Abstract
This study aims to highlight the current trends in the literature on sustainability by applying a bibliometric review of papers on sustainability published in Environment, Development and Sustainability. Bibliometric analysis is a quantitative approach to bibliographic materials that highlights the core theoretical and empirical research on a specific field. In addition, it allows the classification of previous studies. Previous bibliometric reviewers were limited to sustainability papers in specific industries, while this study considers all papers on sustainability to provide further insights on overall sustainability topics. The analysis was based on keyword cartography analysis, bibliometric authors’ citation analysis, bibliometric papers’ citation analysis, bibliometric references’ co-citation analysis, journals’ co-citation cartography, and qualitative content analysis. A total of 997 articles on sustainability were reviewed. Bibliometric analysis was performed using VOSviewer and content analysis was performed using WordStat. Six major clusters were identified: environmental sustainability, sustainable development, urban sustainability, ecological footprint, environment, and climate change. In addition, the results reveal that Environment, Development and Sustainability has increasingly experienced important growth in research papers and citations, reflecting its significant contribution to the sustainability research field. In addition, this study presents recommendations for future research opportunities in the field of sustainability. The findings of this study have implications for sustainability research, such as the assessment of environmental and social sustainability in multinational institutional contexts and across industries as well as the examination of the impact of environmental and social sustainability on different corporate aspects and decisions. This study is the only one to review the key topics on which papers published in Environment, Development and Sustainability are focused and can be largely used for sustainability practices. This study provides an overview of how the literature on sustainability has developed, as well as a summary of the most productive authors, along with countries, organizations, and journal sources. This offers an opportunity for future research to focus on this topic.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Over the past decade, bibliometric analyses have attracted increasing research attention. This analysis has become popular owing to the introduction of new software programs, multidisciplinary methodologies, and the ability to handle large databases (Khan et al., 2022). Additionally, this analysis allows objective data analysis and identification of various trends in a specific research field and journal performance, topics, authorship, co-citations, and references (Ellili, 2023). This study focuses on sustainability, which is of great interest.
This study focused on the sustainability research field, as its importance has emerged due to the growth in awareness of natural resource depletion and environmental changes. Sustainability has become an area of great interest not only for policymakers, but also for researchers to examine the concept of a green economy. In the last decade, the increasing environmental awareness of international legal bodies has prompted many countries to raise questions about sustainable development.
Most of studies explored the sustainability in the agriculture industry (Fito & van Hulle, 2021; Medina et al., 2021; Pandey & Diwan, 2021; Singh & Misra, 2021; Yasmeen et al., 2022), food security (Alsaleh et al., 2021; Nualnoom, 2022; Pieroni et al., 2021; P. Singh et al., 2022), land management and degradation (Surata et al., 2022; Yu, 2021; Zhou et al., 2022), biodiversity (Teraa & Bencherif, 2022), climate change (Staupe-Delgado, 2020; Wang et al., 2021), urban planning and management (Ahmed et al., 2021; Sunardi et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021), and carbon emission and pollution (Kapitonov, 2021; Kaya Kanlı & Küçükefe, 2023; Sun et al., 2022).
In the management area, studies have examined the circular economy (di Vaio et al., 2023; Mirzaei & Shokouhyar, 2022; Rasool et al., 2022), life cycle analysis (Hayek et al., 2021; Khaddour, 2022; Sharma et al., 2022) while only one study investigated the impact of sustainability disclosure on corporate performance (Ellili & Nobanee, 2022). Through a bibliometric analysis, this study was not only able to identify the most frequent sustainability topics published in Environment, Development and Sustainability, but also detect various gaps in the literature and propose paths for future research.
This study aims to achieve the following objectives: (1) analyze the major contributions of Environment, Development and Sustainability to the sustainability research field; (2) identify the most productive authors along with their respective papers, organizations, and countries; (3) determine the key reference papers and journals; (4) map and visualize results in simple presentations; and (5) provide directions for future sustainability research to be considered by the journal.
This study had five research questions: The first question is as follows: What are the most frequent topics of papers published in Environment, Development and Sustainability? The second question is: What authors, organizations, and countries have contributed the most to research on sustainability? The third research question was as follows: What are the most cited papers published in Environment, Development and Sustainability? The fourth research question is as follows: What are the most cited reference papers? The fifth research question was as follows: What are the most-cited reference journals? To answer the first and fifth questions, we conducted a cartography analysis using VOSviewer, and the remaining questions were answered by applying bibliometric analyses.
To the best of our knowledge, there are 13 bibliometric analyses published in Environment, Development and Sustainability. These studies are related to sustainability issues in specific industries, such as economics (Dominko et al., 2022; Zhao & Zhang, 2022; Zárate-Rueda et al., 2021), tourism (Diéguez-Castrillón et al., 2022), real estate (Lazar & Chithra, 2021), agriculture (Dash et al., 2023; Mohd Razali et al., 2022), and health (Zyoud & Zyoud, 2021). While this study considers all sustainability papers published in Environment, Development and Sustainability and it will shed further light on this topic. This study contributes to the literature by evaluating the most relevant sustainability research topics. Six major clusters were identified: (1) environmental sustainability, (2) sustainable development, (3) urban sustainability, (4) ecological footprint, (5) environment, and (6) climate change. In addition, the results reveal that Environment, Development and Sustainability has increasingly experienced important growth in research papers and citations, reflecting its significant contribution to the sustainability research field. In addition, this study identifies the authors, countries, organizations, and references that have been the most influential in terms of publishing sustainability studies in Environment, Development and Sustainability.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the methodology and data. Section 3 interprets the results of the bibliometric and content analyses. Section 4 presents the current topics and recommendations for future research, and Sect. 5 presents the conclusions.
2 Methodology and data
2.1 Methodology
This study applied a bibliometric analysis by considering both quantitative and qualitative approaches (Khan et al., 2022). Thus, the following analyses were conducted: (1) keyword cartography analysis, (2) bibliometric authors’ citation analysis, (3) bibliometric papers’ co-citation analysis, (4) bibliometric references’ co-citation analysis, (5) journals’ co-citation cartography, and (5) qualitative content analysis. Bibliometric analysis was conducted using VOSviewer and content analysis was performed using WordStat.
2.2 Data
In the first step, the Scopus database was selected as Environment, Development and Sustainability is listed in this database. More particularly, we used the keyword “sustainability” and the title source Environment, Development and Sustainability yielding 1,042 papers. The data include all documents on sustainability published in Environment, Development and Sustainability. It covers the period between 1999 and 2022 until August 9th. The data were then screened in multiple stages, as shown in Fig. 1. The final number of papers included in this bibliometric analysis was 997.
After the data were screened, they were exported to Common Separated Value (CSV) Excel and uploaded to VOSviewer for bibliometric analyses. In addition, the CSV Excel was converted into the Web of Sciences format and uploaded to CiteSpace. The data extraction and conversion steps are illustrated in Fig. 2.
