “ Initial Development Period” (1995–2010), research hotspots began to focus on keywords such as “forest”, “forest management”, “growth”, “protected areas”, and “agroforestry”. These keywords not only represent the core research themes of the field but also highlight the gradual expansion and deepening of research interests. The emergence of terms like “forest management” and “protected areas” suggests an increasing focus on sustainable forest resource use and conservation, while “agroforestry” and “landscape” reflect a growing understanding of the multifunctional nature of forest ecosystems. (3) During the “rapid growth period”, keywords such as “United States”, “green space”, “performance”, “framework”, and “willingness to pay” gained prominence. The emergence of “United States” as a research hotspot suggests greater investment and influence in the field by American researchers. Meanwhile, the increasing prominence of terms like “green space” and “performance” indicates a growing focus on the role of forest education in enhancing urban environmental quality and ecosystem services. Additionally, the prominence of “framework” and “willingness to pay” reflects a burgeoning interest in the economic value and social acceptability of forest education.

3.5. Knowledge Framework

Through an in-depth analysis, this study identifies distinct hotspots in forest education research at different stages of development. Emerging research areas build upon existing themes, and the transformation of research hotspots and trends is inherently dynamic. While previous comprehensive studies have systematically examined the multidimensional values of forest education, several pressing issues and research directions remain that warrant further exploration. Notably, a cohesive body of theoretical knowledge has yet to be established. In response, this study constructs a valuable, comprehensive, and intuitive theoretical framework based on 2917 literature records from the WoS Core Collection. The aim is to provide a holistic view of the development of forest education research and offer guidance for future studies (Figure 7).

By analyzing publications, the study uncovers important insights into the evolutionary trend of research in the field, including the scale of research, core journals, and research institutions. The findings indicate that the volume of literature in forest education has exhibited significant growth, which can be categorized into three phases: the budding period (1982–1994), the initial development period (1995–2010), and the rapid development period (2011–2024). This growth reflects an increasing scholarly interest in the field. Furthermore, the rising number of publications and the diversification of content suggest a promising future for forest education research. Specifically, the journals Forests, Sustainability, and Forest Policy and Economics are among the top three in terms of publication volume, while Forestry, Environmental Sciences, and Environmental Studies are the most widely researched fields.

The collaboration analysis reveals the dynamic interactions between institutions, regions, and authors in forest education research. Specifically, the United States Department of Agriculture, the United States Forest Service, and Wake Forest University are the three most collaborative institutions. Geographically, the United States, the People’s Republic of China, and England are the most cooperative regions. Regarding authors, Janeczko, Emilia; Korcz, Natalia; and Dwivedi, Puneet stand out as the top three most cooperative researchers.

Co-citation analysis uncovers fundamental and innovative research, tracing the historical lineage of knowledge development and revealing the co-citation relationships among authors, journals, and references. The analysis highlights that the research of the FAO, R Core Team, and Angelsen A is of significant foundational and pioneering importance. Additionally, the journals Science, PLOS One, and Forest Policy and Economics are widely cited and have had a considerable impact on scientific communication in the field. Three documents—Braun V (2021) [66], Angelsen A (2014) [68], and R Core Team (2020)—occupy prominent positions in the co-citation network, reflecting their scholarly value and influence in the field.

Co-occurrence analysis is crucial for identifying hot topics and emerging trends in the field. By examining the core topics at different stages and their potential turning points, the study identifies key themes in forest education research, including ecological foundations, forest schools, and forest management. Core keywords include “management”, “forest”, and “conservation”, while recent hot topics feature “willingness to pay”, “prevalence”, and “students”.

4. Discussion

4.1. Hot Spots for Future Research

Forest Education and Economics. Future research could explore the service value of forest ecosystems [80] and investigate the amount and frequency that residents are willing to pay for forest education programs aimed at improving the forest environment [81]. Studies could also examine how socio-economic backgrounds, environmental awareness levels, and other factors influence residents’ willingness to pay [82]. In-depth research into the factors that motivate residents to support forest education and environmental protection, including personal values and socio-cultural influences, would also be valuable.

Forest Education and Public Health. Future studies may continue to explore the therapeutic effects of forests [83], the impact of nature exposure on physical and mental health [84], and the mechanisms through which forest education promotes public engagement with nature [85]. Moreover, research could investigate how various forms of forest education activities (e.g., forest schools, outdoor adventures) influence the physical fitness, mental health, and cognitive development of children and adolescents [86].

Forest Education and Environmental Protection/Sustainable Development. Research on the contributions of forest education to environmental protection [87], climate change mitigation [72] and biodiversity conservation [74] should be further explored. Future studies could examine the synergy between forest education and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [88], particularly how forest education can contribute to achieving multiple SDGs, such as improving the quality of education [89], mitigating climate change, and preserving ecosystems.

