4.7 Article

Bibliometric analysis of global environmental assessment research in a 20-year period

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW
Volume 50, Issue -, Pages 158-166

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2014.09.012

Keywords

Environmental assessment (EA); Strategic environmental assessment (SEA); Bibliometric analysis; Author keywords analysis; Research trends

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Based on the samples of 113,468 publications on environmental assessment (EA)from the past 20 years, we used a bibliometric analysis to study the literature in terms of trends of growth, subject categories and journals, international collaboration, geographic distribution of publications, and scientific research issues. By applying thresholds to network centralities, a core group of countries can be distinguished as part of the international collaboration network. A frequently used keywords analysis found that the priority in assessment would gradually change from project environmental impact assessment (EIA) to strategic environmental assessment (SEA). Decision-theoretic approaches (i.e., environmental indicator selection, life cycle assessment, etc.), along with new technologies and methods (i.e., the geographic information system and modeling) have been widely applied in the EA research field over the past 20 years. Hot spots such as biodiversity and climate change have been emphasized in current EA research, a trend that will likely continue in the future. The h-index has been used to evaluate the research quality among countries all over the world, while the improvement of developing countries' EA systems is becoming a popular research topic. Our study reveals patterns in scientific outputs and academic collaborations and serves as an altemative and innovative way of revealing global research trends in the EA research field. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available