3 Results of bibliometric and content analyses
This section summarizes the 997 documents included in this study. These documents were published in Environment, Development, and Sustainability. In addition to the trend analysis, several bibliometric analyses were conducted to identify the most frequent research topics, the most productive authors along with organizations and countries, the most cited papers, the most co-cited reference papers, the most co-cited reference journals, and content analysis.
3.1 Trend in publications on sustainability in Environment, Development and sustainability
Figure 3 shows the number of documents published on sustainability in Environment, Development and Sustainability. The four first studies were published in 1999. The development of this field was slow until 2007, with a maximum of 15 papers published in 2005. The number of published documents on sustainability started to increase, reaching 40 in 2018 and 2019 and continued to increase significantly in the remaining years, reaching 255 in 2021. Although the year 2022 is not yet over, this number has reached 224. The growing number of published documents suggests that academic researchers are becoming more interested in the sustainability field and publishing a higher number of documents in Environment, Development and Sustainability. In this trend analysis, the increasing number of publications in the field of sustainability is not only attributed to the growing recognition of the importance of this research field, but also to the significant contribution of Environment, Development and Sustainability to the publication on sustainability.
3.2 The most frequent research topics
Co-occurrence analysis of all keywords was applied to conceptualize the development and growth of sustainability studies published in Environment, Development and Sustainability. To arrive at a meaningful analysis, following Khan et al. (2022), a minimum threshold of two for the co-occurrence of a particular keyword was required and filtered. This resulted in 551 words, for a total of 3,577 words. The results are reported in Fig. 3 and reveal six major clusters: (1) environmental sustainability (red), (2) sustainable development (green), (3) urban sustainability (blue), (4) ecological footprint (yellow), (5) environment (purple), and (6) climate change (turquoise). These clusters reflect the need for research on sustainability in response to the main interest in the environment and climate change. In addition, the topic of sustainability is of great importance to help companies ensure sustainable development and growth, as well as to improve stakeholders’ perceptions and public attitudes (Fig. 4).
Studies in the environmental sustainability cluster have primarily focused on sustainability indicators. There were three major groups of studies in this cluster. The first group examined the implementation of sustainable development goals (SDG) (Weerasooriya et al., 2021; Phillips, 2021; Udemba, 2022), and environmental conservation policies (Z. Wang et al., 2022; Zolin et al., 2020). The second group explored the adoption of a circular economy (di Vaio et al., 2023; Mirzaei & Shokouhyar, 2022; Rasool et al., 2022), environmental innovations (Tiwari & Thakur, 2021; Weimin et al., 2022). The third group assesses corporate sustainability (de Lima et al., 2022; Ellili & Nobanee, 2022; Rahman et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2021).
In the sustainable development cluster, studies have explored sustainability in the agricultural industry(Fito & van Hulle, 2021; Medina et al., 2021; Pandey & Diwan, 2021; Singh & Misra, 2021; Yasmeen et al., 2022) as well as in tourism (Aygün Oğur & Baycan, 2022; Mohamadi et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2022), the application of geographic information systems (GIS) to assess climatic conditions (Bherwani et al., 2021; Dereli & Tercan, 2021; Sarif & Gupta, 2022), and stakeholder involvement in ecological initiatives (Salman et al., 2022; Vasconcelos et al., 2022; Woldesenbet & Kebede, 2021).
In the environmental cluster, studies have highlighted the need to reduce carbon emissions (Coller et al., 2021; Khurshid et al., 2022), use renewable energy to improve energy efficiency (Irfan et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2021), biodiversity (Teraa & Bencherif, 2022), and the importance of preserving the environment for poor communities (Forkuor & Korah, 2023; Ho et al., 2022).
Studies in the climate change cluster have focused mainly on adaptation strategies and livelihoods (De & Das, 2021; Ghazali et al., 2021; Islam et al., 2022), and resilience evaluation (Ghamari et al., 2022; Rai et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2022).
In addition to VOSviewer, CiteSpace was used to analyze the most used keywords in the different stages and development patterns in the publications on sustainability in Environment, Development and Sustainability. The most-cited keywords were calculated and arranged in CiteSpace by time and frequency to form the time view shown in Fig. 5. The figure shows the most frequently used keywords. The four keywords of “sustainable development,” “climate change,” “ecological footprint,” “biodiversity,” and “environment” were frequently included in papers till 2004, suggesting that early interest in sustainability was closely related to the overall awareness about the environment as well as the integration of the environmental policy for the achievement of a sustainable development. For instance, Eppel (1999) explained the recommendations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Council for different countries to integrate areas of the environment and climate change into governmental strategies to ensure the transition to sustainable development. In the following three years, the following new keywords emerged: “water management” and “economic growth”. These keywords reflect the importance of water resource management for ensuring economic growth. Rahm et al. (2006) highlighted the importance of sustainability of water resources to ensure economic development. During 2007–2013, the most used keywords were “perception”, “livelihood”, “integrated approach“, “strategic approach“, “ecotourism“, and “carbon emission”. In addition, interest in sustainability research was not only limited to “rural areas” but was extended to “urban areas. These keywords reflect that the achievement of sustainability objectives requires integrated and strategic approaches to increasing awareness among different stakeholders about sustainability and making them involved in different environmental initiatives. During 2013–2016, researchers were interested in applying more sophisticated methods such as “irrigation system” and “spatiotemporal analysis” to assess the quality of different sustainability practices. The interest was focused on assessing the sustainability performance and the achievement of “sustainable development goals” including the “social sustainability” in different industries such as “supply chain” companies. In the following years, interest continued to be on “sustainability assessment” and moved to the “optimization” of sustainability goals. This evolution in sustainability topics indicates that researchers have started to increase awareness about the environment and climate change by explaining the importance of sustainability efforts to be implemented at the country level and the strong association between sustainability practices and economic growth. Later, interest was focused on spreading awareness about sustainability initiatives in both rural and urban areas, measuring the different potential impacts of sustainability efforts, and optimizing the achievement of different sustainability goals.
Additionally, a keyword burst analysis was conducted to identify the emergence of new and significant research topics in the sustainability field over time and track the evolution of ideas over time. Figure 6 presents the top 22 keywords with the strongest citation bursts between 1999 and 2022. The top five keywords with the highest strength were “Eurasia” (2004–2009), “Asia” (2004–2009), “Africa” (2002–2009), “perception” (2016–2020), and “develo** word” (2009–2014). The most recent burst keywords were “strategic approach”, “groundwater resources”, “assessment method”, and “Pakistan” with continuous persistence. The keyword “strategic approach” which emerged from 2018, showed the strongest citation burst (4.82).