4.2. Comparative Discussion

Comparative discussion is conducive to better research. We compared this study with the previous review literature related to forest education and found the following differences.

This study focuses on forest education itself rather than its subfields. Other previous literature review studies have mostly focused on the subfields of forest education. For example, Sella explored the psychological benefits of forest schools for preschool children [86]; Ernst analyzed the contribution of natural play to sustainable development; Choi discussed the application of virtual reality technology in forest education [20]; and Ntawuruhunga analyzed climate-smart agriculture and forestry in Africa. These studies have made outstanding contributions to the development of the field of forest education [90]. However, in contrast, our research also provides a more comprehensive perspective for this field.

This study adopted a broader bibliometric perspective to present the results and elaborate on the relationships among the literature, providing researchers with a more intuitive understanding of the core knowledge structure in this field. In contrast, previous studies usually reviewed the frontiers and progress in the research field through manual text or comparison [91], which may lead to personal bias and lengthy text.

Through a comprehensive analysis of publication information, cooperative relationships, co-citation analysis, and co-occurrence analysis, this study has established a comprehensive knowledge framework, ensuring a comprehensive logical structure in multiple dimensions of forest education research and making it easier for readers to grasp the core information in this field. In contrast, previous review studies have also pointed out the challenges and possible research directions in the current field [92,93]. However, they can only guide the research direction of subsequent studies in specific subfields and cannot focus on the research of forest education itself.

5. Conclusions

This study employed CiteSpace 6.2. R6 (64-bit) Advanced software to conduct a bibliometric analysis of 2917 articles on forest education from the Web of Science Core Collection, providing a comprehensive overview of the research history, hotspots, and trends in the field. The study found the following:

Publication Trends. There has been increasing attention paid to forest education in recent years, with most published journals focusing on environmental research. The publications primarily belong to the “forestry” category.

Collaboration Patterns. The United States is the central hub of forest education research, with notable participation from European and Asian institutions. Scholars from European countries tend to have a higher academic influence compared to their counterparts in Asia.

Co-citation Analysis. The research in the field of forest education is of high scientific quality, with non-individual authors (such as organizations and institutions) also playing a significant role in shaping the field. Notably, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the R Core Team are influential non-individual contributors.

Co-occurrence Analysis. The primary research hotspots in forest education include topics such as management, forest conservation, education, climate change, ecosystem services, biodiversity, and more. The main focus of research is on ecological conservation, education, and socio-economic issues. It is anticipated that, in the coming years, research hotspots will become more refined, with topics such as willingness to pay, prevalence, and students emerging as significant areas of focus.

However, this study has some limitations: (1) The bibliometric approach, which primarily assesses research influence and trends based on quantitative indices like document count and citation frequency, may overlook documents with significant theoretical innovations or practical guidance but low citation rates. For example, recently published cutting-edge research might be undervalued because it has not yet been widely cited. (2) The research might have underestimated the academic contributions of regions with scarce economic resources. Many researchers in developing countries are confronted with practical access barriers to open access journals, including the burden of article processing fees, restrictions on database subscriptions, or the cost of using digital tools, which makes it difficult for their achievements to be included in the WOS core collection or precisely retrieved. (3) The findings of this study may have a certain degree of timeliness because scientific research is a continuous and in-depth process. As time goes by, more research will be injected into this field.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft, methodology, funding acquisition, and formal analysis: B.Z.; writing—review and editing, software, visualization, and data curation: Y.S.; writing—review and editing: L.L.; writing—conceptualization, and validation: Q.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Figures and Tables

Figure 1 Data screening process.

Figure 2 CiteSpace operation homepage.

Figure 3 Research steps.

Figure 4 Annual publication volume chart.

Figure 5 Keyword clustering graph.

Figure 6 Emergent word analysis diagram.

Figure 7 Knowledge structure diagram of forest education research.

Table 1

“Problems” and “Explanations”.

Problems	Explanations
1. Why limit the language to “English”?	Firstly, English is widely used in academic research, even among non-English speakers; secondly, it is easier to use CiteSpace 6.2. R6 (64-bit) Advanced to analyze and highlight a large amount of key information if the same language is chosen in the data file.
2. How were the data screened?	Two members are responsible for screening the titles, abstracts, and contents of the articles to exclude book reviews, conference reports, retracted articles, and the literature unrelated to the research topic; in case of disagreement, a third team member will be invited to participate in the judging to ensure the accuracy and precision of the data.

Table 2

Analysis of published journals (top 10 journals).

