Environmental Impact Assessment Review 78 (2019) 106283

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

Empowering impact assessments knowledge and international research T

collaboration - A bibliometric analysis of Environmental Impact Assessment
Review journal
Andreea Nita
⁎

Centre for Environmental Research and Impact Studies, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Innovation, knowledge exchange and collaboration are fundamental in environmental studies. Impact assess-
EIA ments represent a key tool in identifying and predicting the environmental consequences of a project. The
SEA journal Environmental Impact Assessment Review started promoting research discussing different issues or methods
EIS in the field of impact assessments and environmental management since 1980. By analyzing 1664 articles
PEST
published within the journal between 1980 and 2018 by 2935 authors, affiliated to institutions from 75 coun-
Keywords co-occurrence
Collaboration network
tries, this study aims to provide a better understanding of the environmental assessment research trends.
Bibliometric indicators such as keywords or country of affiliation were analyzed through a network methodo-
logical approach, including co-occurrence analysis, centrality metrics and multiple correspondence analysis. The
international collaboration and productivity maps bring a novel overview to this type of analysis and reveal new
perspectives for thrived cooperation on environmental assessments research. The results illustrate the most
common research topics through a conceptual structure map and a keywords co-occurrence graph with a
temporal overlay, which allows observing their evolution over the years. Furthermore, this work tries to explain
the political, economic, social and technological factors that influence the tendencies in environmental assess-
ments research and scientific cooperation, providing future insights for environmental scientific priorities.

1. Introduction
Environmental assessments are key tools to prevent and minimize
environmental degradation, excessive pollution, loss of cultural heri-
tage and landscape, or negative impact on human health induced by
projects worldwide (IAIA & IEA, 1999). Environmental assessment
legislation, such as European Union Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) Directive (85/337/EEC) and National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969, was improved over time with several amendments.
Yet, researchers, stakeholders, and practitioners demonstrated that for
an effective environmental assessment, there is a constant need for
proper guidance, best practice examples, better public engagement, and
multi-criteria and evidence-based decision-making process (Campos-
Guzmán et al., 2019).
Peer-reviewed journals play an important role in reversing the rapid
deterioration of environmental quality and developing new or im-
proved prevention and assessment methods (Hodgson et al., 2019). A
controversial issue in academia, increasingly discussed in the past
decade, is the choice of the journal in which research institutions opt to
publish, according to the journal's prestige and importance (Yu et al.,
2017). Therefore, determining the level of collaboration between
countries in a prestigious journal such as Environmental Impact Assess-
ment Review is worthwhile to be investigated.
The leading journal Environmental Impact Assessment Review began
publishing peer-review articles focused on innovative theory and
practice since 1980, and contributed over time at consolidating the
science powering environmental assessments by promoting important
papers which investigated both novel and widely accepted methods
used within the different types of impact assessments, e.g.,
Environmental Impact Assessment, Strategic Environmental
Assessment, Social Impact Assessment, Health Impact Assessment, Risk
Impact Assessment, Life Cycle Assessment, etc. (Bond et al., 2018).
Incorporating advances in environmental assessments methodolo-
gies and legal systems or making changes in public's attitudes and
perception require time, abundant information about new concepts and
concrete facts. Therefore, the use of environmental science findings in
informing policies and practice is one of the main purposes of doing
research and a fundamental benefit brought to society (Pannell et al.,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: andreea.nita@cc.unibuc.ro.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106283
Received 3 March 2019; Received in revised form 15 June 2019
Available online 25 June 2019
0195-9255/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
A. Nita
Fig. 1. – Number of scientific articles published by Environmental Impact Assessment Review journal between 1980 and 2018 (total number of articles = 1664). Articles
were extracted from Scopus database (Elsevier B·V, http://www.scopus.com).
2018). However, science cannot contribute to the evolution of knowl-
edge without collaborative interactions between stakeholders
(McAllister et al., 2013). Collaboration in environmental science is
known to be difficult, particularly if the research targets large or global
scales (Guerrero et al., 2015), where both developed and developing
countries must make efforts. Furthermore, collaboration in innovation
and research brings benefits to researcher such as costs and resources
reduction, increased access to funds, ideas, and progress at the inter-
national level (Abrahams et al., 2019).
The review of scientific literature can outline a clear picture of the
research performed until a specific point in time, providing future per-
spectives to scientists and policy makers (Mair et al., 2018). Nevertheless,
systematic reviews of current literature usually require excessive time and
effort depending on the volume of publications desired to be investigated
(Radhakrishnan et al., 2017). Bibliometric analysis represents a sys-
tematic statistical analysis of scientific activity (Aria and Cuccurullo,
2017) and is most often used to determine the top-cited articles in jour-
nals to assess global patterns in specific research fields (Li and Zhao,
2015), to identify the most common research topics or interest, to map
the structure of co-authorship (Dehdarirad and Nasini, 2017), affiliations
(Taddeo et al., 2019), co-citations networks (Shiau et al., 2017), and
cross-boundary collaboration (Xu et al., 2018). Such analyses have been
performed in different research fields, from scientists mobility (Robinson-
Garcia et al., 2019), to management (Gaviria-Marin et al., 2018) or
transportation (Modak et al., 2019). Environmental research is also a
focus of such bibliometric studies, for example, a literature review of
sustainable urban infrastructure (Ferrer et al., 2018), review of green
supply chain management (Maditati et al., 2018) or analysis of ap-
proaches to urban green infrastructure (Badiu et al., 2019).
While the bibliometric review of research topics is widely used to
advance science or to review the literature on a specific field for a
specified period (Coba et al., 2018), to the best of our knowledge, the
temporal evolution of concepts and scientific collaboration between
states in environmental studies have not been thoroughly investigated.