3.3 The most influential authors, organizations and countries
The most cited authors, along with their respective organizations and countries, are presented in Table 1. For meaningful analysis, the threshold was a minimum of five papers by author. This yielded eight of the 2,961 authors. Table 1 shows that Hens L. published the highest number of papers in Environment, Development and Sustainability and Islam A.R.M.T. had the highest number of citations. The list indicates that two authors are affiliated with Iranian universities (Bagherpour M and Ghannadpour S.F.). In addition, Table 1 reveals that Belgium, Hong Kong, Sweden, India, Bangladesh, Benin, and Iran are increasingly contributing to research publications in Environment, Development, and Sustainability.
3.4 The most cited papers
This section presents an analysis of the most-cited papers published in Environment, Development and Sustainability. The threshold was a minimum of 100 citations, yielding 16 of the 997 papers. As presented in Table 2, the topics of the most cited papers are related to environmental sustainability (Munda, 2005; Van Wilgen et al., 2001; Shiferaw et al., 2009; Chavalparit et al., 2006; López-ridaura et al., 2005; Magee et al. 2013) followed by studies on sustainable development (Jabareen, 2008; Fuchs, 2008; Yüksel, 2017) and urban sustainability (Berardi, 2013; Koop & van Leeuwen, 2017; Cetin et al., 2018).
3.5 Most co-cited reference papers
This section presents the top 20 co-cited references in sustainability papers published in Environment, Development and Sustainability. As shown in Table 3, most co-cited reference papers were directly related to environmental sustainability. Other co-cited references are related to theories such as organizational behavior considered in the studies of Gholamrezai et al. (2021), Hameed et al. (2021), and Hopwood et al. (2022) or empirical models including fuzzy, structural equations, bounds testing approaches, and linear models that have been applied in many studies to assess environmental sustainability. In particularl, the fuzzy model was considered in the studies of Garg et al. (2022), Goyal et al. (2021), Guo & Wu (2022), and Perçin (2022).The structural equations were considered in the studies of Sachin & Rajesh (2022) and Sekhar & Raina (2021).The bounds testing approaches were considered in the studies of Udemba (2022) and Danlami et al. (2018), and the linear models were applied in the studies of Sameen & Feroze (2021) and Bissinger & Bogner (2018).
3.6 Most cited references journals
This section presents the most-cited reference sources. Table 4 presents the top ten journals, along with their respective citations, publishers, Scopus quartiles, and SNIP factors. All journals are part of Q1 Scopus and have high SNIP impact factors (higher than 1.154). Most journals were published by Elsevier followed by Springer.
3.7 Content analysis
In addition to bibliometric analysis, qualitative content analysis of the research topics of papers on sustainability published in Environment, Development and Sustainability was conducted using WordStat. The results are presented in Table 5.
Table 5 reveals a high similarity with the bibliometric analysis and clusters explained in Sect. 3.2. This indicates that the most frequent research topics on sustainability are related to environmental sustainability, sustainable development, water quality, carbon emissions, and climate change. The two additional topics are “decision making” and “structured interviews”. These topics are related to methodological approaches and data collection. Table 5 indicates that fuzzy and integrated approaches are the most common methods applied in sustainability studies. Fuzzy models are used to assess different sustainability impacts (Goyal et al., 2021; Yamagishi et al., 2021; Liang et al., 2021). Regarding data collection, the most commonly used methods for assessing the awareness and perception of sustainability are questionnaires, surveys, and interviews (Dipeolu et al., 2021; Gurbuz et al., 2021).
4 Current topics and recommendations for future research
In addition to the content analysis of previous sustainability papers, another content analysis was conducted on the current topics of the most recent papers, published until August 9, 2022. Table 6 presents the results.
Table 6 indicates that the major topics of environmental sustainability and sustainable development are similar to those listed in Table 5. For each topic, there is a new integration, such as the social aspect in the topic of environmental sustainability (Ellili & Nobanee, 2022; Sachin & Rajesh, 2022) and tourism sustainability in the topic of sustainable development (Aygün Oğur & Baycan, 2022; Simo-Kengne, 2022; Xu et al., 2022). In the methodology approach, there is a higher focus on data analysis using data envelopment (Omrani et al., 2022; Ye et al., 2022), panel data (Petrović, 2023), and sensitivity analysis (Yagmahan & Yılmaz, 2023) to assess the different sustainability impacts. In addition, the production of renewable energy is one of the main new topics in recent sustainability studies published in Environment, Development and Sustainability (Adetunji et al., 2022).
As per the keyword burst analysis (Fig. 6), future research on sustainability may include topics on the “strategic approach”, “groundwater resources”, “assessment method”, and “Pakistan”. Future research on strategic approaches may include studies on ecosystem-based management to further understand the management of natural resources by considering the entire ecosystem, including its ecological, social, and economic aspects. Future studies on groundwater resources may include the development of policies and regulations involving the implementation of measures such as groundwater allocation limits and recharge requirements to ensure that groundwater resources are used sustainably and not overexploited. Future research on assessment methods may consider digital platforms for sustainability data collection and analysis. These platforms can help improve the quality and availability of sustainability data and promote data-driven decision making. Future studies on sustainability in Pakistan may include further promotion of the development of renewable energy sources to increase access to clean and affordable energy, investment in green infrastructure, and the resilience of sustainable agriculture to climate change.
In addition, other topics on sustainability that would be considered by Environment, Development and Sustainability may include the following:
-
Environmental and social sustainability assessment across industries: Ellili & Nobanee (2022) examined the impact of UAE banks’ environmental and social disclosure on financial performance. Sachin & Rajesh (2022) analyzed the association between sustainable supply chain practices and the financial performance of Indian manufacturing companies. Aygün Oğur & Baycan (2022), Mohamadi et al. (2022), and Simo-Kengne (2022) examined sustainability practices in the tourism industry, while Xu et al. (2022) compared corporate sustainable growth between the tourism and agriculture industries. It would be interesting to explore sustainability efforts in various industries. This would help determine the best frameworks and practices for sustainability initiatives to maximize financial performance.
-
Environmental and social sustainability assessment in family businesses and small and medium enterprises (SMEs): Family businesses and SMEs contribute significantly to economic growth, while most sustainability studies focus on listed companies. It would be interesting to explore the sustainability practices implemented by family businesses and SMEs and examine their potential impact on financial performance and sustainable development.
-
Environmental and social sustainability assessment in international contexts: Most sustainability studies focus on only one country. However, it would be insightful to conduct multinational studies to compare sustainability efforts in different institutional contexts (such as develo** versus developed countries) and benchmark best sustainability practices.
-
Impact of social and environmental sustainability on corporate decisions: Most previous studies have examined the impact of sustainability practices on financial performance (Ellili & Nobanee, 2022; Sachin & Rajesh, 2022). It would also be worth analyzing the impact of these practices on other corporate aspects (such as investment efficiency, earnings management, forecast accuracy, etc.) and financial decisions (capital structure, dividend policy, cash holdings, etc.).