Ranking	Journal	5-Year IF	Count	Percentage
1	Forests	2.7	108	3.697%
2	Sustainability	3.6	102	3.492%
3	Forest Policy and Economics	4.0	88	3.013%
4	Journal of Forestry	2.2	83	2.841%
5	Urban Forestry & Urban Greening	6.4	40	1.369%
6	Forestry Chronicle	1.1	39	1.335%
7	Forest Ecology and Management	3.9	38	1.301%
8	Small Scale Forestry	1.7	36	1.232%
9	PLOS One	3.3	33	1.130%
10	Journal of Environmental Management	7.9	31	1.061%

Table 3

Analysis of publication categories (top 10 categories).

Ranking	Category	Count	Percentage
1	Forestry	724	24.786%
2	Environmental Sciences	573	19.617%
3	Environmental Studies	491	16.809%
4	Ecology	383	13.112%
5	Biodiversity Conservation	248	8.490%
6	Green Sustainable Science Technology	196	6.368%
7	Economics	156	5.341%
8	Education and Educational Research	137	4.690%
9	Plant Sciences	131	4.485%
10	Public Environmental Occupational Health	117	4.005%

Table 4

Analysis of institutional cooperation (top 15 institutions).

Ranking	Count	Centrality	Starting Year	Institution
1	87	0.05	1998	United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2	77	0.09	1998	United States Forest Service
3	75	0.06	1992	Wake Forest University
4	64	0.19	1992	University of California System
5	61	0.15	1992	Chinese Academy of Sciences
6	40	0.05	1993	Pennsylvania Commonwealth System of Higher Education (PCSHE)
7	36	0.07	1993	Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
8	35	0.03	2006	CGIAR
9	34	0.04	2010	University of British Columbia
10	31	0.01	1993	Pennsylvania State University
11	30	0.02	1993	Pennsylvania State University-University Park
12	30	0.01	1997	Oregon State University
13	28	0.03	1999	State University System of Florida
14	27	0.04	2014	University of Helsinki
15	27	0.03	2008	University of London

Table 5

Regional cooperation analysis (top 15 regions).

Ranking	Count	Centrality	Starting Year	Region
1	941	0.23	1983	USA
2	273	0.04	1992	PEOPLES R CHINA
3	243	0.17	1986	ENGLAND
4	189	0.06	1990	CANADA
5	167	0.22	2001	GERMANY
6	157	0.09	1993	AUSTRALA
7	143	0.03	1997	BRAZIL
8	93	0.05	2001	FINLAND
9	88	0.04	2000	INDIA
10	84	0.13	2001	SPAIN
11	79	0.06	1991	SWEDEN
12	77	0.03	1998	JAPAN
13	69	0.05	2003	ITALY
14	68	0.06	1994	INDONESIA
15	63	0.08	1998	SOUTH AFRICA

Table 6

Author collaboration analysis (top 15 authors).

Ranking	Count	Centrality	Year	Author
1	11	0.00	2021	Janeczko, Emilia
2	8	0.00	2021	Korcz, Natalia
3	6	0.00	2018	Dwivedi, Puneet
4	5	0.00	2019	Wang, Guangyu
5	4	0.00	2011	Aguilar, Francisco X
6	4	0.00	2006	Baricevic, Dario
7	4	0.00	2018	Grote, Ulrike
8	4	0.00	2020	Xie, Yi
9	3	0.00	2019	Abubakar, Sazaly
10	3	0.00	2016	Aerts, Raf
11	3	0.00	2008	Barraza, Laura
12	3	0.00	2001	Finley, JC
13	3	0.00	2001	Jones, SB
14	3	0.00	2023	Hakamada, Rodrigo
15	3	0.00	2021	Tesema, Getayeneh Antehunegn

Table 7

Author co-citation analysis (top 15 authors).

Ranking	Count	Centrality	Year	Author
1	123	0.06	2011	FAO
2	81	0.01	2016	R Core Team
3	72	0.05	2007	Angelsen A
4	72	0.23	2004	Agrawal A
5	71	0.07	2005	Berkes F
6	68	0.01	2015	WHO
7	66	0.03	2009	Butler BJ
8	64	0.06	2004	Ostrom E
9	64	0.01	2010	World Bank
10	59	0.05	2004	Ajzen I
11	53	0.03	1993	Dillman DA
12	51	0.10	2003	Costanza R
13	49	0.01	2015	World Health Organization
14	45	0.02	2008	Wunder S
15	45	0.02	1999	Godoy R

Table 8

Co-citation analysis of journals (top 15 journals).

Ranking	Count	Centrality	5-Year IF	Journal
1	606	0.05	50.3	Science
2	605	0.02	3.3	PLOS One
3	512	0.03	4.0	Forest Policy and Economics
4	486	0.02	6.1	Conservation Biology
5	481	0.09	6.0	Biological Conservation
6	473	0.02	6.9	Ecological Economics
7	462	0.05	3.9	Forest Ecology and Management
8	454	0.06	7.9	Journal Of Environmental Management
9	434	0.01	10.8	Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences of The United States of America
10	395	0.03	54.4	Nature
11	372	0.03	3.5	Environmental Management
12	364	0.11	2.2	Journal of Forestry
13	363	0.01	3.6	Sustainability
14	350	0.04	6.5	World Development
15	349	0.03	8.7	Landscape and Urban Planning

Table 9

Co-citation analysis of literature (top 15 literature).