To fill this gap, this paper uses several bibliometric indicators of the
articles published by Environmental Impact Assessment Review journal,
namely the keywords and affiliations of the authors, to analyze the
evolution of the research focus as reflected by the keywords chosen by
2
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 78 (2019) 106283
the authors. Furthermore, we assessed the international collaboration
of co-authored papers and scientific country-specific productivity and
used the Political, Economic, Social and Technological (PEST) analysis
in order to explain the environmental assessments (EA) research and
collaboration patterns. The PEST approach is often used to understand
the most important factors to be taken into account when discussing the
trend of some particular processes (Igliński et al., 2016). The paper
aims to identify the topical subjects, the extent of international colla-
boration and scientific productivity of the countries to which the au-
thors declared they were affiliated when publishing the articles. The
present study diagnoses the evolution of EAs research, advance joint
action and innovation in this specific research arena by discussing the
political, economic, social and technological context that influenced the
research tendencies and cooperation and further influence the exchange
of information and knowledge development at international level
(Bodin and Crona, 2009).
2. Methods and data analysis
2.1. Bibliometric dataset
This bibliometric analysis investigates the papers published in
Environmental Impact Assessment Review journal in 73 volumes, between
1980 and 2018, and highlights the journal's evolution in terms of a)
country scientific productivity and collaboration, and b) keywords
multiple correspondence analysis and co-occurrence. To generate the
bibliometric dataset, the papers published by the journal, including the
name of authors, article title, year of publication, volume, issue, article
number, declared author's first affiliation, and keywords were extracted
from Scopus database (Elsevier B.V., http://www.scopus.com). The
names of the country of affiliation and keywords were standardized
(Popescu et al., 2014) in order to avoid duplication or abbreviation of
entries with the same meaning (e.g., EIA / EIAs – environmental impact
assessment, SEA – strategic environmental assessment). Fig. 1 shows
the yearly evolution of the articles published, representing the data on
which the analysis relies on, namely: 1664 articles written by 2935
authors, from which 452 authors single-authored documents and 2483
authors multi-authored articles.
A. Nita
2.2. Data processing and analysis
Network analysis is a tool increasingly used in scientific research, as
it facilitates the investigation of interactions that provide answers both
at the network level and at the level of its components (Borgatti et al.,
2013). A network consists of a set of nodes (i.e., articles, keywords,
affiliations) and links (co-occurrence within an article) created between
them (Dehmamy et al., 2018). In this case, the analysis investigates two
networks; one using the keywords as nodes, connected if they occur in
the same article, and the other network connecting the countries as
nodes to which the authors declared they were affiliated, the links
between the countries being established if both were affiliated to a
common article. Supplementary Fig. S1 presents the workflow of net-
work analyses and associated results.
2.3. Scientific productivity by country and international collaboration
By investigating the scientific productivity by country and interna-
tional collaboration within the journal, the paper tries to highlight the
geopolitical factors that influence the research interest and productivity
regarding impact assessment issues worldwide. The dataset used to
investigate international collaboration includes 2624 affiliations avail-
able in the Scopus database, declared by the authors of the scientific
articles at the time of their publication. We extracted the countries of
first indicated affiliation as nodes to create the collaboration network.
The connections between countries were established taking into ac-
count the co-authorship links between two countries, which means that
a link is established between two countries if there is an article written
by authors who are affiliated to those particular two countries. The
weight of the link describing the collaboration between two countries
represents the co-authorship frequency, namely how many times the
two countries were co-authors of articles.
Additionally, using the resulted network, we performed descriptive
statistical analysis to investigate the scientific productivity of each
country involved in publishing within Environmental Impact Assessment
Review journal, i.e., the number of single country publications, multiple
country publications (Aria and Cuccurullo, 2017), and published arti-
cles per country. To illustrate the collaboration pattern and reveal
countries with low productivity, hubs of high productivity, and the
interest in the development of an international approach to impact
assessments, a global map was created to illustrate the collaboration
established for the multiple country publications and frequency of
published papers by country.
Furthermore, we calculated normalized centrality metrics for the
collaboration network to investigate the network characteristics
(Borgatti et al., 2013). To investigate if geopolitical factors are de-
terminant for the emergence of research hubs, in terms of countries
with the largest number of articles published in collaboration with
other countries we used the degree centrality, i.e., the number of colla-
boration links a country has (Manolache et al., 2018). The most influent
collaborative countries in the network were pinpointed by calculating
the eigenvector centrality, which is a specific measure of influence
(Cimenler et al., 2014) and within the collaboration network, in-
vestigates country's tendency to perform research with other countries
who are themselves well-connected. To identify countries that have a
preferential position within the network, i.e., with a high potential to
disseminate information or initiate future research attachment in new
publications, we calculated the betweenness centrality, which shows the
number of shortest paths that pass through a country within the net-
work (Abbasi et al., 2012). Countries with high betweenness centrality
value have also an important role in the control of information transfer
in the research network (Nita et al., 2019).
Moreover, we assigned the income per country defined by World
Bank list of economies (https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org, as of June
2019) as an attribute to the country collaboration network in order to
understand if the economic factor influences environmental
3
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 78 (2019) 106283
assessments research investigated in this paper. The analysis highlights
the position within the collaboration network of the countries with high
income and their importance towards the research activity of the rest of
the countries with middle or low income.
2.4. Keywords co-occurrence
While abstracts represent the primary tool through which general
public, stakeholders, or scientists find details about the research they
are interested in, keywords are chosen by the authors as best proxies to
describe and promote their work within the community e.g., methods,
study area, key concepts (Radhakrishnan et al., 2017).
The paper investigates the co-occurrence of keywords selected by
the authors published by Environmental Impact Assessment Review
highlighting innovative topical research themes (Madani and Weber,
2016). This type of analysis explores the scientific knowledge in the
literature and focuses on the investigation of existing links between
keywords (Radhakrishnan et al., 2017). The analysis includes the co-
occurrence network of keywords published in the journal between
2000, the year in which keywords were introduced in the published
articles, and 2018. The keywords were standardized by matching and
merging abbreviation or duplicate terms (Popescu et al., 2014), the
final keywords matrix for analysis includes 2005 unique keywords.
We used multiple correspondence analysis and k-means clustering
of standardized keywords network to represent the effective conceptual
structure map and cluster the most common nodes, by shared concepts
investigated in the published articles (Ekundayo and Okoh, 2018).
Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) is an exploratory multivariate
technique used to evaluate associations among multivariate categorical
variables (Greenacre, 2016; Rozylowicz et al., 2017), the keywords
listed in the articles in this case. Through this technique, we re-
presented the keywords in a two dimensional conceptual structure map
(Aria and Cuccurullo, 2017) with a minimum degree of 9 for a better
visibility of the graphical representation. Furthermore, the analysis uses
one of the most popular clustering algorithms, the k-means algorithm
(Berman, 2013). The conceptual structure map resulted from the ap-
plication of MCA and k-means clustering brings the keywords together
in a two-dimensional plot, where a closer position of the keywords is
given as they are more similar in distribution taking into consideration
their homogeneity within the network (Aria and Cuccurullo, 2017).
This type of co-word analysis is mainly used within this work to high-
light the most significant scientific terms, the links between them and
emerging research trends in the analyzed journal (Zhang et al., 2017).
Furthermore, we illustrate the keyword co-occurrence network with
a temporal overlay (Van Eck and Waltman, 2010), which reveals the
state-of-the-art research directions over time. The graphical re-
presentation of the keywords appearing in the journal in the period
2000–2018 was performed by taking into consideration, as scores for
the temporal overlay, the average year of keywords publication. Within
the graphical representation, the size of the nodes is given by the
number of occurrences in multiple articles, while the thickness of the
links is given by the frequency of the two keywords co-occurrence in
multiple articles.
The bibliometric analyses, centrality metrics, and network visuali-
zations were performed using R 3.4.4 software with bibliometrix (Aria
and Cuccurullo, 2017) and igraph (Csardi and Nepusz, 2006) packages,
Vos Viewer 1.6.10 (Van Eck and Waltman, 2010) and NodeXL (https://
nodexl.codeplex.com/).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Within-country collaboration and scientific productivity
Between 1980 and 2018 the Environmental Impact Assessment Review
journal published researchers affiliated to 75 countries, the most pro-
ductive country from this point of view is the United States of America
A. Nita
(number of published articles = 354, 21.3%) (Fig. 2, Supplementary
Table S1). Nevertheless, in terms of multiple country publications and
total citations, the United Kingdom leads indisputably, being as well on
the second position in terms of productivity (number of published ar-
ticles = 275, 16.5%). Interestingly, the article that brings the highest
number of citations to the journal (Widmer et al., 2005) has no af-
filiation to one of the top ten most productive countries, this work being
produced by researchers from Switzerland and India. On the third po-
sition, in terms of productivity comes Australia with 170 published
articles (10.2%), within them being included one of the most cited ar-
ticle of the journal (Pope et al., 2004). Most of the developing countries
are in the second half of the ranking with mostly one or two publica-
tions published within the journal (e.g., Algeria, Bahrain, Barbados,
Bulgaria, Chad, Ghana, Iraq, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mongolia, Mor-
occo, Romania) (see Supplementary Table S1). Nevertheless, as shown
in Fig. 2, there are also developing countries that had a particular in-
terest in EA research and have published in this journal a significant
number of papers (e.g., India = 39, Iran = 22, Mexico = 17).
Out of the countries hosting the authors publishing in Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, nine (Algeria, Barbados, Cyprus, Estonia,
Iceland, Israel, Lebanon, Mauritius, and Serbia) were only single
country publication (i.e., isolated countries in terms of collaboration),
whereas the rest of them had at least one publication which was a
multiple country publication. The research connections established
between the countries are presented in Fig. 3 and Supplementary Table
S2. The most frequent research collaboration links are established be-
tween the United Kingdom and South Africa, between Australia and
South Africa and between the United Kingdom and Australia, followed
by China and Hong Kong SAR, respectively by the collaboration be-
tween the USA and Switzerland. The centrality metrics resulted from
the analysis (Supplementary Table S3) and Fig. 4 show that the United
Kingdom is the most connected (degree centrality = 0.591) and influ-
ential country (eigenvector value = 0.459), also having the highest
betweenness centrality value within the network (score = 0.298). Al-
though on the 10th position in terms of the number of articles published
Fig. 2. – Country level scientific productivity. Colour scale is given by the number of articles published in Environmental Impact Assessment Review: light green – low
productivity, dark green – high productivity). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this
article.)
4
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 78 (2019) 106283
by country, in the collaboration network, Germany comes in the second
place in terms of both degree (0.439) and eigenvector centrality
(0.412), this illustrating a very high performance in attracting inter-
national scientific cooperation and promotion of good practice from the
environmental assessments research perspective. As for the between-
ness centrality in the collaboration network, the ranking is the fol-
lowing: the USA is on the second position with a value of 0.166, fol-
lowed by Canada (0.126), Germany (0.122), and Australia (0.082).
These results highlight the countries with the highest potential to play a
research broker role within the network as they can easier mediate and
disseminate information or initiate research interactions between the
countries.
The research collaboration network among the European countries
is very dense, this fact could be justified by the close collaboration of
the Western European countries (e.g., United Kingdom, Germany, Italy,
Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland),
while the degree of collaboration within Central and Eastern European
countries is much lower (e.g., Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Czech
Republic, Romania, Bulgaria, etc.) (Fig. 4, Supplementary Table S3).
Among the countries belonging to the low or middle-income category,
stand as research collaboration leaders the following: South Africa,
China, and Brazil, while on the other hand there are also high-income
countries that have at most two collaborative ties with others, such as
Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Finland.
3.2. Keywords conceptual structure map and research topics evolution over
time
The conceptual structure map resulted from the multiple corre-
spondence analysis and k-means clustering analysis, brings the key-
words together taking into consideration their homogeneity within the
network. Fig. 5 shows the distribution of the most common keywords
(degree ≥9) grouped into three clusters.