-
More comprehensive sustainability assessment measures: Most previous studies have used either qualitative (such as surveys, questionnaires, and focus groups) or quantitative measures (such as scores, panel data, DEA, and sensitivity analysis) for sustainability assessment. It would be insightful if future research combines qualitative and quantitative methods to develop a more complex and accurate sustainability assessment index.
-
Energy production: Most previous studies have explored different types of renewable energy for the main environmental purposes of reducing carbon emissions and climate change. It would also be interesting to consider the impact of renewable energy production on social sustainability such as employment opportunities, quality of life, healthy lifestyles, and income growth.
5 Conclusion
This study analyzed published papers in Environment, Development and Sustainability to determine the journal’s contributions to the sustainability literature, identify the key ideas and concepts related to this field, and provide recommendations for future research.
By applying several bibliometric and content analyses, the most productive authors, along with their respective organizations and countries, were identified. In addition, this study identified six major research topics related to (1) environmental sustainability, (2) sustainable development, (3) urban sustainability, (4) ecological footprint, (5) environment, and (6) climate change.
This study has theoretical and practical implications. First, it provides an overview of the evolution of the sustainability literature in journals and identifies the most relevant topics. Second, it helps researchers understand the most recent topics, as well as the most cited papers and relevant references on sustainability. Third, sustainability researchers can use the findings of this study to identify the areas of future research opportunities on which they should focus. For instance, they can analyze various issues related to sustainability to ensure sustainable development. In addition, it has been observed that there is a gap in the literature regarding the assessment of social and environmental sustainability in family businesses and SMEs which is considered as an unexplored research field related to the corporate sustainability practices. In addition, most of the previous studies published in Environment, Development and Sustainability explored only the impact of environmental and social sustainability on financial performance, while the economic environment changes over time, and it is important for researchers to constantly evolve their studies to improve the understanding of the major role played by environmental and social practices in enhancing economic growth and sustainable development. Moreover, the main thrust of environmental and social sustainability studies has examined either one institutional context or one industry, and has relied on a limited number of companies, while it can also be applied in a multinational context and across different industries.
This study also highlights the importance of optimizing sustainability management in addressing critical corporate decisions, such as investment decisions, capital structure, dividend payouts, and earnings management. This field has been acknowledged as a leading research topic for exploring the various characteristics of sustainability practices. Much research should be conducted in this field as most studies have focused on financial performance. In addition, more studies should be conducted on the impact of sustainability on strategic corporate governance to ensure sustainable development. Some of these topics include the role of the board of directors in the integration of sustainability into a company’s management.
The importance of sustainability is acknowledged not only by society, but also by investors. Companies should operate in a way that will not only maximize the value of their shareholders’ wealth but also increase the benefit to the entire society by undertaking environmental and social activities, such as investment in renewable energy projects. This will be of great interest for future research, considering the internal policies of companies to promote sustainable development goals and prevent climate change, pollution, and social inequality.
Future studies should examine other databases to analyze trends in the field of sustainability. This study focused only on articles published in Environment, Development and Sustainability. Despite these limitations, this study provides a useful overview of the current sustainability literature.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available upon request.
References
Adetunji, C. O., Oloke, J. K., Osemwegie, O. O., & Ehis-Eriakha, C. B. (2022). Use of agro-wastes for Lasiodiplodia pseudotheobromae (C1136) production with sustainable bioefficacy. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24(6), 7794–7809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01758-6.
Ahi, P., & Searcy, C., A (2013). Comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 52, 329–341.
Ahmed, Z., Le, H. P., & Shahzad, S. J. H. (2021). Toward environmental sustainability: How do urbanization, economic growth, and industrialization affect biocapacity in Brazil? Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24, 11676–11696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01915-x
Ahoyo, C.C., Houehanou, T.D., Yaoitcha, A.S., Prinz, k., Assogbadjo, A. E., Adjahossou, C.S.G., Hellwig F., & Houinato, M.R.B. (2018). A quantitative ethnobotanical approach toward biodiversity conservation of useful woody species in Wari-Maro forest reserve (Benin, West Africa). Environment Development and Sustainability, 20, 2301–2320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-9990-0.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Alsaleh, M., Abdul-Rahim, A. S., & Zubair, A. O. (2021). Impacts of bioenergy sustainable growth on food security in EU28 region: An empirical analysis. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(12), 17423–17442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01393-1.
Aygün Oğur, A., & Baycan, T. (2022). Assessing climate change impacts on tourism demand in Turkey. Environment Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02135-7.
Bar, H. (2021). COVID-19 lockdown: animal life, ecosystem and atmospheric environment. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(6), 8161–8178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01002-7.
Berardi, U. (2013). Sustainability assessment of urban communities through rating systems. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 15(6), 1573–1591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-013-9462-0.
Bherwani, H., Anjum, S., Gupta, A., Singh, A., & Kumar, R. (2021). Establishing influence of morphological aspects on microclimatic conditions through GIS-assisted mathematical modeling and field observations. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(11), 15857–15880. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01320-4.
Bissinger, K., & Bogner, F. X. (2018). Environmental literacy in practice: Education on tropical rainforests and climate change. Environment Development and Sustainability, 20, 2079–2094. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-9978-9.
Cetin, M. (2015). Determining the bioclimatic comfort in Kastamonu city. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 187(10), 640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-015-4861-3.
Cetin, M., Adiguzel, F., Kaya, O., & Sahap, A. (2018). Map** of bioclimatic comfort for potential planning using GIS in Aydin. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 20(1), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9885-5
Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.
Chavalparit, O., Rulkens, W.H., Mol, A.P.J., & Khaodhair, S. (2006). Options for environmental sustainability of the crude palm oil industry in Thailand through enhancement of industrial ecosystems. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 8(2), 271–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-005-9018-z.
Coller, G., Schiavon, M., & Ragazzi, M. (2021). Environmental and economic sustainability in public contexts: The impact of hand-drying options on waste management, carbon emissions and operating costs. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(8), 11279–11296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01109-x.
Corral Verdugo, V. (2012). The positive psychology of sustainability. Environment Development and Sustainability, 14, 651–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-012-9346-8.
Dahdouh-Guebas, F. (2002). The use of remote sensing and GIS in the sustainable management of tropical coastal ecosystems. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 4(2), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020887204285.
Danlami, A. H., Applanaidu, S. D., & Islam, R. (2018). Movement towards a low carbon emitted environment: A test of some factors in Malaysia. Environment Development and Sustainability, 20, 1085–1102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-9927-7.
Dash, M. K., Singh, C., Panda, G., & Sharma, D. (2023). ICT for sustainability and socio-economic development in fishery: A bibliometric analysis and future research agenda. Environment Development and Sustainability, 25, 2201–2223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02131-x.