Ranking	Count	Year	Authors	Title
1	27	2020	Braun V	One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?
2	17	2014	Angelsen A	Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis
3	16	2020	R Core Team	R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.
4	14	2014	Dillman DA	Internet, phone, mail, and mixed mode surveys: The tailored design method, 4th ed.
5	12	2019	Bongaants·J	IPBES, 2019. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
6	12	2023	R Core Team	R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing.
7	12	2017	Estrada A	Impending extinction crisis of the world’s primates: Why primates matter
8	12	2015	Sample VA	The Promise and Performance of Forestry Education in the United States: Results of a Survey of Forestry Employers, Graduates, and Educators
9	11	2021	Page MJ	The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
10	10	2020	Ardoin NM	Environmental education outcomes for conservation: A systematic review
11	10	2020	Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations	Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020, Key findings
12	10	2019	Coates IK	Learning while playing: Children’s Forest School experiences in the UK
13	9	2009	Surendra·GC	Segmenting landowners based on their information-seeking behavior: a look at the landowner education on the red oak borer
14	8	2021	Dabaia ZF,	The Forest School impact on children: reviewingtwo decades of research
15	8	2015	Harris F	The nature of learning at forest school: practitioners’ perspectives

Table 10

Co-occurrence of keywords (top 15 keywords).

Ranking	Count	Year	Keyword
1	321	1997	management
2	268	1991	forest
3	259	1993	conservation
4	206	2005	impacts
5	157	1997	education
6	152	1999	climate change
7	152	2010	ecosystem services
8	149	2004	biodiversity
9	130	1999	attitudes
10	130	2009	perceptions
11	124	1196	community
12	93	1993	behavior
13	89	2006	knowledge
14	81	2005	protected areas
15	78	1992	health

References

1. Zalasiewicz, J.; Waters, C.N.; Williams, M.; Barnosky, A.D.; Cearreta, A.; Crutzen, P.; Ellis, E.; Ellis, M.A.; Fairchild, I.J.; Grinevald, J. When did the Anthropocene begin? A mid-twentieth century boundary level is stratigraphically optimal. Quat. Int.; 2015; 383, pp. 196-203. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.11.045]

2. Wadanambi, R.; Wandana, L.; Chathumini, K.; Dassanayake, N.; Preethika, D.; Arachchige, U. The effects of industrialization on climate change. J. Res. Technol. Eng.; 2020; 1, pp. 86-94.

3. Lu, Y.; Yang, Y.; Sun, B.; Yuan, J.; Yu, M.; Stenseth, N.C.; Bullock, J.M.; Obersteiner, M. Spatial variation in biodiversity loss across China under multiple environmental stressors. Sci. Adv.; 2020; 6, eabd0952. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd0952] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33219032]

4. WMO. Confirms 2024 as Warmest Year on Record at About 1.55 °C Above Pre-Industrial Level. 2025; Available online: https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/wmo-confirms-2024-warmest-year-record-about-155degc-above-pre-industrial-level (accessed on 20 March 2025).

5. Protected Planet Report 2024. Available online: https://digitalreport.protectedplanet.net/ (accessed on 3 June 2025).

6. The Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health. Available online: https://www.thelancet.com/pb-assets/Lancet/stories/commissions/pollution-2017/executive_summary_chinese-1511448095127.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2025).

7. Janeczko, E.; Wojtan, R.; Korcz, N.; Woźnicka, M. Interpretative signs as a tool supporting informal environmental education on the example of Warsaw’s urban forests. Forests; 2021; 12, 1091. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f12081091]

8. de Jong, W.; Huang, K.; Zhuo, Y.; Kleine, M.; Wang, G.; Liu, W.; Xu, G. A comparison of forestry continuing education academic degree programs. Forests; 2021; 12, 824. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f12070824]

9. Owuor, J.; Winkel, G.; Giessen, L.; Prior, L.; Burns, J.; Tegegne, Y.; Poschen, P. Passion for nature: Global student motivations for forestrelated education and career aspirations. Int. For. Rev.; 2023; 25, pp. 358-371. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1505/146554823837586212]

10. Harris, F. Developing a relationship with nature and place: The potential role of forest school. Environ. Educ. Res.; 2021; 27, pp. 1214-1228. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2021.1896679]

11. Eriksson, A.; Eggers, J.; Claesson, S.; Fridman, J.; Nylander, M.; Olsson, P.; Öhman, K.; Nordström, E.-M. Availability and mobilization of forest resources in Sweden. Eur. J. For. Res.; 2024; 143, pp. 703-712. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10342-023-01647-9]