Cluster 1 brings together keywords such as Environmental Impact
A. Nita Environmental Impact Assessment Review 78 (2019) 106283

Fig. 3. – Network map of collaboration among countries resulted from Environmental Impact Assessment Review bibliometric analysis (light green – low productivity,
dark green – high productivity, the weight of the red link is given by collaboration frequency). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 4. – Country collaboration graph resulted from Environmental Impact Assessment Review bibliometric analysis (green nodes – countries with high income, red
nodes – countries with middle or low income, size of nodes given by the number of collaborating countries, weight of link between two countries given by
collaboration frequency). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

5
A. Nita
Fig. 5. - Conceptual structure map and keywords clusters resulted from Environmental Impact Assessment Review bibliometric analysis (minimum node degree = 9,
method: multiple correspondence analysis & k-means clustering; cluster 1 – grey, cluster 2 – green, cluster 3 – red). (For interpretation of the references to colour in
this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Statement, NEPA, vulnerability assessment, impact significance, follow-
up, alternatives assessment, cumulative effects assessment, practice,
adaptative management and mitigation (Fig. 5). Most articles that used
these keywords had similar research themes such as: adaptive ap-
proaches or alternatives analysis investigations (e.g., Noble (2000),
Smith (2007)) and, for example, discuss the need of a proper mon-
itoring of project activities according to the magnitude of impact in
concern with NEPA legislation (e.g., Bjorkland (2013)) or ways to assess
the sustainability of project development alternatives, implementation
of adaptative management and provision of cost-effective solution (e.g.,
Senner (2011)).
Cluster 2 joined keywords of research articles focused on concepts
and frameworks related to ways to diminish and adapt to climate
change (e.g., Jiricka et al. (2016)), limitations in current Strategic En-
vironmental Assessment regulations (e.g., Rehhausen et al. (2018)), and
tools of integrated environmental assessment in supporting sustainable
decision making in the planning process (e.g., Tajima and Fischer
(2013)) (Fig. 5), themes that are increasingly researched in the litera-
ture (de Groot et al., 2010; Langemeyer et al., 2016).
The most comprehensive cluster (cluster 3 – Fig. 5) gathers close
together keywords of the articles discussing among others, the effec-
tiveness and main issues of each EIA stage or entire process (i.e.,
scoping, public participation, decision making) (e.g., Glucker et al.
6
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 78 (2019) 106283
(2013); Ramos-Quintana et al. (2018)), conflicts and tools to ensure
appraisal of health and social impact, the urgent need to improve the
various types of management (e.g., waste management) (e.g., Xu et al.
(2018)), emission control and environmental quality by taking into
account life cycle assessment (Welz et al., 2011) and cost-benefit ana-
lysis (e.g., Khoshnava et al. (2018)), as well as using renewable energies
(e.g., Tolli et al. (2016). Many of the case studies used in the in-
vestigated research articles were targeting different situations in de-
veloping countries, infrastructure, industry and mining projects (e.g.,
Gore and Fischer (2014)).
For a proper visualization, Fig. 6 presents the network of keywords
with ≥3 occurrences in the dataset describing the research published in
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, which means that one keyword
should have been listed in at least 3 articles. The 299 represented
keywords (nodes in the graphic) were clustered in groups with the same
colour by the average publication year and the node size is given by the
number of occurrences. The overlay visualization helped to understand
the evolution of research interest in time, for example, in Fig. 6 it can be
noticed that the research trend with the average year of publication
between 2000 and 2006, was focused on subjects such as: Espoo Con-
vention, Habitats and Water Framework Directives, urban water, ma-
terial flow analysis, recycling, waste, pollution prevention, urban land
use, monitoring, precautionary principle, conflict, environmental
A. Nita
Fig. 6. - Keyword co-occurrence graph with a temporal overlay as resulted from Environmental Impact Assessment Review bibliometric analysis (size of nodes given by
keyword occurrences, legend - average publication year).
protection authority, systems analysis, cultural heritage, urban, in-
dustrial projects, integrated environmental assessment, transboundary
projects, consensus building and auditing, environmental justice, etc.
From this timeline distribution it can be concluded that in the early
2000s the research focus was centered mostly on approaches that en-
visaged improving the practical implementation and development of
mutual understanding of impact assessments (Hildén and Furman,
2001), promotion of Espoo Convention principles in decision making
process of projects with transboundary impacts (Nazari, 2003) and
highlighting either best practices or potential obstacles and limitations
in the practice of environmental assessments (Chaker et al., 2006).
The next group of keywords within the graph representation in
Fig. 6 illustrates either that the subject has been continuously discussed
in the investigated articles over the entire analyzed period, and the
keywords' average publication year is in the middle, or that the topic
was of interest and published in the journal on average between 2007
and 2013. Thus, part of this group are keywords such as: health impact
assessment, strategic environmental assessment, environmental impact
assessment, environmental impact statement, integration, life cycle
assessment, sustainable development, sustainability, indicator, public
participation, cumulative effects assessments, adaptive management,
climate change, biodiversity, fragmentation, alternatives, values, de-
veloping countries, multi-criteria assessments, etc. This result confirms
the importance of all the impact assessment types which require con-
tinuous inquiries to reach common frameworks that provide an overall
improvement of cumulative environmental effects assessment (Johnson
et al., 2011).
7
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 78 (2019) 106283
Most recent topics currently being investigated and discussed by
researchers, especially in the articles published on average after 2014 to
present, are: ecosystem services, cross-border cooperation, carbon
footprint and emissions, biomass, strategic planning, efficiency, re-
newable energy, resilience, offsets, waste water treatment, mortality,
quality of life, mitigation hierarchy, Common Agricultural Policy, Rural
Development Programs (see Fig. 6).
4. Political, economic, social and technological context
influencing the environmental assessments research and
international cooperation
Present and past political regimes, location of a country and legal
regulations, significantly influence the impact assessment practice and
research (Nita et al., 2015). The geographical position is one of the most
important reasons for cooperation or conflict between countries, also
significantly affecting the research collaborations focusing on en-
vironmental assessments (see Supplementary Table S2, Fig. 3 and
Fig. 4). In this case, the cooperation between neighbour countries has a
fairly high frequency, as it is the case of China with Hong Kong SAR, or
Germany with Poland, Netherlands, Switzerland and Austria or the
Visegrad Group: Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic
(Gałaś et al., 2015). Scientific collaborations also aim to improve the
coherence of environmental policies by identifying limitations and good
practice approaches, as it is the case of Ireland and the United Kingdom
(González et al., 2015). The United Kingdom is among the most pro-
ductive and most collaborative leader of the Environmental Impact
A. Nita
Assessment Review research network (see Fig. 2, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4), which
could be explained by the fact that UK universities and research in-
stitutes have a vast experience in managing environmental research
partnerships with countries all over the world but also due to the use of
standard language, not just for research but also for practice. Con-
sidering the current situation induced by the Brexit, there is a great
concern regarding future collaborations and innovations in environ-
mental research as there is currently no definite plan in this specific
domain for preserving impact assessments science and future research
cooperation (Beddington, 2019).
