Bridging Standards and Sensors: A Systematic Literature Review and Quantitative Evidence Synthesis of Carbon Accounting Methods for Energy Efficiency Across Terrestrial, Marine, And Built-Environment Ecosystems
標準とセンサーの架橋：陸域・海域・建築環境エコシステムにおけるエネルギー効率の炭素会計手法に関する系統的レビューと定量的エビデンス統合 (AI 翻訳)
Eka Sudarmaji
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
炭素会計の行政・開示ベースと物理計測ベースの2つの伝統の乖離を、PRISMAに基づく系統的レビューと定量的統合で検証。UAV-LiDAR森林計測や建物炭素強度モデルは高精度だが、開放生態系のリコンシリエーションモデルは低精度で、海洋・ブルーカーボン領域では精度基準が欠如。Scope3排出の未検証エクスポージャーが課題と指摘。
English
This systematic review and quantitative synthesis examines the gap between administrative/disclosure-based carbon accounting and physically measured sensor-based methods. Engineered systems like UAV-LiDAR forest and building models show high accuracy (R2 0.91-0.95), while open-ecosystem models lag (R2 as low as 0.147). Marine and blue-carbon domains lack accuracy benchmarks despite expanding credit issuance, highlighting a governance gap. Scope 3 emissions remain largely unverified.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本ではSSBJ開示基準や有報でのScope3算定が進むが、本レビューは計測精度の裏付けの重要性を示し、特にブルーカーボンや生態系由来の炭素クレジット活用を検討する企業・政策担当者に、測定レディネスを踏まえた段階的開示拡大の必要性を示唆する。
In the global GX context
Globally, as ISSB and CSRD expand disclosure requirements, this review underscores the need to align accounting standards with measurement accuracy. It highlights the governance gap in marine and blue-carbon domains, where credit issuance is growing without accuracy benchmarks, and calls for sequencing regulatory extension with demonstrated measurement readiness.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Provides a comprehensive synthesis of carbon accounting accuracy across domains, identifying critical gaps in marine and blue-carbon measurement.
🏢実務担当者:Highlights the need to verify measurement accuracy in carbon claims, especially for Scope 3 and ecosystem-based credits, to ensure credible disclosure.
🏛政策担当者:Informs sequencing of mandatory disclosure expansion into ecosystem-based carbon domains, emphasizing measurement readiness.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Background: Carbon accounting has moved from a specialist scientific discipline into a mainstream requirement of corporate governance, financial regulation, and ecosystem management. The literature measuring it, however, remains divided between two largely non-communicating traditions: administrative and disclosure-based accounting on one hand, and physically measured, sensor-based accounting on the other. Objective: This study systematically reviews the governance and standards literature on carbon accounting and synthesises reported measurement-accuracy metrics from primary studies spanning forest, soil, marine, agricultural, built-environment, and corporate domains, with the aim of characterising the degree of alignment — or misalignment — between these two traditions and their implications for energy-efficiency-linked policy. Methods: A systematic literature review with quantitative evidence synthesis was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 framework. Searches in Scopus and Web of Science used the Boolean string, restricted to English-language peer-reviewed sources from 2011 to June 2026. After deduplication and screening, 79 unique records were retained: 35 governance and standards sources synthesised narratively, and 55 quantitative primary studies (60 statistical records) pooled descriptively by ecosystem and sector domain. Formal inverse-variance-weighted meta-analysis was not performed due to outcome-measure heterogeneity; accuracy statistics (R2, RMSE, rRMSE) are reported as domain-level ranges. A five-criterion quality appraisal was applied to all quantitative records, and a sensitivity analysis examined the effect of excluding China-based studies on domain-level accuracy estimates. Results: Model accuracy varied sharply by domain. Engineered and semi-controlled systems — UAV-LiDAR forest biomass inversion (R2 = 0.93-0.95) and residential building carbon-intensity modelling (R2 = 0.91) — consistently outperformed open-ecosystem reconciliation models, where regional forest-carbon inversions fell as low as R2 = 0.147. Sensitivity analysis showed that excluding China-based forest studies reduced the domain upper bound from R2 = 0.95 to R2 = 0.558. No primary study in the marine and blue-carbon subset reported a comparable accuracy statistic, despite well-quantified carbon-stock densities (mangrove density = 937 t/ha; Liu et al., 2024). Narrative synthesis identified persistent reliance on estimate-based reporting, unresolved tension between attributional and consequential accounting logics, and a documented concentration of unverified exposure in Scope 3 emissions. Conclusions: Administrative carbon-accounting frameworks and physically measured, sensor-based accounting are developing along separate trajectories with materially different accuracy standards. Carbon claims tied to built-environment retrofits and grid-connected systems rest on firmer empirical ground than those derived from open-ecosystem reconciliation models. The marine and blue-carbon domain — where accuracy benchmarks are absent and credit issuance is expanding — represents the most consequential governance gap identified in this review. Regulatory extension of mandatory disclosure into ecosystem-based carbon domains should be sequenced against demonstrated measurement readiness.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://everant.org/index.php/etj/article/download/3010/2171first seen 2026-08-16 05:28:08
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。