12. Higuera, H.J.G.; Rogelja, T.; Secco, L. Policy framework as a challenge and opportunity for social innovation initiatives in eco-tourism in Colombia. For. Policy Econ.; 2023; 157, 103076. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2023.103076]

13. Droli, M.; Sigura, M.; Vassallo, F.G.; Droli, G.; Iseppi, L. Evaluating potential respiratory benefits of forest-based experiences: A regional scale approach. Forests; 2022; 13, 387. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f13030387]

14. Leske, S.; Bögeholz, S. Biologische Vielfalt regional und weltweit erhalten-Zur Bedeutung von Naturerfahrung, Interesse an der Natur, Bewusstsein über deren Gefährdung und Verantwortung. ZfDN; 2008; 14, pp. 167-184. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.25656/01:31630]

15. Dabaja, Z.F. The Forest School impact on children: Reviewing two decades of research. Educ. 3-13; 2022; 50, pp. 640-653. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2021.1889013]

16. Cumming, F.; Nash, M. An Australian perspective of a forest school: Shaping a sense of place to support learning. J. Adventure Educ. Outdoor Learn.; 2015; 15, pp. 296-309. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2015.1010071]

17. Mackinder, M. A bird’s eye view: Comparing young children’s play in Forest School in England with Forest Kindergarten in Denmark. Educ. 3-13; 2024; 52, pp. 718-735. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2022.2126284]

18. Hunter-Doniger, T. Seeing the forest through the trees: At the intersection of Forest Kindergartens and art-based environmental education. J. Adventure Educ. Outdoor Learn.; 2021; 21, pp. 217-229. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14729679.2020.1771388]

19. Ha, S.Y.; Choi, S.H.; Park, S.J.; Lee, Y.H. Curriculum Connection Forest Education Standard Guideline Development; National Institute of Forest Science: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2021.

20. Choi, S.; Ha, S.; Choe, J. Systematic Review of Research on Reality Technology-Based Forest Education. Forests; 2023; 14, 1815. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f14091815]

21. Forest Education Promotion Act. 2021; Available online: https://elaw.klri.re.kr/kor_service/lawView.do?hseq=57264&lang=KOR (accessed on 22 March 2025).

22. Wan, J.; Chen, Y. The Development of Forest Education In developed countries and Educational Implications. Prim. Second. Sch. Abroad.; 2013; 32, pp. 35–38+27. (In China with English Abstract) [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1007-8495.2013.08.006]

23. Chen, S.J.; Hua, Z. International Experience and Development Trends in Forest Education for Children. Stud. Foreign Educ.; 2024; 51, pp. 3-16. (In China with English Abstract)

24. Cree, J. Forest School—The UK Context: How This Nature-Based Outdoor Education Became a New ‘Term’ in the UK and What Challenges Does it Face in 2022?. Outdoor Environmental Education in the Contemporary World; Činčera, J.; Johnson, B.; Goldman, D.; Alkaher, I.; Medek, M. Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; Volume 12, pp. 151-165. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29257-6_10]

25. Tal, G.; Dishon, G.; Vedder-Weiss, D. ‘I know how to say it, but I still don’t know it in my hands’: Examining practices and epistemology in Forest Education. Environ. Educ. Res.; 2023; 29, pp. 1502-1514. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2023.2241681]

26. Jussila, T.; Virtanen, V. Learning in Virtual Forest: A forest ecosystem in the web-based learning environment. J. Biol. Educ.; 2014; 48, pp. 196-200. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2013.863794]

27. Sarvaš, M.; Chlpošová, D. Forest pedagogy as a part of environmental education: Opportunities and challenges for the forestry sector in Slovakia. Rep. For. Res.; 2021; 66, pp. 67-71.

28. Kowasch, M.; Oettel, J.; Bauer, N.; Lapin, K. Forest education as contribution to education for environmental citizenship and non-anthropocentric perspectives. Environ. Educ. Res.; 2022; 28, pp. 1331-1347. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2022.2060940]

29. Geng, Y.; Zhang, X.; Gao, J.; Yan, Y.; Chen, L. Bibliometric analysis of sustainable tourism using CiteSpace. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.; 2024; 202, 123310. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123310]

30. Zhu, L.; Meng, X.X. The Comparative Study on Bibliometric Method and Content Analysis Method. Libr. Work Study; 2013; 35, pp. 64-66. (In China with English Abstract) [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.16384/j.cnki.lwas.2013.06.017]

31. He, H.; Liu, C.; Chen, M.; Guo, X.; Li, X.; Xiang, Z.; Liao, F.; Dong, W. Effect of dietary patterns on inflammatory bowel disease: A machine learning bibliometric and visualization analysis. Nutrients; 2023; 15, 3442. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu15153442]