The evolution of the research focused on the legal norms which
govern impact assessments change over time, and so, as shown in Fig. 5
and Fig. 6, we have witnessed to a shift of the research centered on the
principles of the Espoo Convention or the European Landscape Con-
vention to climate change adaptation, disregarding the geographical
position of the affiliations, i.e., Spain and Netherlands (Enríquez-de-
Salamanca et al., 2017). A particular interest in the past few years is
given to the research of the Common Agricultural Policy implementa-
tion or other rural development programs (Fig. 6) envisaging rural
landscape, traditional activities, local identity, biodiversity and cultural
preservation (Gottero and Cassatella, 2017; Hartel et al., 2017), which
are topics of interest for environmental assessments.
Factors like quality of life or education level can be key determi-
nants in environmental management or planning as well as in research
(Caplin et al., 2019). All these elements can help understand the results
obtained, which revealed a relatively low productivity and scientific
collaboration in most countries with low or medium income (see
Fig. 4), which is not surprising given the fact that developed countries
have a stronger research system. Implementation of environmental as-
sessments is often problematic in the developing countries, mostly be-
cause of the limited consideration of the cumulative impacts and low-
quality public participation (Horberry, 1985; Alshuwaikhat, 2005;
Starkl et al., 2018). Thus, more collaborative research between high
and medium or low income countries should be further performed to
improve the quality of environmental assessments processes by learning
from the best practices examples also investiganting current practices
(Gore and Fischer, 2014). However, in recent years, thanks to inter-
national research programmes (i.e., EU Horizon 2020, LIFE) the in-
itiatives to improve environmental research and strategies are more and
more common in developing countries, who are making efforts to fill
this gap. For example, there is an increasing interest in the use of
economically efficient renewable energy, emission reduction and pol-
lution control among developing countries (Yang et al., 2018), which is
reflected in the Environmental Impact Assessment Review published re-
search (see Fig. 5 and Fig. 6).
The social influence of decisions and research of environmental
assessment is of particular interest, as demonstrated by our results. The
Environmental Impact Assessment Review research network is dominated
by countries such as the USA, United Kingdom, Australia, Germany
(Fig. 3 and Fig. 4) that have many world-renowned universities and
research centers with extensive research experience. Optimizing the
network (Barnes et al., 2017) at international level it is indeed a diffi-
cult task due to each countries' research culture, language, institutional
setting and opportunities, but could undergo improvements for the
common purpose of spreading innovative research concepts and best
practice examples of environmental assessments (Marques et al., 2019).
Environmental Impact Assessment Review journal foresees promoting in-
ternational scientific collaboration, which is of interest to a global au-
dience. Nevertheless, research cooperation should be further en-
couraged between developing and developed countries to address the
gap between science and practice to achieve collaborative environ-
mental management (Bodin, 2017), as there is an increasing emphasis
on the role of collaboration to achieve success in general (Barabási,
2018), and on how different governance contexts may influence these
types of environmental assessments in particular (Monteiro et al.,
2018).
8
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 78 (2019) 106283
The emerging research directions (see Fig. 5 and Fig. 6) highlight
the most pressing environmental issues such as: pollution, climate
change, loss of biodiversity or public health which are also the global
problems of local communities (Bernardi et al., 2018). Several inter-
esting results emerged from the keyword network analysis, mainly that
the literature has shifted from the research focused on specific en-
vironmental issues to the need to integrate social aspects into current
practices to find ways to improve conservation practices (see Fig. 6)
(Baylis et al., 2016), to enhance proper human-nature relationships
(Jones et al., 2018), and to provide accurate land use assessments for
minimization of environmental conflicts (Tudor et al., 2014).
Nevertheless, important topics such as NGOs involvement in the
different types or stages of impact assessments (Nita et al., 2018) or
nature-based solutions, which is a new concept of integrated approach
to adapt to and diminish the impacts from climate change, biodiversity
conservation and improve quality of life and human health (Raymond
et al., 2017), were not evident. However, these might have been dis-
cussed in the analyzed articles but have not been mentioned at all or
maybe with a very low frequency in the keywords section, and so the
research around these concepts can only be noticed if broader research
would be carried out, that would review in-depth all analyzed articles.
Considering that environmental assessments are most often highly
complex and fairly difficult to pursue due to the many actors involved,
their proper and sustainable implementation should focus on the spe-
cific characteristics of the project, and also on performing investiga-
tions or comparisons of similar case studies (Zwierzchowska et al.,
2018).
5. Concluding remarks on collaborative impact assessment
research
By using bibliometric analysis of the papers published by
Environmental Impact Assessment Review journal, the paper successfully
determines country research productivity and patterns of collaboration
along with the most common research directions and evolution in time
of scientific interest.
The importance of collaborative research and proper impact as-
sessments implementation is monumental when discussing sustainable
development, and for which productive international collaboration
disregard the geographical and jurisdictional boundaries may be the
answer to the contemporary environmental problems and in solving
conflicts across and within-countries (Bodin et al., 2016). Further re-
search should be done in order to define a new approach to capture the
main impact assessments benefits and issues in order to improve the
quality and effectiveness of these formal procedures.
The present paper highlights the necessity to overcome political,
economic, social and technological barriers in international research
collaboration, and special efforts should be made by developing coun-
tries considering that policy decisions still have devastating effects on
the environment and still are not based on in-depth scientific evidence
in some cases or countries (Posner and Cvitanovic, 2019).
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106283.