De, D., & Das, C. S. (2021). Measuring Livelihood sustainability by PCA in Indian Sundarban. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(12), 18424–18442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01451-8.
de Lima, C. R. M., Barbosa, S. B., de Castro Sobrosa Neto, R., Bazil, D. G., & de Andrade Guerra, J. B. S. O. (2022). Corporate financial performance: A study based on the Carbon efficient index (ICO2) of Brazil stock exchange. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24(3), 4323–4354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01617-4.
Dereli, M. A., & Tercan, E. (2021). Comparison of GIS-based surrogate weighting methods for multi-directional landfill site selection in West Mediterranean Planning Region in Turkey. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(3), 3438–3457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00725-x.
Diéguez-Castrillón, M. I., Gueimonde-Canto, A., & Rodríguez-López, N. (2023). Sustainability indicators for tourism destinations: Bibliometric analysis and proposed research agenda. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24(10), 11548–11575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01951-7.
Dipeolu, A. A., Ibem, E. O., Fadamiro, J. A., & Fadairo, G. (2021). Factors influencing residents’ attitude towards urban green infrastructure in Lagos Metropolis, Nigeria. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(4), 6192–6214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00868-x.
di Vaio, A., Hasan, S., Palladino, R., & Hassan, R. (2023). The transition towards circular economy and waste within accounting and accountability models: A systematic literature review and conceptual framework. Environment Development and Sustainability, 25, 734–810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02078-5.
Dominko, M., Primc, K., Slabe-Erker, R., & Kalar, B. (2022). A bibliometric analysis of circular economy in the fields of business and economics: Towards more action-oriented research. Environment Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02347-x.
Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130–141.
Ellili, N. O. D., & Nobanee, H. (2022). Impact of economic, environmental, and corporate social responsibility reporting on financial performance of UAE banks. Environment Development and Sustainability. Forthcoming https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02225-6.
Ellili, N.O.D. (2023). Bibliometric analysis on corporate governance topics published in the journal of Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society. Corporate Governance (Bingley), 23 (1), 262–286. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-03-2022-0135
Eppel, J. (1999). Sustainable development and environment: A renewed effort in the OECD. Environment Development and Sustainability, 1, 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010052116045.
Fito, J., & van Hulle, S. W. H. (2021). Wastewater reclamation and reuse potentials in agriculture: Towards environmental sustainability. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(3), 2949–2972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00732-y.
Forkuor, D., & Korah, A. (2023). NGOs and sustainable rural development: Experience from Upper West Region of Ghana. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25, 351–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02057-w.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Fuchs, C. (2008). The implications of new information and communication technologies for sustainability. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10(3), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-006-9065-0.
Garg, C. P., Kashav, V., & Wang, X. (2022). Evaluating sustainability factors of green ports in China under fuzzy environment. Environment Development and Sustainability. Forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02375-7.
Garg, C. P., & Sharma, A. (2020). Sustainable outsourcing partner selection and evaluation using an integrated bwm–vikor framework. Environment development and sustainability, 22(2), 1529–1557.
Gautam, S., & Hens, L. (2022). Omikron: Where do we go in a sustainability context? Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24, 4491–4492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02207-8.
Ghamari, R., Mahdavi-Mazdeh, M., & Ghannadpour, S. F. (2022). Resilient and sustainable supplier selection via a new framework: A case study from the steel industry. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24(8), 10403–10441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01872-5.
Ghazali, S., Azadi, H., Janečková, K., Sklenička, P., Kurban, A., & Cakir, S. (2021). Indigenous knowledge about climate change and sustainability of nomadic livelihoods: Understanding adaptability co** strategies. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(11), 16744–16768. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01332-0.
Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C., & Ulgiati, S., A (2016). Review on circular economy: The expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 114, 11–32.
Gholamrezai, S., Aliabadi, V., & Ataei, P. (2021). Understanding the pro-environmental behavior among green poultry farmers: Application of behavioral theories. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(11), 16100–16118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01331-1.
Govindan, K., Khodaverdi, R., & Jafarian, A. (2013). Fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 47, 345–354.
Goyal, S., Garg, D., & Luthra, S. (2021). Sustainable production and consumption: Analysing barriers and solutions for maintaining green tomorrow by using fuzzy-AHP–fuzzy-TOPSIS hybrid framework. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(11), 16934–16980. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01357-5.
Grossman, G. M., & Krueger, A. B. (1995). Economic growth and the environment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(2), 353–377.
Guo, R., & Wu, Z. (2022). Social sustainable supply chain performance assessment using hybrid fuzzy-AHP–DEMATEL–VIKOR: A case study in manufacturing enterprises. Environment Development and Sustainability. Forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02565-3.
Gurbuz, I. B., Nesirov, E., & Ozkan, G. (2021). Investigating environmental awareness of citizens of Azerbaijan: A survey on ecological footprint. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(7), 10378–10396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01061-w.
Hameed, I., Hyder, Z., Imran, M., & Shafiq, K. (2021). Greenwash and green purchase behavior: An environmentally sustainable perspective. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(9), 13113–13134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01202-1.
Hayek, J., el Bachawati, M., & Manneh, R. (2021). Life cycle assessment and water footprint scarcity of Yogurt. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(12), 18362–18393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01445-6.
Hellstrand, S. (2013). Animal production in a sustainable agriculture. Environment Development and Sustainability, 15, 999–1036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-012-9423-z.
Hellstrand, S., Sundberg, L., Karlsson, J., Zügner, R., Tranberg, R., & Tang, H., U (2021). Measuring sustainability in healthcare: An analysis of two systems providing insoles to patients with diabetes. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(5), 6987–7001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00901-z.
Hendiani, S., & Bagherpour, M. (2020). Development of substainability index using Z-numbers: a new possibilistic hierarchical model in the context of Z-information. Environment Development and Sustainability, 22, 6077–6109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00464-8.
Hendiani, S., Sharifi, E., Bagherpour, M., & Ghannadpour S.F. (2020). A multi-criteria sustainability assessment approach for energy systems using sutainability triple bottom line attributes and linguistic preferences. Environment Development and Sustainability, 22, 7771–7805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00546-7.
Ho, N. N., Do, T. L., Tran, D. T., & Nguyen, T. T. (2022). Indigenous pig production and welfare of ultra-poor ethnic minority households in the Northern mountains of Vietnam. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24(1), 156–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01348-6.
Hopwood, C. J., Lenhausen, M. R., & Bleidorn, W. (2022). Toward a comprehensive dimensional model of sustainable behaviors. Environment Development and Sustainability. Forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02482-5.
Huong, D. T. T., Ha, N. T. T., do Khanh, G., van Thanh, N., & Hens, L. (2022). Sustainability assessment of coastal ecosystems: DPSIR analysis for beaches at the Northeast Coast of Vietnam. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24, 5032–5051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01648-x.
Irfan, M., Mahapatra, B., & Ojha, R. K. (2021). Examining the effectiveness of low-carbon strategies in south asian countries: The case of energy efficiency and renewable energy. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(8), 11936–11952. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01150-w.