32. Pan, Y.; Fu, L.; Du, J.; Zhang, D.; Lü, T.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, H. Layer-by-layer self-assembly coating for multi-functionalized fabrics: A scientometric analysis in CiteSpace (2005–2021). Molecules; 2022; 27, 6767. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules27196767]

33. Zhan, M.; Xu, M.; Lin, W.; He, H.; He, C. Graphene Oxide Research: Current Developments and Future Directions. Nanomaterials; 2025; 15, 507. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nano15070507]

34. Wang, J.; Tian, G. Sustainability of forest eco-products: Comprehensive analysis and future research directions. Forests; 2023; 14, 2008. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f14102008]

35. Xie, J.; Zhang, G.; Li, Y.; Yan, X.; Zang, L.; Liu, Q.; Chen, D.; Sui, M.; He, Y. A bibliometric analysis of forest gap research during 1980–2021. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 1994. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15031994]

36. Damme, L.V.; Brown, K.M. The Ontario advanced forestry program. For. Chron.; 1992; 68, pp. 607-611. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5558/tfc68607-5]

37. Coufal, J.E. Forest Technician School Enrollment and Employment of Graduates, 1980-1981. J. For.; 1982; 80, pp. 94-96. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jof/80.2.94]

38. Alexander, N.E. Pest Management Education for Forest Technologists in British Columbia. For. Chron.; 1987; 63, pp. 235-239. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5558/tfc63235-4]

39. Konijnendijk, C.C. A decade of urban forestry in Europe. For. Policy Econ.; 2003; 5, pp. 173-186. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00023-6]

40. Ruiz-Mallen, I.; Barraza, L.; Bodenhorn, B.; Ceja-Adame, M.d.l.P.; Reyes-García, V. Contextualising learning through the participatory construction of an environmental education programme. Int. J. Sci. Educ.; 2010; 32, pp. 1755-1770. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500690903203135]

41. Zbinden, S.; Lee, D.R. Paying for environmental services: An analysis of participation in Costa Rica’s PSA program. World Dev.; 2005; 33, pp. 255-272. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.07.012]

42. Kinnaird, M.F.; Sanderson, E.W.; O’Brien, T.G.; Wibisono, H.T.; Woolmer, G. Deforestation trends in a tropical landscape and implications for endangered large mammals. Conserv. Biol.; 2003; 17, pp. 245-257. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02040.x]

43. Fernández-Juricic, E.; Jokimäki, J. A habitat island approach to conserving birds in urban landscapes: Case studies from southern and northern Europe. Biodivers. Conserv.; 2001; 10, pp. 2023-2043. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1013133308987]

44. Nowak, D.J.; Hirabayashi, S.; Bodine, A.; Greenfield, E. Tree and forest effects on air quality and human health in the United States. Environ. Pollut.; 2014; 193, pp. 119-129. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2014.05.028]

45. Pritchard, H.W.; Moat, J.F.; Ferraz, J.B.; Marks, T.R.; Camargo, J.L.C.; Nadarajan, J.; Ferraz, I.D. Innovative approaches to the preservation of forest trees. For. Ecol. Manag.; 2014; 333, pp. 88-98. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.08.012]

46. Coates, J.K.; Pimlott-Wilson, H. Learning while playing: Children’s forest school experiences in the UK. Br. Educ. Res. J.; 2019; 45, pp. 21-40. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/berj.3491]

47. Cai, Z.; Xie, Y.; Aguilar, F.X. Eco-label credibility and retailer effects on green product purchasing intentions. For. Policy Econ.; 2017; 80, pp. 200-208. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.04.001]

48. Akpinar, A.; Barbosa-Leiker, C.; Brooks, K.R. Does green space matter? Exploring relationships between green space type and health indicators. Urban For. Urban Green.; 2016; 20, pp. 407-418. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.10.013]

49. Kirkpatrick, J.; Davison, A.; Daniels, G. Resident attitudes towards trees influence the planting and removal of different types of trees in eastern Australian cities. Landsc. Urban Plan.; 2012; 107, pp. 147-158. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.015]

50. Stetler, K.M.; Venn, T.J.; Calkin, D.E. The effects of wildfire and environmental amenities on property values in northwest Montana, USA. Ecol. Econ.; 2010; 69, pp. 2233-2243. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06.009]

51. Alexandre, P.M.; Stewart, S.I.; Mockrin, M.H.; Keuler, N.S.; Syphard, A.D.; Bar-Massada, A.; Clayton, M.K.; Radeloff, V.C. The relative impacts of vegetation, topography and spatial arrangement on building loss to wildfires in case studies of California and Colorado. Landsc. Ecol.; 2016; 31, pp. 415-430. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-015-0257-6]