Declarations of interest
None.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a grant offered by U.S. Department
of State with the cooperation of the Council for International Exchange
of Scholars / Institute of International Education (IIE/CIES) and the
Romanian – U.S. Fulbright Commission. This work has benefited greatly
from the valuable comments of the anonymous reviewers.
A. Nita
References
Abbasi, A., Hossain, L., Leydesdorff, L., 2012. Betweenness centrality as a driver of pre-
ferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks. J. Inf. Secur.
6, 403–412.
Abrahams, B., Sitas, N., Esler, K.J., 2019. Exploring the dynamics of research collabora-
tions by mapping social networks in invasion science. J. Environ. Manag. 229, 27–37.
Alshuwaikhat, H.M., 2005. Strategic environmental assessment can help solve environ-
mental impact assessment failures in developing countries. Environ. Impact Assess.
Rev. 25, 307–317.
Aria, M., Cuccurullo, C., 2017. Bibliometrix: an R-tool for comprehensive science map-
ping analysis. J. Inf. Secur. 11, 959–975.
Badiu, D.L., Nita, A., Iojă, C.I., Niţă, M.R., 2019. Disentangling the connections: a network
analysis of approaches to urban green infrastructure. Urban For. Urban Green. 41,
211–220.
Barabási, A.-L., 2018. The Formula: The Science Behind Why People Succeed or Fail.
Macmillan, London.
Barnes, M.L., Bodin, O., Guerrero, A.M., McAllister, R.R.J., Alexander, S.M., Robins, G.,
2017. The social structural foundations of adaptation and transformation in social-
ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 22, 16.
Baylis, K., Honey-Rosés, J., Börner, J., Corbera, E., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Ferraro, P.J.,
Lapeyre, R., Persson, U.M., Pfaff, A., Wunder, S., 2016. Mainstreaming impact eva-
luation in nature conservation. Conserv. Lett. 9, 58–64.
Beddington, J., 2019. Keep science on the horizon. Science 363, 671.
Berman, J.J., 2013. Principles of Big Data: Preparing, Sharing, and Analyzing Complex
Information. Elsevier.
Bernardi, B., Falcone, G., Stillitano, T., Benalia, S., Strano, A., Bacenetti, J., De Luca, A.I.,
2018. Harvesting system sustainability in Mediterranean olive cultivation. Sci. Total
Environ. 625, 1446–1458.
Bjorkland, R., 2013. Monitoring: the missing piece: a critique of NEPA monitoring.
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 43, 129–134.
Bodin, O., 2017. Collaborative environmental governance: achieving collective action in
social-ecological systems. Science 357 (eaan1114).
Bodin, O., Crona, B.I., 2009. The role of social networks in natural resource governance:
what relational patterns make a difference? Glob. Environ. Chang. 19, 366–374.
Bodin, O., Robins, G., McAllister, R.R.J., Guerrero, A.M., Crona, B., Tengo, M., Lubell, M.,
2016. Theorizing benefits and constraints in collaborative environmental govern-
ance: a transdisciplinary social-ecological network approach for empirical in-
vestigations. Ecol. Soc. 21, 40.
Bond, A., Retief, F., Cave, B., Fundingsland, M., Duinker, P.N., Verheem, R., Brown, A.L.,
2018. A contribution to the conceptualisation of quality in impact assessment.
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 68, 49–58.
Borgatti, S., Everett, M., Johnson, J., 2013. Analyzing Social Networks. SAGE
Publications, London.
Campos-Guzmán, V., García-Cáscales, M.S., Espinosa, N., Urbina, A., 2019. Life cycle
analysis with multi-criteria decision making: a review of approaches for the sus-
tainability evaluation of renewable energy technologies. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev.
104, 343–366.
Caplin, A., Ghandehari, M., Lim, C., Glimcher, P., Thurston, G., 2019. Advancing en-
vironmental exposure assessment science to benefit society. Nat. Commun. 10, 1236.
Chaker, A., El-Fadl, K., Chamas, L., Hatjian, B., 2006. A review of strategic environmental
assessment in 12 selected countries. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 26, 15–56.
Cimenler, O., Reeves, K.A., Skvoretz, J., 2014. A regression analysis of researchers' social
network metrics on their citation performance in a college of engineering. J. Inf.
Secur. 8, 667–682.
Coba, M.F., Valencia, G.E., Acevedo, C.H., 2018. A bibliometric analysis environmental
impact assessment literature: an expanding and shifting focus. Chem. Eng. Trans. 67,
493–498.
Csardi, G., Nepusz, T., 2006. The igraph software package for complex network research.
Inter. J. Complex Syst. 1695.
de Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L., 2010. Challenges in in-
tegrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, man-
agement and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 7, 260–272.
Dehdarirad, T., Nasini, S., 2017. Research impact in co-authorship networks: a two-mode
analysis. J. Inf. Secur. 11, 371–388.
Dehmamy, N., Milanlouei, S., Barabasi, A.L., 2018. A structural transition in physical
networks. Nature 563, 676–680.
Ekundayo, T.C., Okoh, A.I., 2018. A global bibliometric analysis of Plesiomonas-related
research (1990–2017). PLoS ONE 13, e0207655.
Enríquez-de-Salamanca, A., Díaz-Sierra, R., Martín-Aranda, R.M., Santos, M.J., 2017.
Environmental impacts of climate change adaptation. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
64, 87–96.
Ferrer, A.L.C., Thomé, A.M.T., Scavarda, A.J., 2018. Sustainable urban infrastructure: a
review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 128, 360–372.
Gałaś, S., Gałaś, A., Zeleňáková, M., Zvijáková, L., Fialová, J., Kubíčková, H., 2015.
Environmental impact assessment in the Visegrad group countries. Environ. Impact
Assess. Rev. 55, 11–20.
Gaviria-Marin, M., Merigó, J.M., Baier-Fuentes, H., 2018. Knowledge management: a
global examination based on bibliometric analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.
140, 194–220.
Glucker, A.N., Driessen, P.P.J., Kolhoff, A., Runhaar, H.A.C., 2013. Public participation in
environmental impact assessment: why, who and how? Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
43, 104–111.
González, A., Thérivel, R., Fry, J., Foley, W., 2015. Advancing practice relating to SEA
alternatives. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 53, 52–63.
