Emotional Intelligence and Leadership in Construction: A Systematic Review and Bibliometric Exploration

Page 5222 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Strategic Assessment of Low-Carbon Initiatives in Malaysian
Geoparks Using Importance-Performance Analysis

Mohamad Amri Maulana, Syamsul Hendra Mahmud*

Faculty of Built Environment and Surveying, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor, Malaysia

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000429

Received: 20 October 2025; Accepted: 28 October 2025; Published: 14 November 2025

ABSTRACT

The growing urgency to mitigate climate change has prompted the integration of low-carbon initiatives within
environmentally sensitive areas such as geoparks. This study assesses the implementation and perceived
importance of various low-carbon initiatives in Malaysian geopark sites using the Importance–Performance
Analysis (IPA) framework. A quantitative research design was employed, utilizing a structured questionnaire
distributed to 70 respondents from the management teams of recognized Malaysian geoparks. The variables
examined include renewable energy use, waste management, eco-transportation, green technology adoption, and
policy enforcement mechanisms. Descriptive statistics and IPA were applied to evaluate the performance of each
initiative and to identify strategic improvement priorities. Findings reveal that initiatives such as renewable
energy installation, 3R (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) programs, and tree planting campaigns are performing well
and should be maintained. Conversely, regulatory standardization, dedicated funding for low-carbon projects,
and improved infrastructure for sustainable mobility were found to require more focused attention. The study
highlights significant gaps in institutional capacity, awareness, and policy enforcement that hinder optimal
implementation. Policy implications emphasize the need for stronger institutional frameworks, financial
incentives, and community engagement mechanisms to strengthen sustainable practices in geoparks. The results
contribute to enhancing Malaysia’s transition towards a low-carbon future and provide valuable insights for
policymakers, local authorities, and sustainability practitioners in developing effective low-carbon strategies for
protected environmental sites.

Keywords: Geopark, Importance- Performance Analysis (IPA), Low Carbon Initiative

INTRODUCTION

Geoparks are officially designated protected areas that highlight significant geological features and their
interconnections with ecological, archaeological, and cultural heritage. Beyond conserving geological assets,
geoparks serve as living laboratories for sustainable development, education, and environmental stewardship,
while also providing meaningful participation from local communities [3], [16]. On a global scale, geoparks
integrate geodiversity, biodiversity, and cultural diversity to promote a balanced and resilient relationship
between people and nature.

In Malaysia, the establishment of geoparks has progressed considerably under the UNESCO Global Geopark
Network. Notable examples include the Langkawi UNESCO Global Geopark, Kinabalu Geopark, and Lembah
Kinta Geopark, alongside several others still undergoing national recognition and development [7], [18]. These
geoparks not only contribute to preserving natural and cultural heritage but also play a pivotal role in driving
sustainable economic growth and environmental protection within their surrounding communities.

Low-carbon initiatives have become a crucial pillar of climate change mitigation strategies worldwide. They aim
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide (CO₂), through the use of cleaner energy
sources, efficient resource management, and sustainable technological innovations [14]. In Malaysia, these
efforts align with the National Low Carbon Cities Masterplan, which promotes a national transition toward
renewable energy use, efficient urban systems, and more responsible consumption patterns. However,

Page 5223 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

implementation at the local level remains inconsistent, as many low-carbon initiatives are still voluntary rather
than mandatory [37]. This situation often results in uneven progress across regions. Moreover, local authorities
and geopark management units face recurring challenges, including limited manpower, insufficient funding, and
a lack of technical expertise to support and sustain low-carbon practices [17], [33].

Despite growing national awareness of sustainability, translating low-carbon policies into tangible actions within
geopark settings remains a major challenge. Most existing research on low-carbon initiatives in Malaysia has
focused on urban development, industrial operations, or higher education institutions [19], [24]. Compared to
other initiatives, relatively little is known about how these initiatives are understood, prioritized, and
implemented in protected natural areas, such as geoparks. Furthermore, few studies have examined which
specific low-carbon actions deliver the greatest environmental and operational impact from the perspective of
geopark managers and stakeholders.

The gap can be found out by the present study employs the Importance–Performance Analysis (IPA) framework
[31] to evaluate the implementation of low-carbon initiatives across Malaysian geopark sites. The IPA approach
enables the identification of initiatives that are performing effectively, those requiring improvement, and those
where resources may need to be reallocated for greater impact. By combining quantitative data analysis with
strategic interpretation, this study provides a practical decision-making tool for policymakers, local authorities,
and geopark managers seeking to enhance sustainability performance.