52. Taylor, A.H.; Wallgrün, J.O.; Knapp, E.E.; Klippel, A.; Sánchez, J.J. Being there: Effectiveness of a 360-degree virtual tour for increasing understanding of forest treatments for fire hazard reduction in California, USA. Fire Ecol.; 2025; 21, 2. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42408-024-00345-0]

53. Liu, Y.; Zhou, S.; Chen, Y.; Cheng, H.; Zhou, W.; Yang, M.; Shen, Y.; Wan, L.; Su, X.; Liu, G. How do local people value ecosystem service benefits received from conservation programs? Evidence from nature reserves on the Hengduan Mountains. Glob. Ecol. Conserv.; 2022; 33, e01979. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01979]

54. Hu, J.; Jiang, Z.; Zhang, C.; Xiao, F.; Hu, H. Bird diversity and the conservation value of a new Ramsar site: Guangdong Haifeng Wetlands, China. Integr. Zool.; 2011; 6, pp. 266-278. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-4877.2011.00252.x]

55. Zhao, X.; Zhang, K.; Zhao, R. Sustainable Forest Development in the Digital Era: The Impact of Internet Use on the Happiness of Forest Farmers’ Families in Ecologically Fragile Ethnic Areas of China. Forests; 2024; 15, 564. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f15030564]

56. Korcz, N.; Koba, J.; Kobyłka, A.; Janeczko, E.; Gmitrowicz-Iwan, J. Climate change and informal education in the opinion of forest users in poland. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 7892. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13147892]

57. Janeczko, E.; Banaś, J.; Woźnicka, M.; Janeczko, K.; Utnik-Banaś, K.; Zięba, S.; Fialova, J. How Did COVID-19 Pandemic Stress Affect Poles’ Views on the Role of the Forest?. Land; 2024; 13, 656. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land13050656]

58. Who Owns our Forests? Forest Ownership in the ECE Region. 2020; Available online: https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/publications/SP-43.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2025).

59. Ainembabazi, J.H.; Angelsen, A. Do commercial forest plantations reduce pressure on natural forests? Evidence from forest policy reforms in Uganda. For. Policy Econ.; 2014; 40, pp. 48-56. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.12.003]

60. Rahman, S.A.; Rahman, M.F.; Sunderland, T. Causes and consequences of shifting cultivation and its alternative in the hill tracts of eastern Bangladesh. Agrofor. Syst.; 2012; 84, pp. 141-155. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10457-011-9422-3]

61. Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Folke, C. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol. Appl.; 2000; 10, pp. 1251-1262. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1251:ROTEKA]2.0.CO;2]

62. Ostrom, E.; Gardner, R.; Walker, J. Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources; 1st ed. University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 1994; pp. 5-7.

63. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.; 1991; 50, pp. 179-211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v16i3.3107]

64. Costanza, R.; D’Arge, R.; De Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J. . The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature; 1997; 387, pp. 253-260. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/387253a0]

65. The R Project for Statistical Computing. 2025; Available online: https://www.r-project.org/ (accessed on 27 April 2025).

66. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis?. Qual. Res. Psychol.; 2021; 18, pp. 328-352. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238]

67. Dillman, D.A. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method—2007 Update with New Internet, Visual, and Mixed-Mode Guide; 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 5-9.

68. Angelsen, A.; Jagger, P.; Babigumira, R.; Belcher, B.; Hogarth, N.J.; Bauch, S.; Börner, J.; Smith-Hall, C.; Wunder, S. Environmental income and rural livelihoods: A global-comparative analysis. World Dev.; 2014; 64, pp. S12-S28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.006]

69. Ardoin, N.M.; Bowers, A.W. Early childhood environmental education: A systematic review of the research literature. Educ. Res. Rev.; 2020; 31, 100353. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100353]

70. Estrada, A.; Garber, P.A.; Rylands, A.B.; Roos, C.; Fernandez-Duque, E.; Di Fiore, A.; Nekaris, K.A.I.; Nijman, V.; Heymann, E.W.; Lambert, J.E. Impending extinction crisis of the world’s primates: Why primates matter. Sci. Adv.; 2017; 3, e1600946. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600946]

71. Huang, D.; Shen, H.; Miao, Y.; Ding, R.; Lin, Y.; Tan, H. The impacts of forest resources, green investment, healthcare, and education on environmental pollution: China Carbon neutrality program. J. Clean. Prod.; 2024; 467, 143038. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143038]

72. Netzer, M.; Gan, D.; Ayalon, O. The unexplored relationships between forest schools and climate change: The parental perspective. Environ. Educ. Res.; 2025; pp. 1-22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2025.2471425]

73. Nastran, M. Visiting the forest with kindergarten children: Forest suitability. Forests; 2020; 11, 696. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f11060696]

74. Hogarth, H. ‘I like to dance with the flowers!’: Exploring the possibilities for biodiverse futures in an urban forest school. Child. Soc.; 2024; 00, pp. 1-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/chso.12901]