9
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 78 (2019) 106283
Gore, T., Fischer, T.B., 2014. Uncovering the factors that can support and impede post-
disaster EIA practice in developing countries: the case of Aceh Province, Indonesia.
Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 44, 67–75.
Gottero, E., Cassatella, C., 2017. Landscape indicators for rural development policies.
Application of a core set in the case study of Piedmont region. Environ. Impact Assess.
Rev. 65, 75–85.
Greenacre, M., 2016. Correspondence Analysis in Practice, 3rd edition. Chapman & Hall/
CRC.
Guerrero, A.M., Mcallister, R.R.J., Wilson, K.A., 2015. Achieving cross-scale collaboration
for large scale conservation initiatives. Conserv. Lett. 8, 107–117.
Hartel, T., Reti, K.O., Craioveanu, C., 2017. Valuing scattered trees from wood-pastures
by farmers in a traditional rural region of Eastern Europe. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
236, 304–311.
Hildén, M., Furman, E.R., 2001. Assessment across borders: stumbling blocks and options
in the practical implementation of the Espoo convention. Environ. Impact Assess.
Rev. 21, 537–551.
Hodgson, I.D., Redpath, S.M., Fischer, A., Young, J., 2019. Who knows best? under-
standing the use of research-based knowledge in conservation conflicts. J. Environ.
Manag. 231, 1065–1075.
Horberry, J., 1985. International organization and EIA in developing countries. Environ.
Impact Assess. Rev. 5, 207–222.
IAIA, IEA (International Association for Impact Assessment and Institute for
Environmental Assessment UK), 1999. Principles of Environmental Impact
Assessment Best Practice. https://www.iaia.org/uploads (last accessed on 1st of
February 2019).
Igliński, B., Iglińska, A., Cichosz, M., Kujawski, W., Buczkowski, R., 2016. Renewable
energy production in the Łódzkie Voivodeship. The PEST analysis of the RES in the
voivodeship and in Poland. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 58, 737–750.
Jiricka, A., Formayer, H., Schmidt, A., Voller, S., Leitner, M., Fischer, T.B., Wachter, T.F.,
2016. Consideration of climate change impacts and adaptation in EIA practice -
perspectives of actors in Austria and Germany. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 57,
78–88.
Johnson, D., Lalonde, K., McEachern, M., Kenney, J., Mendoza, G., Buffin, A., Rich, K.,
2011. Improving cumulative effects assessment in Alberta: regional strategic assess-
ment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 31, 481–483.
Jones, N., Malesios, C., Ioannidou, E., Kanakaraki, R., Kazoli, F., Dimitrakopoulos, P.G.,
2018. Understanding perceptions of the social impacts of protected areas: evidence
from three NATURA 2000 sites in Greece. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 73, 80–89.
Khoshnava, S.M., Rostami, R., Ismail, M., Rahmat, A.R., 2018. A cradle-to-gate based life
cycle impact assessment comparing the KBF w EFB hybrid reinforced poly hydro-
xybutyrate biocomposite and common petroleum-based composites as building ma-
terials. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 70, 11–21.
Langemeyer, J., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Haase, D., Scheuer, S., Elmqvist, T., 2016.
Bridging the gap between ecosystem service assessments and land-use planning
through multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). Environ. Sci. Pol. 62, 45–56.
Li, W., Zhao, Y., 2015. Bibliometric analysis of global environmental assessment research
in a 20-year period. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 50, 158–166.
Madani, F., Weber, C., 2016. The evolution of patent mining: applying bibliometrics
analysis and keyword network analysis. World Patent Inf. 46, 32–48.
Maditati, D.R., Munim, Z.H., Schramm, H.-J., Kummer, S., 2018. A review of green supply
chain management: from bibliometric analysis to a conceptual framework and future
research directions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 139, 150–162.
Mair, L., Mill, A.C., Robertson, P.A., Rushton, S.P., Shirley, M.D.F., Rodriguez, J.P.,
McGowan, P.J.K., 2018. The contribution of scientific research to conservation
planning. Biol. Conserv. 223, 82–96.
Manolache, S., Nita, A., Ciocanea, C.M., Popescu, V.D., Rozylowicz, L., 2018. Power,
influence and structure in Natura 2000 governance networks. A comparative analysis
of two protected areas in Romania. J. Environ. Manag. 212, 54–64.
Marques, A., Martins, I.S., Kastner, T., Plutzar, C., Theurl, M.C., Eisenmenger, N.,
Huijbregts, M.A.J., Wood, R., Stadler, K., Bruckner, M., Canelas, J., Hilbers, J.P.,
Tukker, A., Erb, K., Pereira, H.M., 2019. Increasing impacts of land use on biodi-
versity and carbon sequestration driven by population and economic growth. Nat.
Ecol. Evol. 3, 628–637.
McAllister, R.R.J., McCrea, R., Lubell, M.N., 2013. Policy networks, stakeholder inter-
actions and climate adaptation in the region of south East Queensland, Australia. Reg.
Environ. Chang. 14, 527–539.
Modak, N.M., Merigó, J.M., Weber, R., Manzor, F., Ortúzar, J.D., 2019. Fifty years of
transportation research journals: a bibliometric overview. Transp. Res. A Policy
Pract. 120, 188–223.
Monteiro, M.B., do Rosário Partidário, M., Meuleman, L., 2018. A comparative analysis
on how different governance contexts may influence strategic environmental as-
sessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 72, 79–87.
Nazari, M.M., 2003. The transboundary EIA convention in the context of private sector
operations co-financed by an international financial institution: two case studies from
Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 23, 441–451.
Nita, A., Buttler, A., Rozylowicz, L., Patru-Stupariu, I., 2015. Perception and use of
landscape concepts in the procedure of environmental impact assessment: case study-
Switzerland and Romania. Land Use Policy 44, 145–152.
Nita, A., Ciocanea, C.M., Manolache, S., Rozylowicz, L., 2018. A network approach for
understanding opportunities and barriers to effective public participation in the
management of protected areas. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 8, 31.