The study pursues two main objectives, which are to assess the level of implementation and perceived
importance of various low-carbon initiatives within Malaysian geoparks and to identify strategic priority areas
for improvement using the IPA matrix.

In conclusion, the study aims to bridge the gap between sustainability policy and practical implementation,
contributing evidence-based insights to advance Malaysia’s transition toward a low-carbon future through its
geopark system.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Low Carbon Implementation in Malaysian Geopark Sites

Implementing low-carbon initiatives in Malaysian geopark sites offers a significant opportunity to promote
sustainable development, protect ecosystems, and strengthen local communities’ resilience against climate
change. Geoparks with their unique geological, ecological, and cultural assets, can serve as living examples of
how environmental stewardship and sustainable practices can coexist with economic growth and tourism
development.

One of the most critical steps in reducing carbon emissions is transitioning to renewable sources of energy. Solar,
wind, and hydropower systems can drastically cut reliance on fossil fuels, which are major contributors to
greenhouse gas emissions. Beyond reducing environmental impacts, renewable energy enhances energy security,
reduces energy costs, and can empower local communities. By providing reliable and affordable energy, once
energy-poor communities can become energy-rich, unlocking new economic opportunities and improving
quality of life [36]. In geopark contexts, renewable energy can also support infrastructure for tourism, research,
and conservation without compromising environmental integrity.

Next, adopting energy-efficient technologies is another effective low-carbon strategy. This includes upgrading
lighting, heating, and cooling systems, implementing smart building designs, and using energy-efficient
appliances. Leh et al. [25] emphasize that emission reduction measures not only lower greenhouse gas emissions
but also reduce operational costs in the long term. This approach aligns with the strategies outlined in the Pelan
Pelaksanaan Geopark Negara by the Jabatan Mineral dan Geosains Negara, which prioritizes the development
of green technologies. By integrating these solutions, geoparks can minimize their environmental footprint while
promoting innovation and sustainable infrastructure.

Apart from that, proper waste management is essential for maintaining the ecological balance of geoparks.

Page 5224 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Practices such as waste minimization, recycling, and composting reduce the environmental impact of tourism
and park operations. Sustainable waste management also supports biodiversity by preventing pollution of soil,
water, and habitats. Engaging visitors in waste reduction initiatives, such as “carry-in, carry-out” policies or
recycling programs, can foster environmental awareness and create a culture of responsibility among tourists,
employees, and local communities.

Other than that, carbon offsetting has emerged as a proactive approach to mitigating climate change. Tree-
planting campaigns, reforestation, and restoration of degraded lands not only absorb carbon dioxide but also
enhance biodiversity and protect water resources. Involving multiple stakeholders, including employees, local
residents, and tourists, strengthens community engagement and creates a shared sense of environmental
responsibility [25]. Such programs also provide educational opportunities and help geoparks meet conservation
targets while actively contributing to global climate goals.

Moreover, transportation is a significant source of carbon emissions, and geoparks can adopt various strategies
to reduce this impact. Green transportation options include expanding public transport networks, encouraging
the use of electric vehicles (EVs), developing bike lanes, promoting walking trails, and designing urban layouts
that minimize travel distances [49]. By improving accessibility and offering eco-friendly alternatives, geoparks
can reduce their carbon footprint, ease traffic congestion, and enhance visitor experiences. Efficient mobility
solutions also encourage sustainable tourism and demonstrate the practical benefits of low-carbon living.

Furthermore, low-carbon tourism emphasizes minimizing energy consumption, pollution, and emissions
throughout the tourism lifecycle. This approach integrates environmental, social, and economic benefits, creating
a holistic model for sustainable tourism [51]. Low-carbon tourism strategies can include promoting eco-lodges,
energy-efficient accommodations, sustainable food sourcing, and eco-friendly recreational activities. Research
has shown that evaluating energy efficiency, low-carbon behaviors, and strategic planning in tourism regions
helps guide decision-making, prioritize sustainable investments, and create replicable models for other
destinations [27].

To ensure long-term impact, geoparks can implement annual low-carbon programs that systemically reduce
greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors. These programs can include public awareness campaigns,
workshops, and educational initiatives to encourage sustainable practices among visitors, local communities,
and employees. Regular monitoring, reporting, and evaluation are essential to track progress, identify challenges,
and refine strategies over time [33]. Continuous engagement ensures that low-carbon initiatives are not one-time
efforts but part of an enduring commitment to environmental stewardship.