Islam, A.R.M.T., Shen, S., Haque, M.A., Bodrud-Doza, Md., Maw K. W., & Habib Md. A. (2018). Assessing groundwater quality and its sustainability in Joypurhat district of Bangladesh using GIS and multivariate statistical approaches. Environment Development and Sustainability, 20, 1935–1959. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-9971-3.
Islam, S. N., Reinstädtler, S., Reza, M. S., Afroze, S., & Azad, A. K. (2022). Climate change versus livelihoods, heritage and ecosystems in small island states of the Pacific: A case study on Tuvalu. Environment Development and Sustainability. Forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02367-7.
Jabareen, Y. (2008). A new conceptual framework for sustainable development. Environment Development and Sustainability, 10(2), 179–192.
Kapitonov, I. A. (2021). Development of low-carbon economy as the base of sustainable improvement of energy security. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(3), 3077–3096. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00706-0.
Kaur, A., & Sharma, P. C. (2018). Social sustainability in supply chain decisions: Indian manufacturers. Environment Development and Sustainability, 20(4), 1707–1721.
Kaya Kanlı, N., & Küçükefe, B. (2023). Is the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis valid? A global analysis for carbon dioxide emissions. Environment Development and Sustainability, 25(3), 2339-2367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02138-4.
Khaddour, L. A. (2022). Life-cycle sustainability risk management a multi-stakeholder approach: The case of Damascus post-war residential projects. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24, 12756–12786. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01963-3.
Khan, A., Goodell, J. W., Hassan, M. K., & Paltrinieri, A. (2022). A bibliometric review of finance bibliometric papers. Finance Research Letters, 47, 102520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2021.102520.
Khurshid, A., Rauf, A., Qayyum, S., Calin, A. C., & Duan, W. Q. (2022). Green innovation and carbon emissions: The role of carbon pricing and environmental policies in attaining sustainable development targets of carbon mitigation—evidence from Central-Eastern Europe. Environment, Development and Sustainability. Forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02422-3.
Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8(3), 239–260.
López-Ridaura, S., Van Keulen, H., Van Ittersum, M.K., & Leffelaar, P.A. (2005). Multiscale methodological framework to derive criteria and indicators for sustainability evaluation of peasant natural resource management systems. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7(1), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-003-6976-x.
Latinopoulos, D., Konstantinou, Z., & Krestenitis, Y. (2012). Simulation and multicriteria analysis in sustainable coastal planning: The case of aquaculture in Thermaikos Gulf, Greece. Environment Development and Sustainability, 14, 1027–1045. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-012-9370-8.
Lazar, N., & Chithra, K. (2021). Comprehensive bibliometric map** of publication trends in the development of Building sustainability Assessment Systems. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(4), 4899–4923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00796-w.
Leal, P. H., Marques, A. C., & Shahbaz, M. (2021). The role of globalisation, de jure and de facto, on environmental performance: Evidence from develo** and developed countries. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(5), 7412–7431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00923-7.
Liang, W., Zhao, G., & Luo, S. (2021). Sustainability evaluation for phosphorus mines using a hybrid multi-criteria decision making method. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23, 12411–12433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01175-1.
Koop, S.H.A., & van Leeuwen, C.J. (2017). The challenges of water, waste and climate change in cities. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 19(2), 385–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9760-4.
Luthra, S., Govindan, K., Kannan, D., Mangla, S. K., & Garg, C. P. (2017). An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 1686–1698.
Magee, L., Scerri, A., James, P., Thom, J. A., Padgham, L., Hickmott, S., Deng, H., & Cahill, F. (2013). Reframing social sustainability reporting: Towards an engaged approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 15, 225–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-012-9384-2
Medina, G., Isley, C., & Arbuckle, J. (2021). Promoting sustainable agriculture: Lowa stakeholders’ perspectives on the US farm Bill conservation programs. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(1), 173–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00572-5.
Mirzaei, S., & Shokouhyar, S. (2022). Applying a thematic analysis in identifying the role of circular economy in sustainable supply chain practices. Environment Development and Sustainability. Forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02217-6.
Mohamadi, S., Abbasi, A., Ranaei Kordshouli, H. A., & Askarifar, K. (2022). Conceptualizing sustainable–responsible tourism indicators: An interpretive structural modeling approach. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24(1), 399–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01442-9.
Mohammadnazari, Z., & Ghannadpour, S.F. (2021). Sustainable construction supply chain management with the spotlight of inventory optimization under uncertainty. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23, 10937–10972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01095-0.
Mohd Razali, S., Radzi, M. A., Marin, A., & Samdin, Z. (2022). A bibliometric analysis of tropical mangrove forest land use change from 2010 to 2020. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24, 11530–11547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01935-7.
Mohebali, S., Maghsoudy, S., Doulati Ardejani, F., & Shafaei, F. (2020). Develo** a coupled environmental impact assessment (C-EIA) method with sustainable development approach for environmental analysis in coal industries. Environment Development and Sustainability, 22(7), 6799–6830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00513-2.
Munda, G. (2005). Measuring sustainability: A multi-criterion framework. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7(1), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-003-4713-0.
Nguyen, A. T., & Hens, L. (2021). Diversified responses to contemporary pressures on slo** agricultural land: Thai farmer’s perception of mountainous landscapes in northern Vietnam. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(4), 5411–5429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00822-x.
Nguyen, C. H., Nguyen, A. T., Truong, Q. H., Dang, N. T., & Hens, L. (2022). Natural resource use conflicts and priorities in small islands of Vietnam. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24(2), 1655–1680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01502-0.
Nualnoom, P. (2022). Food self-sufficiency of tourist attraction site: A case study of Phang Nga Province, Thailand. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(8), 10233–10253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01863-6.
Omrani, H., Shamsi, M., & Emrouznejad, A. (2022). Evaluating sustainable efficiency of decision-making units considering undesirable outputs: An application to airline using integrated multi-objective DEA-TOPSIS. Environment, Development and Sustainability. Forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02285-8.
Oxford (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford university press.
Pandey, C., & Diwan, H. (2021). Assessing fertilizer use behaviour for environmental management and sustainability: A quantitative study in agriculturally intensive regions of Uttar Pradesh, India. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(4), 5822–5845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00848-1.
Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289–326.
Perçin, S. (2022). Circular supplier selection using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24(4), 5551–5581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01671-y.
Petrović, P. (2023). Economic sustainability of energy conservation policy: Improved panel data evidence. Environment Development and Sustainability, 25, 1473–1491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02104-6.
Phillips, J. (2021). The application of the Geocybernetic Assessment Matrix to the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(5), 7550–7572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00932-6.
Pieroni, A., Hovsepyan, R., Manduzai, A. K., & Sõukand, R. (2021). Wild food plants traditionally gathered in central Armenia: Archaic ingredients or future sustainable foods? Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(2), 2358–2381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00678-1.