Nita, A., Hartel, T., Manolache, S., Ciocanea, C.M., Miu, I.V., Rozylowicz, L., 2019. Who is
researching biodiversity hotspots in Eastern Europe? a case study on the grasslands in
Romania. PLoS ONE 14, e0217638.
Noble, B.F., 2000. Strengthening EIA through adaptive management: a systems per-
spective. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 20, 97–111.
A. Nita
Pannell, D.J., Alston, J.M., Jeffrey, S., Buckley, Y.M., Vesk, P., Rhodes, J.R., McDonald-
Madden, E., Nally, S., Goucher, G., Thamo, T., 2018. Policy-oriented environmental
research: what is it worth? Environ. Sci. Pol. 86, 64–71.
Pope, J., Annandale, D., Morrison-Saunders, A., 2004. Conceptualising sustainability as-
sessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 24, 595–616.
Popescu, V.D., Rozylowicz, L., Niculae, I.M., Cucu, A.L., Hartel, T., 2014. Species, habi-
tats, society: an evaluation of research supporting EU's Natura 2000 network. PLoS
ONE 9, e113648.
Posner, S.M., Cvitanovic, C., 2019. Evaluating the impacts of boundary-spanning activ-
ities at the interface of environmental science and policy: a review of progress and
future research needs. Environ. Sci. Pol. 92, 141–151.
Radhakrishnan, S., Erbis, S., Isaacs, J.A., Kamarthi, S., 2017. Novel keyword co-occur-
rence network-based methods to foster systematic reviews of scientific literature.
PLoS ONE 12, e0172778.
Ramos-Quintana, F., Ortíz-Hernández, M.L., Sánchez-Salinas, E., Úrsula-Vázquez, E.,
Guerrero, J.A., Zamorano, M., 2018. Quantitative-qualitative assessments of en-
vironmental causal networks to support the DPSIR framework in the decision-making
process. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 69, 42–60.
Raymond, C.M., Frantzeskaki, N., Kabisch, N., Berry, P., Breil, M., Nita, M.R., Geneletti,
D., Calfapietra, C., 2017. A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits
of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environ. Sci. Pol. 77, 15–24.
Rehhausen, A., Köppel, J., Scholles, F., Stemmer, B., Syrbe, R.-U., Magel, I., Geißler, G.,
Wende, W., 2018. Quality of federal level strategic environmental assessment – a case
study analysis for transport, transmission grid and maritime spatial planning in
Germany. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 73, 41–59.
Robinson-Garcia, N., Sugimoto, C.R., Murray, D., Yegros-Yegros, A., Larivière, V., Costas,
R., 2019. The many faces of mobility: using bibliometric data to measure the
movement of scientists. J. Inf. Secur. 13, 50–63.
Rozylowicz, L., Nita, A., Manolache, S., Ciocanea, C.M., Popescu, V.D., 2017. Recipe for
success: a network perspective of partnership in nature conservation. J. Nat. Conserv.
38, 21–29.
Senner, R., 2011. Appraising the sustainability of project alternatives: an increasing role
for cumulative effects assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 31, 502–505.
Shiau, W.-L., Dwivedi, Y.K., Yang, H.S., 2017. Co-citation and cluster analyses of extant
literature on social networks. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 37, 390–399.
Smith, M.D., 2007. A review of recent NEPA alternatives analysis case law. Environ.
Impact Assess. Rev. 27, 126–144.
10
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 78 (2019) 106283
Starkl, M., Anthony, J., Aymerich, E., Brunner, N., Chubilleau, C., Das, S., Ghangrekar,
M.M., Kazmi, A.A., Philip, L., Singh, A., 2018. Interpreting best available technolo-
gies more flexibly: a policy perspective for municipal wastewater management in
India and other developing countries. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 71, 132–141.
Taddeo, R., Simboli, A., Di Vincenzo, F., Ioppolo, G., 2019. A bibliometric and network
analysis of lean and clean(er) production research (1990/2017). Sci. Total Environ.
653, 765–775.
Tajima, R., Fischer, T.B., 2013. Should different impact assessment instruments be in-
tegrated? Evidence from English spatial planning. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 41,
29–37.
Tolli, M., Recanatesi, F., Piccinno, M., Leone, A., 2016. The assessment of aesthetic and
perceptual aspects within environmental impact assessment of renewable energy
projects in Italy. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 57, 10–17.
Tudor, C.A., Iojă, I.C., Stupariu, I., Niță, M.R., Hersperger, A.M., 2014. How successful is
the resolution of land-use conflicts? a comparison of cases from Switzerland and
Romania. Appl. Geogr. 47, 125–136.
Van Eck, N.J., Waltman, L., 2010. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for
bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84, 523–538.
Welz, T., Hischier, R., Hilty, L.M., 2011. Environmental impacts of lighting technologies
— life cycle assessment and sensitivity analysis. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 31,
334–343.
Widmer, R., Oswald-Krapf, H., Sinha-Khetriwal, D., Schnellmann, M., Böni, H., 2005.
Global perspectives on e-waste. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 25, 436–458.
Xu, J., Lu, W., Xue, F., Chen, K., Ye, M., Wang, J., Chen, X., 2018. Cross-boundary col-
laboration in waste management research: a network analysis. Environ. Impact
Assess. Rev. 73, 128–141.
Yang, Y., Zhang, H., Xiong, W., Zhang, D., Zhang, X., 2018. Regional power system
modeling for evaluating renewable energy development and CO2 emissions reduction
in China. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 73, 142–151.
Yu, D., Wang, W., Zhang, S., Zhang, W., Liu, R., 2017. A multiple-link, mutually re-
inforced journal-ranking model to measure the prestige of journals. Scientometrics
111, 521–542.
Zhang, Y., Huang, K., Yu, Y., Yang, B., 2017. Mapping of water footprint research: a
bibliometric analysis during 2006–2015. J. Clean. Prod. 149, 70–79.
Zwierzchowska, I., Hof, A., Iojă, I.-C., Mueller, C., Poniży, L., Breuste, J., Mizgajski, A.,
2018. Multi-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services of parks in central
European cities. Urban For. Urban Green. 30, 84–97.