In conclusion, implementing low-carbon initiatives in Malaysian geopark sites can transform these areas into
models of sustainable development and environmental conservation. By adopting renewable energy, integrating
energy-efficient technologies, managing waste responsibly, promoting carbon offsetting, providing sustainable
transportation, and supporting low-carbon tourism, geoparks can substantially reduce their carbon footprint.
Coupled with annual programs, public education, and systematic evaluation, these efforts create a long-term,
holistic framework for sustainability. Therefore, these initiatives not only protect Malaysia’s natural and cultural
heritage but also enhance the resilience and well-being of local communities while contributing meaningfully to
global climate mitigation efforts.

METHODOLOGY

This research uses a quantitative approach to explore the implementation and perceived importance of low-
carbon initiatives in Malaysian geopark sites. Data were collected through structured questionnaires distributed
via Google Forms to the management teams of these geoparks, with 70 respondents participating in this
preliminary study. Descriptive statistics were first used to calculate mean scores for each low-carbon initiative,
providing an overview of current practices. To further identify areas needing improvement, an Importance-
Performance Analysis (IPA) was conducted.

The Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) is a powerful tool for evaluating and enhancing low-carbon
initiatives. It helps to highlight which practices are effective and which require additional attention, offering

Page 5225 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

clear guidance for strategic decision-making [34], [11]. Through IPA, the study captures the perceptions of
geopark management teams regarding the significance and performance of various low-carbon initiatives. The
framework used in this study is based on the IPA model originally developed by Martilla and James [31], which
measures both the importance assigned to an initiative and how well it is currently being implemented.

IPA has gained recognition across many fields as a strategic and practical decision-making tool [12]. Its simple,
visual format provides clear insights without the interpretive complexity of more sophisticated analytical
techniques, making it particularly useful for conservation, tourism management, and service-oriented sectors
[11], [34], [41]. By using the I-P matrix model, this study organizes the data into a four-quadrant framework,
where each initiative is plotted based on its perceived importance and performance. This approach makes it
easier to prioritize actions and allocate resources effectively.

The IPA matrix is divided into four quadrants, each with practical implications:

I. Quadrant A – “Keep up the good work”: Initiatives in this quadrant are performing well and are
considered important by management.

II. Quadrant B – “Concentrate here”: Initiatives in this quadrant are highly important but currently
underperforming, indicating areas that need urgent improvement.

III. Quadrant C – “Low priority”: These indicators are low in both importance and performance. While they
do not require immediate attention, they can be monitored for potential future development.

IV. Quadrant D – “Possible overkill”: Initiatives here are performing well but may receive more resources
than necessary.

By applying the IPA framework, Malaysian geopark management teams can make evidence-based decisions that
optimize both resources and outcomes. The approach not only identifies strengths and weaknesses in current
low-carbon initiatives but also provides actionable recommendations to enhance environmental sustainability.
For instance, Quadrant B initiatives highlight areas where focused investment and strategic planning can yield
substantial improvements, while Quadrant D initiatives suggest opportunities to reallocate resources for
maximum impact.

As a result, the IPA framework bridges the gap between perception and performance, allowing geopark managers
to prioritize initiatives that matter most, reinforce successful programs, and systematically address areas needing
improvement. In this way, IPA serves as a practical tool to guide the implementation of low-carbon strategies,
ensuring Malaysian geoparks can contribute effectively to climate mitigation while fostering sustainable tourism,
biodiversity conservation, and community engagement.

Fig. 1 Systematic Literature Review (SLR) information flow using PRISMA

Page 5226 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

FINDING AND DISCUSSION

This study aims to examine both the level of implementation and the perceived importance of low-carbon
initiatives in officially listed Malaysian geopark sites, using a quantitative research approach. A total of 70
participants completed the survey questionnaire. The responses, collected using a dual Likert scale, were
analyzed and ranked through an Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA). This approach provides valuable
insights into how participants perceive the effectiveness and significance of current low-carbon initiatives in
Malaysian geopark sites.

Samples Demography

To ensure the study reflects a practical, utilization-based perspective, only participants who were part of the
management teams of Malaysian geopark sites at the time of the survey were included. This sample was
considered essential for accurately representing the implementation of low-carbon initiatives within these sites.
Participant information was summarized visually, including their familiarity with the concept of low-carbon
initiatives (Fig. 2). Out of the 70 respondents, 61 participants (87%) indicated that they were familiar with the
term. In contrast, 9 participants (13%) reported that they were not. This suggests that a small portion of the
management team may not fully understand the concept of low-carbon initiatives and, consequently, may not
actively implement them within their organizations.