Rahm, D., Swatuk, L., & Matheny, E. (2006). Water Resource Management in Botswana: Balancing Sustainability and Economic Development. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 8, 157–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-005-2491-6
Rahman, H. U., Zahid, M., & Muhammad, A. (2022). Connecting integrated management system with corporate sustainability and firm performance: From the malaysian real estate and construction industry perspective. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24(2), 2387–2411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01538-2.
Rai, S. S., Rai, S., & Singh, N. K. (2021). Organizational resilience and social-economic sustainability: COVID-19 perspective. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(8), 12006–12023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01154-6.
Rajesh, R. (2020). Exploring the sustainability performances of firms using environmental, social, and governance scores. Journal of Cleaner Production, 247, 119600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119600.
Rajesh, R., & Rajendran, C. (2020). Relating environmental, social, and governance scores and sustainability performances of firms: An empirical analysis. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(3), 1247–1267. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2429.
Rasool, S., Cerchione, R., Centobelli, P., & Oropallo, E. (2022). Smoking kills you, littering butts damages others too: Analysing sustainable consumer behaviour in the era of circular economy. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24(5), 7115–7137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01741-1.
Refah-Kahriz, A., Heidari, H., & Rahimdel, M. (2022). Is there a similar Granger causality among CO < inf > 2 emissions, energy consumption and economic growth in different regimes in Iran? Environment, Development and Sustainability. Forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02203-y
Rezaei, J. (2016). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. Omega, 53, 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.12.001.
RezaHoseini, A., Rahmani, Z. & Bagherpour, M. (2022). Performance evaluation of sustainable projects: a possibilistic integrated novel analytic hierarchy process-data envelopment analysis approach using Z-Number information. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24, 3198–3257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01565-z.
Sachin, N., & Rajesh, R. (2022). An empirical study of supply chain sustainability with financial performances of Indian firms. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24(5), 6577–6601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01717-1.
Saeed, I. M., Tarkhany, A., Hama, Y., & Al-Shatri, S. (2022). Environmental considerations, sustainability opportunities and iraqi government’s energy policies: A comparative study. Environment Development and Sustainability. Forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02339-x.
Salman, A., Jaafar, M., Mohamad, D., & Khoshkam, M. (2022). Understanding Multi-stakeholder Complexity & Develo** a Causal Recipe (fsQCA) for achieving Sustainable Ecotourism. Environment, Development and Sustainability. Forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02488-z.
Sameen, I., & Feroze, T. (2021). Spatial heterogeneity of ecological footprint of production: A district-level study of Bangladesh. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23, 8949–8973. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01006-3.
Sarif, M. O., & Gupta, R. D. (2022). Spatiotemporal map** of Land Use/Land Cover dynamics using Remote sensing and GIS approach: A case study of Prayagraj City, India (1988–2018). Environment Development and Sustainability, 24(1), 888–920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01475-0.
Savi, M.K., Noumonvi, R., Chadaré, F.J., Daïnou, K., Salako, V.K., Idohou,R. Assogbadjo, A.E., & Kakaï. R.G. (2019). Synergy between traditional knowledge of use and tree population structure for sustainability of Cola nitida (Vent.) Schott. & Endl in Benin (West Africa). Environment Development and Sustainability, 21, 1357–1368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-018-0091-5.
Sekhar, C., & Raina, R. (2021). Towards more sustainable future: assessment of sustainability literacy among the future managers in India. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(11), 15830–15856. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01316-0.
Shammi, M., Bodrud-Doza, M., Islam, A. R. M. T., & Rahman, M. M. (2021). Strategic assessment of COVID-19 pandemic in Bangladesh: Comparative lockdown scenario analysis, public perception, and management for sustainability. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(4), 6148–6191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00867-y.
Sharma, R. K., Raju, G., Sarkar, P., Singh, H., & Singla, E. (2022). Comparing the environmental impacts of paracetamol dosage forms using life cycle assessment. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24(10), 12446–12466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01948-2.
Shiferaw, B.A., Okello, J., & Reddy, R.V. (2009). Adoption and adaptation of natural resource management innovations in smallholder agriculture: Reflections on key lessons and best practices. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 11(3), 601–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-007-9132-1
Simo-Kengne, B. D. (2022). Tourism growth and environmental sustainability: Trade-off or convergence? Environment Development and Sustainability, 24(6), 8115–8144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01775-5.
Singh, A. P., & Bhakar, P. (2021). Development of groundwater sustainability index: A case study of western arid region of Rajasthan, India. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(2), 1844–1868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00654-9.
Singh, A. P., Wagale, M., Dhadse, K., & Singh, A. (2022). Socioeconomic impacts of low-volume roads using a GIS-based multidimensional impact assessment approach. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24, 6676–6701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01723-3.
Singh, A., & Sharma, M. (2023). Development of a ‘green IT brand image sustainability model for competitive advantage’. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25, 40–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02039-y
Singh, K., & Misra, M. (2021). Develo** an agricultural entrepreneur inclination model for sustainable agriculture by integrating expert mining and ISM–MICMAC. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(4), 5122–5150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00806-x.
Singh, P., Goyal, M., & Choudhary, B. B. (2022). How sustainable is food system in India? Map** evidence from the state of Punjab. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24, 14348–14374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02034-3.
Srinivas, R., Singh, A. P., & Shankar, D. (2020). Understanding the threats and challenges concerning Ganges River basin for effective policy recommendations towards sustainable development. Environment Development and Sustainability, 22(4), 3655–3690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00361-0.
Staupe-Delgado, R. (2020). The water–energy–food–environmental security nexus: Moving the debate forward. Environment Development and Sustainability, 22(7), 6131–6147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00467-5.
Sunardi, S., Ariyani, M., Withaningsih, S., Darma, A. P., Wikarta, K., Parikesit, P., Kamarudin, M. K. A., & Abdoellah, O. S. (2021). Peri-urbanization and sustainability of a groundwater resource. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(6), 8394–8404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00972-y.
Sun, Y., Qian, L., & Liu, Z. (2022). The carbon emissions level of China’s service industry: An analysis of characteristics and influencing factors. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24, 13557–13582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02001-y.
Surata, S. P. K., Puspawati, D. A., Ariati, P. E. P., & Putri, I. G. A. P. E. (2022). The ecological views of the balinese toward their subak cultural landscape heritage. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24, 12994–13010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01979-9.
Teraa, S., & Bencherif, M. (2022). From hygrothermal adaptation of endemic plants to meteorosensitive biomimetic architecture: Case of Mediterranean biodiversity hotspot in Northeastern Algeria. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24, 10876–10901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01887-y
Tiwari, V., & Thakur, S. (2021). Environment sustainability through sustainability innovations. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(5), 6941–6965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00899-4.
Torres López, S., Barrionuevo, M. A., & Rodríguez-Labajos, B. (2023). A new operational approach for understanding water-related interactions to achieve water sustainability in growing cities. Environment Development and Sustainability, 25, 122–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02045-0.