75. Lindemann-Matthies, P.; Knecht, S. Swiss elementary school teachers’ attitudes toward forest education. J. Environ. Educ.; 2011; 42, pp. 152-167. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2010.523737]

76. Bowie, A.; Zhou, W.; Tan, J.; White, P.; Stoinski, T.; Su, Y.; Hare, B. Motivating children’s cooperation to conserve forests. Conserv. Biol.; 2022; 36, e13922. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13922] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35435284]

77. Yan, S.; Race, A.I.; Ballard, H.L.; Bird, E.; Henson, S.; Portier, E.F.; Lindell, A.; Ghadiri Khanaposhtani, M.; Miller, J.M.; Schectman, E.R. How can participating in a forest community and citizen science program support elementary school students’ understanding of socio-ecological systems?. Sustainability; 2023; 15, 16832. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su152416832]

78. Kleinberg, J. Bursty and hierarchical structure in streams. Proceedings of the Eighth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining; Edmonton, AB, Canada, 23 July 2002; Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2002.

79. Chen, C. CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol.; 2006; 57, pp. 359-377. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317]

80. Liu, W.-Y.; Lin, Y.-Z.; Hsieh, C.-M. Assessing the ecological value of an urban forest park: A case study of sinhua forest park in taiwan. Forests; 2021; 12, 806. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f12060806]

81. Sin, M.; Kamaludin, M.; Qing, W.; Abdullah, M. Public awareness and willingness to pay (WTP) for forest conservation in Malaysia. Int. For. Rev.; 2022; 24, pp. 98-112. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1505/146554822835224865]

82. Bamberg, S.; Möser, G. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol.; 2007; 27, pp. 14-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002]

83. Kweon, J.; Kim, Y.; Choi, H.; Im, W.; Kim, H. Enhancing Sleep and Reducing Occupational Stress Through Forest Therapy: A Comparative Study Across Job Groups. Psychiatry Investig.; 2024; 21, 1120. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.30773/pi.2024.0118] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39465238]

84. Korcz, N.; Kamińska, A.; Ciesielski, M. Is the Level of Quality of Life Related to the Frequency of Visits to Natural Areas?. Forests; 2024; 15, 2257. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f15122257]

85. Lucena, L.; Robeson, A.; Falcão, C.J.L.M.; Paulina, L.; Santana, A.C.; Hakamada, R. Innovating forest science education through problem-based learning: Insights from a public university in Brazil. For. Policy Econ.; 2025; 174, 103476. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103476]

86. Sella, E.; Bolognesi, M.; Bergamini, E.; Mason, L.; Pazzaglia, F. Psychological benefits of attending forest school for preschool children: A systematic review. Educ. Psychol. Rev.; 2023; 35, 29. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09750-4]

87. Brown, E.R.; Imron, M.A.; Campera, M.; Nekaris, K. Testing efficacy of a multi-site environmental education programme in a demographically and biologically diverse setting. Environ. Conserv.; 2020; 47, pp. 60-66. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0376892919000389]

88. Uhan, Z.; Pezdevšek Malovrh, Š.; Jošt, M.; Remic, K. Integration of sustainable development goals in higher education and research processes related to forestry and wood science. Drv. Ind.; 2024; 75, pp. 87-98. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5552/drvind.2024.0120]

89. Rekola, M.; Taber, A.B.; Sharik, T.L.; Parrotta, J.A.; Dockry, M.J.; Babalola, F.D.; Bal, T.L.; Ganz, D.; Gruca, M.; Guariguata, M.R. Social and knowledge diversity in forest education: Vital for the world’s forests. Ambio; 2025; 54, pp. 660-669. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-02104-6]

90. Ntawuruhunga, D.; Ngowi, E.E.; Mangi, H.O.; Salanga, R.J.; Shikuku, K.M. Climate-smart agroforestry systems and practices: A systematic review of what works, what doesn’t work, and why. For. Policy Econ.; 2023; 150, 102937. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2023.102937]

91. Campbell, E.; Alfaro-Shigueto, J.; Aliaga-Rossel, E.; Beasley, I.; Briceño, Y.; Caballero, S.; da Silva, V.M.; Gilleman, C.; Gravena, W.; Hines, E. Challenges and priorities for river cetacean conservation. Endanger. Species Res.; 2022; 49, pp. 13-42. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3354/esr01201]

92. Garden, A.; Downes, G. A systematic review of forest schools literature in England. Educ. 3-13; 2023; 51, pp. 320-336. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2021.1971275]

93. Goushehgir, Z.; Feghhi, J.; Innes, J.L. Challenges facing the improvement of forest management in the Hyrcanian forests of Iran. Forests; 2022; 13, 2180. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f13122180]