Fig. 2: Respondents' Understanding of Low-Carbon Initiatives Terms.

The demographic information of the respondents was categorized into four areas: gender, age, level of education,
and work experience. The results showed that 57.1% of the participants were male, while 42.9% were female.
Regarding age, 35.8% of participants were between 21 and 30 years old, 46.7% were between 31 and 40 years
old, and 17.5% were over 40 years old. In terms of education, 15.7% of participants had completed SPM, 25.7%
held a diploma, and 58.6% had a degree. Finally, participants’ work experience varied, with 32.9% having less
than five years, 47.1% between six and ten years, 7.1% between 11 and 15 years, and 12.9% with more than 15
years of experience in the industry.

Table 1: Demographics of participants

Gender Frequency Percentage (%)

Male 40 57.1

Female 30 42.9

Age

21-30 years old 25 35.8

31-40 years old 33 46.7

More than 40 years old 12 17.5

Page 5227 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Education Level

SPM 11 15.7

Diploma 18 25.7

Degree 41 58.6

Master -

PhD -

Experience

Less than 5 years 23 32.9

6-10 years 33 47.1

11-15 years 5 7.1

More than 15 years 9 12.9

Importance- Performance Analysis (IPA)

As shown in Table 2, the intersection point on the IPA grid is based on a mean performance score of 2.91 and a
mean importance score of 3.69. By plotting initiatives according to their importance and performance, the IPA
grid allows the management teams of Malaysian geopark sites to quickly identify which low-carbon initiatives
require more attention and resources, helping to plan effectively and achieve the greatest impact. The IPA grid
is divided into four main quadrants: Quadrant I – Concentrate Here, Quadrant II – Keep Up the Good Work,
Quadrant III – Low Priority, and Quadrant IV – Possible Overkill. Figure 3 illustrates the placement of each
low-carbon initiative within these quadrants, providing a clear overview of their current status and areas for
improvement.

Table 2: The mean values of implementation and importance of low-carbon initiatives in Malaysian Geopark

Code Low Carbon Initiatives Level of
Implementation

Level of
Importance

Mean Rank Mean Rank

L1 Use of renewable energy, such as solar energy. 3.35 7 3.96 10

L2 Installation of energy-efficient technology, such as LED lights. 4.08 1 3.73 13

L3 The implementation of the 3R waste separation (Reduce, Reuse,
Recycle).

3.65 4 4.81 1

L4 Implementation of tree planting and forest conservation activities. 3.88 3 4.81 1

L5 Expanding access to public transport and infrastructure. 3.54 5 3.85 11

L6 Replacing the use of paper with an e-ticket system. 3.96 2 3.38 16

L7 Reduction in the use of plastic bags. 2.96 10 3.5 15

L8 Encourage the use of electric vehicles such as electric scooters. 3.27 8 4.31 6

L9 Detailed design for hiking and biking trails. 2.85 13 4.27 7

Page 5228 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

L10 Implementation of laws and regulations to standardize and
institutionalize low-carbon.

2.46 15 4.77 3

L11 Standard setting of low-carbon initiatives and action plans. 2.73 14 4.65 4

L12 Provision of special funds to encourage the development of low-
carbon projects and technologies.

2.88 11 4.65 4

L13 Provision of electric vehicle charging stations to reduce
dependence on fossil fuel-powered transport.

3.12 9 3.85 11

L14 Implementation of waste reduction strategies, such as organic
waste composting.

3.46 6 4.19 8

L15 The provision of "low emission vehicle" transport services, such
as an EV shuttle bus

3.35 7 4.08 9

L16 Retrofit or re-install green and low-carbon technology facilities,
such as the use of low-VOC paint.

2.88 11 3.58 14

Average/Total 2.91 16 3.69 16

As shown in Table 2, the intersection point of the IPA grid is determined using a mean performance score of
2.91 and a mean importance score of 3.69. By mapping initiatives according to these two dimensions, the IPA
grid enables the management teams of Malaysian geopark sites to quickly identify which low-carbon initiatives
should receive more attention and resources, ensuring strategic planning and maximizing overall impact. The
IPA grid is divided into four quadrants: Quadrant I – Concentrate Here, Quadrant II – Keep Up the Good Work,
Quadrant III – Low Priority, and Quadrant IV – Possible Overkill. Figure 3 presents the placement of each low-
carbon initiative within these quadrants, offering a clear overview of performance and priority areas.