Udemba, E. N. (2022). Cushioning environmental damage with institutions and FDI: Study of sustainable development goals (SDGs). Environment, Development and Sustainability. Forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02484-3
Van Wilgen, B.W., Richardson, D.M., Le Maitre, D.C., Marais, C., & Magadlela, D. (2001). The economic consequences of alien plant invasions: Examples of impacts and approaches to sustainable management in South Africa. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 3(2), 145–168. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011668417953
Vasconcelos, L. T., Silva, F. Z., Ferreira, F. G., Martinho, G., Pires, A., & Ferreira, J. C. (2022). Collaborative process design for waste management: Co-constructing strategies with stakeholders. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24, 9243–9259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01822-1.
Venetoulis, J., & Talberth, J. (2008). Refining the ecological footprint. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10(4), 441–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-006-9074-z.
Wackernagel, M., & Yount, J.D. (2000). Footprints for sustainability: The next steps. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 2(1), 21–42. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010050700699.
Wang, J., Han, Q., & Du, Y. (2022). Coordinated development of the economy, society and environment in urban China: A case study of 285 cities. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24, 12917–12935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01975-z.
Wang, J., Li, J., Wang, X., Wang, T., & Sun, Q. (2022). Correction to: An air quality prediction model based on CNN-BiNLSTM-Attention. Environment, Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02154-4
Wang, J., Yang, L., Deng, M., Zhang, G., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Selection of optimal regulation scheme by simulating spatial network of ecological-economic-social compound system: A case study of Hunan province, China. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25, 2831–2856. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02141-9
Wang, S., Yin, N., & Yang, Z. (2021). Factors affecting sustained adoption of irrigation water-saving technologies in groundwater over-exploited areas in the North China Plain. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(7), 10528–10546. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01071-8.
Wang, Z., Xu, G., Wang, Z., & Zhang, Z. (2022). Sustainability of agricultural waste power generation industry in China: Criteria relationship identification and policy design mechanism. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24(3), 3371–3395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01570-2.
Weerasooriya, R. R., Liyanage, L. P. K., Rathnappriya, R. H. K., Bandara, W. B. M. A. C., Perera, T. A. N. T., Gunarathna, M. H. J. P., & Jayasinghe, G. Y. (2021). Industrial water conservation by water footprint and sustainable development goals: A review. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(9), 12661–12709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01184-0.
Weimin, Z., Chishti, M. Z., Rehman, A., & Ahmad, M. (2022). A pathway toward future sustainability: Assessing the influence of innovation shocks on CO2 emissions in develo** economies. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24(4), 4786–4809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01634-3.
Woldesenbet, W. G., & Kebede, A. A. (2021). Multi-stakeholder collaboration for the governance of water supply in Wolkite, Ethiopia. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(5), 7728–7755. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00943-3.
Xu, X., Feng, C., Du, Y., Wang, Q., Zhang, G., & Huang, Y. (2022). Evaluating the sustainability of a tourism system based on emergy accounting and emergetic ternary diagrams: A case study of the **njiang Kanas tourism area. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24(5), 6731–6787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01725-1.
Xu, X. L., Li, J., Wu, D., & Zhang, X. (2021). The intellectual capital efficiency and corporate sustainable growth nexus: Comparison from agriculture, tourism and renewable energy sector. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(11), 16038–16056. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01319-x.
Yagmahan, B., & Yılmaz, H. (2023). An integrated ranking approach based on group multi-criteria decision making and sensitivity analysis to evaluate charging stations under sustainability. Environment Development and Sustainability, 25, 96–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02044-1.
Yamagishi, K., Ocampo, L., Abellana, D. P., Tanaid, R. A., Tiu, A. M., Medalla, M. E., Selerio, E. Jr., Olorvida, G. C., Maupo, R. C., Maskariño, A. D., & Tantoo, E. (2021). The impact of social media marketing strategies on promoting sustainability of tourism with fuzzy cognitive map**: A case of Kalanggaman Island (Philippines). Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23,14998–15030. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01283-6
Yasmeen, R., Padda, I. U. H., Yao, X., Shah, W. U. H., & Hafeez, M. (2022). Agriculture, forestry, and environmental sustainability: The role of institutions. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24, 8722–8746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01806-1.
Ye, M., **, Y., & Deng, F. (2022). Municipal waste treatment efficiency in 29 OECD countries using three-stage Bootstrap-DEA model. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24, 11369–11391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02227-4.
Yu, L., Lyu, Y., Chen, C., & Choguill, C. L. (2021). Environmental deterioration in rapid urbanisation: Evidence from assessment of ecosystem service value in Wujiang, Suzhou. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(1), 331–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00582-3.
Yüksel, İ. (2017). A review of steel slag usage in construction industry for sustainable development. Environment Development and Sustainability, 19, 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-016-9759-x.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338–353.
Zárate-Rueda, R., Beltrán-Villamizar, Y. I., & Murallas-Sánchez, D. (2021). Social representations of socioenvironmental dynamics in extractive ecosystems and conservation practices with sustainable development: A bibliometric analysis. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(11), 16428–16453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01358-4.
Zhang, J., Wang, J., Zhang, L., & Zhao, L. (2022). Impact of industrialization on China’s regional energy security in the New Era. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24, 8418–8440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01790-6
Zhao, J., & Zhang, N. (2022). Environmental regulation and labor market: A bibliometric analysis. Environment Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02295-6.
Zhao, X., Chen, H., Zhao, H., & Xue, B. (2022). Farmer households’ livelihood resilience in ecological-function areas: Case of the Yellow River water source area of China. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24(7), 9665–9686. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01827-w.
Zhou, J. H., Zhu, Y. M., He, L., Song, H. J., Mu, B. X., & Lyu, F. (2022). Recognizing and managing construction land reduction barriers for sustainable land use in China. Environment Development and Sustainability, 24, 14074–14105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02022-7.
Zhu, Z., Fu, W., & Liu, Q. (2021). Correlation between urbanization and ecosystem services in **amen, China. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(1), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00567-2.
Zolin, M. B., Pastore, A., & Mazzarolo, M. (2020). Common agricultural policy and sustainable management of areas with natural handicaps. The Veneto Region case study. Environment Development and Sustainability, 22(8), 7587–7605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00537-8.
Zyoud, S. H. (2022). Analyzing and visualizing global research trends on COVID-19 linked to sustainable development goals. Environment Development and Sustainability. Forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02275-w.
Zyoud, S. H., & Zyoud, A. H. (2021). Coronavirus disease-19 in environmental fields: A bibliometric and visualization map** analysis. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(6), 8895–8923. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01004-5.
Funding
This study was not funded by any grant.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Ellili, N. Bibliometric analysis of sustainability papers: Evidence from Environment, Development and sustainability. Environ Dev Sustain 26, 8183–8209 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03067-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03067-6