Figure 3 illustrates the IPA grid applied to evaluate low-carbon initiatives in Malaysian geopark sites. Each
quadrant represents a different strategic focus based on the importance and performance of various initiatives.
Quadrant II - Keep Up the Good Work, shows initiatives in this quadrant are both important and performing
well, indicating that current efforts should be maintained and reinforced. Examples include the use of renewable
energy (e.g., solar power), installation of energy-efficient technologies like LED lighting, implementation of 3R
waste management (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle), tree planting and forest conservation activities, expanding public
transportation access, encouraging electric vehicle (EV) use such as scooters, providing EV charging stations,
composting organic waste, and offering low-emission transport services such as EV shuttle buses. These
strategies are recognized as effective by the community and represent best practices that should continue to
receive support.

Quadrant I - Concentrate Here, shows initiatives in this quadrant are considered important but are currently
underperforming, highlighting areas that require additional focus and resources. Key examples include the
implementation of laws and regulations to standardize low-carbon practices, the development of action plans
and standards for low-carbon initiatives, allocation of special funds to support low-carbon projects and
technologies, and the detailed design of hiking and biking trails. Improving these initiatives could significant ly
enhance the overall effectiveness of low-carbon strategies in the geoparks.

Quadrant III - Low Priority, shows initiatives in this quadrant are both less important and underperforming
relative to other strategies, suggesting that they do not require immediate attention or additional resource
allocation. Examples include retrofitting or upgrading building facilities with green and low-carbon
technologies, such as using low-VOC paints, and reducing the use of plastic bags. While still beneficial, these
measures are currently not seen as urgent or high-impact.

Quadrant IV - Possible Overkill, shows initiatives in this quadrant are performing well but are perceived as less
important by the community, indicating potential over-investment. For instance, replacing paper tickets with an

Page 5229 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

e-ticket system is effective but may not be as critical as other high-priority initiatives. Resources invested here
could potentially be redirected to areas that the community considers more significant.

In conclusion, the IPA framework provides a practical way to visualize and prioritize low-carbon initiatives,
helping management teams make informed decisions about where to focus resources, maintain successful
practices, and improve underperforming areas.

Fig. 3: IPA Chart for Low Carbon Initiatives

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this study shines a light on the journey of implementing low-carbon initiatives in Malaysian
geopark sites, revealing both the successes achieved and the challenges that remain. While many initiatives have
already been introduced across the geopark’s operations, there is still room for improvement to ensure these
efforts are more effective, sustainable, and aligned with the long-term vision of environmental stewardship. By
examining both the level of implementation and the perceived importance of these initiatives, this research
provides a comprehensive snapshot of how Malaysian geoparks are progressing toward a low-carbon future.

The Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) offers a practical roadmap for action. It highlights which initiatives
deserve immediate attention, which ones can be refined, which are less critical, and which are already performing
well and should be maintained. This approach allows geopark management teams to focus resources
strategically, enhancing initiatives that make the greatest impact while avoiding unnecessary effort on lower-
priority activities.

Therefore, this research emphasizes that promoting low-carbon practices is an ongoing journey, one that requires
careful planning, continuous evaluation, and a commitment to improvement. It not only celebrates the progress
Malaysian geoparks have made but also guides future researchers and practitioners looking to advance
sustainability. By identifying key factors for successful implementation, this study contributes to a roadmap for
greener, more resilient geoparks, where environmental conservation and sustainable development go hand in
hand.

REFERENCES

1. Alanazi, Fayez. 2023. “Electric Vehicles: Benefits, Challenges, and Potential Solutions for Widespread
Adaptation.” Applied Sciences 13 (10): https://doi.org/10.3390/app13106016

2. Alnaser, Naser W., Roger Flanagan, Lawrence Kazmerski, Ali A. Sayigh, Munir H. Nayfeh, and Waheeb
E. Alnaser. 2022. “Worrying about Climate Change.” Atmospheric and Climate Sciences 12 (02): 441–

Page 5230 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

61. https://doi.org/10.4236/acs.2022.122026
3. Ansori, Chusni. 2018. “Geosite Identification in Karangbolong High to Support the Development of

Karangsambung-Karangbolong Geopark Candidate, Central Java.” IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science 118 (February): 012014. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/118/1/012014

4. Arunodaya Raj Mishra, Ayushi Chandel, and Parvaneh Saeidi. 2021. “Low-Carbon Tourism Strategy
Evaluation and Selection Using Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Additive Ratio Assessment
Approach Based on Similarity Measures.” Environment, Development and Sustainability 24 (5): 7236–
82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01746-w

5. Awanthi, M.G.G., and C.M. Navaratne. 2018. “Carbon Footprint of an Organization: A Tool for
Monitoring Impacts on Global Warming.” Procedia Engineering 212: 729–35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2018.01.094

6. Axsen, Jonn, and Kenneth S. Kurani. 2012. “Social Influence, Consumer Behavior, and Low-Carbon
Energy Transitions.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37 (1): 311–40.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-062111-145049

7. Badang, Dana, Che Aziz Ali, Ibrahim Komoo, and Mohd. Shafeea Leman. 2016. “Sustainable
Geological Heritage Development Approach in Sarawak Delta, Sarawak, Malaysia.” Geoheritage 9 (4):
443–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-016-0189-9

8. Brand, Christian, Evi Dons, Esther Anaya-Boig, Ione Avila-Palencia, Anna Clark, Audrey de Nazelle,
Mireia Gascon, et al. 2021. “The Climate Change Mitigation Effects of Daily Active Travel in Cities.”
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 93 (102764).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102764

9. Cai, Yinlu, Fadong Wu, Mahito Watanabe, and Jinfang Han. 2021. “Characteristics of Geoparks in China
and Japan: Similarities and Differences.” Geoheritage 13 (4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-021-
00628-x

10. Calvin, K., Dasgupta, D., Krinner, G., Mukherji, A., Thorne, P. W., Trisos, C., Romero, J., Aldunce, P.,
Barrett, K., Blanco, G., Cheung, W. W. L., Connors, S., Denton, F., Diongue-Niang, A., Dodman, D.,
Garschagen, M., Geden, O., Hayward, B., Jones, C., … Ha, M. (2023). IPCC, 2023: Climate Change
2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)].
IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland. (P. Arias, M. Bustamante, I. Elgizouli, G. Flato, M. Howden, C. Méndez-
Vallejo, J. J. Pereira, R. Pichs-Madruga, S. K. Rose, Y. Saheb, R. Sánchez Rodríguez, D. Ürge-Vorsatz,
C. Xiao, N. Yassaa, J. Romero, J. Kim, E. F. Haites, Y. Jung, R. Stavins, … C. Péan, Eds.).
https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647

11. Chen, C. (2023). Public Transportation Management Strategies in a Low-Carbon Economy. Proceedings
of Business and Economic Studies, 6(5). http://ojs.bbwpublisher.com/index.php/PBES

12. Cheng, Ching-Chan, Cheng-Ta Chen, Fu-Sung Hsu, and Hsiu-Yuan Hu. 2012. “Enhancing Service
Quality Improvement Strategies of Fine-Dining Restaurants: New Insights from Integrating a Two-Phase
Decision-Making Model of IPGA and DEMATEL Analysis.” International Journal of Hospitality
Management 31 (4): 1155–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.02.003

13. Che Leh, Fauziah, Nor Kalsum Mohd Isa, Mohd Hairy Ibrahim, Mansor Ibrahim, Mohd Yazid Mohd
Yunos, and Johan Afendi Ibrahim. 2021. “Low-Carbon Tourism Approach as an Alternative Form for
Tourism Development: A Review for Model Development.” Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and
Humanities 29 (4): 2431–51. https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh.29.4.19

14. Das, Oisik, Ágoston Restás, Vigneshwaran Shanmugam, Gabriel Sas, Michael Försth, Qiang Xu, Lin
Jiang, Mikael S. Hedenqvist, and Seeram Ramakrishna. 2021. “Demystifying Low-Carbon Materials.”
Materials Circular Economy 3 (1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42824-021-00044-0

15. Dong, Zi Xiong, and Yue Wu. 2013. “Study on Tourism Environment with Strategic Research on the
Tourism Development of Hunan Low-Carbon.” Advanced Materials Research 788 (September): 387–
91. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.788.387

16. Farsani, Neda T., Celeste O. A. Coelho, Carlos M. M. Costa, and Alireza Amrikazemi. 2014. “Geo-
Knowledge Management and Geoconservation via Geoparks and Geotourism.” Geoheritage 6 (3): 185–
92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12371-014-0099-7

17. He, Xiaoni, Merrisa Lin, Tse-Lun Chen, Bowei Liu, Po-Chih Tseng, Wenzhi Cao, and Pen-Chi Chiang.
2020. “Implementation Plan for Low-Carbon Resilient City towards Sustainable Development Goals:

Page 5231 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Challenges and Perspectives.” Aerosol and Air Quality Research.
https://doi.org/10.4209/aaqr.2019.11.0568

18. Herrera-Franco, Gricelda, Néstor Montalván-Burbano, Paúl Carrión-Mero, María Jaya-Montalvo, and
Miguel Gurumendi-Noriega. 2021. “Worldwide Research on Geoparks through Bibliometric Analysis.”
Sustainability 13 (3): 1175. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031175

19. Hunter, Garfield Wayne, Gideon Sagoe, Daniele Vettorato, and Ding Jiayu. 2019. “Sustainability of Low
Carbon City Initiatives in China: A Comprehensive Literature Review.” Sustainability 11 (16): 4342.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164342

20. Ibrahim Komoo, Sharina Abdul Halim, and Norzaini Azman. 2018. “Chapter 27: Geotourism in
Langkawi UNESCO Global Geopark, Malaysia,” October.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785368868.00040

21. IPCC. 2023. “IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I,
II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core
Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (Eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.,” July, 35–115.
https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647

22. Jabatan Mineral dan Geosains Negara. (2023). Pelan Pelaksanaan Geopark Negara. www.jmg.gov.my
23. Jones, Cheryl. 2008. “History of Geoparks.” Geological Society, London, Special Publications 300 (1):

273–77. https://doi.org/10.1144/SP300.21
24. Kumar, Anil, Sunil Luthra, Sachin Kumar Mangla, Jose Arturo Garza-Reyes, and Yigit Kazancoglu.

2023. “Analysing the Adoption Barriers of Low-Carbon Operations: A Step Forward for Achieving Net-
Zero Emissions.” Resources Policy 80 (January): 103256.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.103256

25. Leh, F. C., Isa, N. K. M., Ibrahim, M. H., Ibrahim, M., Yunos, M. Y. M., & Ibrahim, J. A. (2021a). Low-
Carbon Tourism Approach as an Alternative Form for Tourism Development: A Review for Model
Development. In Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (Vol. 29, Issue 4, pp. 2431–2451).
Universiti Putra Malaysia. https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh.29.4.19

26. Li, Hui, Shoukat Iqbal Khattak, Xiaoqian Lu, and Anwar Khan. 2023. “Greening the Way Forward: A
Qualitative Assessment of Green Technology Integration and Prospects in a Chinese Technical and
Vocational Institute.” Sustainability 15 (6): 5187. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065187

27. Liu, Y., & Suk, S. (2021). Constructing an Evaluation Index System for China’s Low-Carbon Tourism
Region-An Example from the Daxinganling Region an Evaluation Index System for China’s Low-
Carbon Tourism Region-An Example from the Daxinganling Region. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1321

28. Lovell, Heather, Harriet Bulkeley, and Diana Liverman. 2009. “Carbon Offsetting: Sustaining
Consumption?” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 41 (10): 2357–79.
https://doi.org/10.1068/a40345

29. Mahyar Kamali Saraji, and Dalia Štreimikienė. 2023. “Challenges to the Low Carbon Energy Transition:
A Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda.” Energy Strategy Reviews 49 (September):
101163–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2023.101163

30. Makpal Bekturganova, Azimkhan Satybaldin, and Bakhyt Yessekina. 2019. International Journal of
Energy Economics and Policy 9 (1). https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.7294

31. Martilla, John A., and John C. James. 1977. “Importance-Performance Analysis.” Journal of Marketing
41 (1): 77–https://doi.org/10.1177/002224297704100112

32. Mohd, Akma Mohd, Nor Khairunnisa Talib, Shyeh Sahibul Karamah Masnan, Ahmad Fadly Jusoh, and
Mokhtar Saidin. 2024. “Evolution of the ‘Ancient Kedah’: A Study on Urban Forms at Sungai Batu
Archaeological Complex (SBAC), Bujang Valley, Kedah, Malaysia.” Frontiers of Architectural
Research 13 (1): 127–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2023.10.006

33. Mustaffa, N.K., S.A. Kudus, and M.F.H.A. Aziz. 2022. “Key Drivers, Challenges and Strategies towards
Successful Low-Carbon Campus: The Case of UiTM Shah Alam Campus.” Journal of Facilities
Management, August. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-10-2021-0121

34. Nguyen, Van Viet, Hong Thi Thu Nguyen, Thi Thanh Thuy Phan, and Chun-Hung Lee. 2023.
“Determinants of Locals’ Willingness to Participate in Human–Elephant Conflict Management:
Evidence from Dong Nai Biosphere Reserve, Vietnam.” Trees, Forests and People 14 (December):
100435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2023.100435

35. Ruiz-Pastor, Laura, Vicente Chulvi, Elena Mulet, and Marta Royo. 2021. “The Relationship between

Page 5232 www.rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Personal Intrinsic Factors towards a Design Problem and the Degree of Novelty and Circularity.”
Research in Engineering Design 33 (1): 7–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-021-00374-9

36. Saidi, Kais, and Anis Omri. 2020. “The Impact of Renewable Energy on Carbon Emissions and
Economic Growth in 15 Major Renewable Energy-Consuming Countries.” Environmental Research 186
(July): 109567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109567

37. Sengupta, Piyali, Binoy K. Choudhury, Sarbani Mitra, and Krishna M. Agrawal. 2020. “Low Carbon
Economy for Sustainable Development.” Encyclopedia of Renewable and Sustainable Materials, 551–
60. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803581-8.11217-2

38. Sereenonchai, Sukanya, Noppol Arunrat, and Thomas Neal Stewart. 2020. “Low-Carbon City
Communication: Integrated Strategies for Urban and Rural Municipalities in Thailand.” Chinese Journal
of Population, Resources and Environment 18 (1): 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjpre.2021.04.025

39. Söderholm, Patrik. 2020. “The Green Economy Transition: The Challenges of Technological Change
for Sustainability.” Sustainable Earth 3 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42055-020-00029-y

40. Sovacool, Benjamin K., and Steve Griffiths. 2020. “The Cultural Barriers to a Low-Carbon Future: A
Review of Six Mobility and Energy Transitions across 28 Countries.” Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 119 (March): 109569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109569

41. Sutrisno, Agung Dwi, Yun-Ju Chen, I. Wayan Koko Suryawan, and Chun-Hung Lee. 2023. “Building a
Community’s Adaptive Capacity for Post-Mining Plans Based on Important Performance Analysis: Case
Study from Indonesia.” Land 12 (7): 1285. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12071285

42. Szabo, Denisa, Mihai Dragomir, Mihail Țîțu, Diana Dragomir, Sorin Popescu, and Silvia Tofană. 2023.
“Sustainable Low-Carbon Production: From Strategy to Reality.” Sustainability 15 (11): 8516.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118516

43. Tait, Elizabeth, Richard Laing, and David Gray. 2014. “Governance and Policy Challenges of
Implementing Urban Low-Carbon Transport Initiatives.” Local Economy: The Journal of the Local
Economy Policy Unit 29 (1-2): 129–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269094214521980

44. Weko, Silvia, and Andreas Goldthau. 2022. “Bridging the Low-Carbon Technology Gap? Assessing
Energy Initiatives for the Global South.” Energy Policy 169 (October): 113192.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113192

45. Wu, Kuei Yang, Shih Chung Lu, and Yen Yu Wu. 2014. “A Study on the Evaluation Factors of
Environmental Education Strategies for Cultural Heritage and Low Carbon Tourism.” Advanced
Materials Research 1051 (October): 632–40. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.1051.632

46. Wu, Yan, Pim Martens, and Thomas Krafft. 2022. “Public Awareness, Lifestyle and Low-Carbon City
Transformation in China: A Systematic Literature Review.” Sustainability 14 (16): 10121.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610121

47. Xin, Xing, Wang Yuding, and Wang Jianzhong. 2011. “The Problems and Strategies of the Low Carbon
Economy Development.” Energy Procedia 5: 1831–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.03.312

48. Yuan, Hu, Peng Zhou, and Dequn Zhou. 2011. “What Is Low-Carbon Development? A Conceptual
Analysis.” Energy Procedia 5: 1706–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2011.03.290

49. Zahedi, S. (2012). Green Transportation a More Eco-efficient Option. In Journal of Social and
Development Sciences (Vol. 3, Issue 7).

50. Zen, Irina Safitri, Rahmalan Ahamad, and Wahid Omar. 2013. “No Plastic Bag Campaign Day in
Malaysia and the Policy Implication.” Environment, Development and Sustainability 15 (5): 1259–69.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-013-9437-1

51. Zhang, Cheng, Huchang Liao, Li Luo, and Zeshui Xu. 2021. “Low-Carbon Tourism Destination
Selection by a Thermodynamic Feature-Based Method.” Journal of the Operational Research Society,
June, 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2021.1908862