Environmental Health Research 2000–2026 Topic Landscapes Collaboration Patterns and Influential Sources: A Bibliometric Mapping
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58812/wsnt.v4i01.2741Keywords:
Environmental Health, Bibliometric Analysis, VOSviewerAbstract
This study aims to map the intellectual landscape, thematic evolution, collaboration patterns, and influential sources in environmental health research from 2000 to 2026 using a bibliometric approach. Data were collected from the Scopus database and analyzed using VOSviewer to examine publication trends, keyword co-occurrence, co-authorship networks, and citation structures. The results indicate a significant growth in environmental health research, reflecting increasing global concern over environmental risks and their impact on human health. The co-occurrence analysis reveals three dominant thematic clusters: epidemiological studies focusing on environmental exposure and disease outcomes, toxicological and biological research exploring mechanisms of exposure, and environmental risk assessment emphasizing pollution, sustainability, and mitigation strategies. Density visualization highlights core research areas such as epidemiology, risk assessment, health risks, and public health, while also identifying emerging topics including climate change, microplastics, and sustainable development. Furthermore, the study finds that international collaboration has expanded, with increasing contributions from developing regions, although disparities in research distribution remain evident. Influential sources are primarily concentrated in high-impact journals within environmental science and public health domains. This study provides a comprehensive understanding of the structure and development of environmental health research and offers insights for future research directions, particularly in integrating emerging environmental challenges and strengthening global collaboration.
References
REFERENCES
[1] R. Dahl, “Green washing: do you know what you’re buying?” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 2010.
[2] E. Moynihan, C. Avraam, S. Siddiqui, and R. Neff, “Optimization Based Modeling for the Food Supply Chain’s Resilience to Outbreaks,” Front. Sustain. Food Syst., vol. 6, 2022, doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2022.887819.
[3] L. A. S. M. Exposto and I. N. Sujaya, “The Impacts of Hazardous and Toxic Waste Management: A Systematic Review,” Interdiscip. Soc. Stud., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 103–123, 2021, doi: 10.55324/iss.v1i2.20.
[4] C. Kantor, J. D. Eisenback, and M. Kantor, “Biosecurity risks to human food supply associated with plant-parasitic nematodes,” Front. Plant Sci., vol. 15, 2024, doi: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1404335.
[5] T. M. Kanade, J. Joseph, S. Ansari, M. A. M. Varghese, and T. Savale, “Solid waste management for environmental sustainability and human health,” J. Informatics Educ. Res., vol. 4, no. 1, 2024.
[6] N. Kim and K. Lee, “Environmental consciousness, purchase intention, and actual purchase behavior of eco-friendly products: the moderating impact of situational context,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 20, no. 7, p. 5312, 2023.
[7] M. Duque-Acevedo, L. J. Belmonte-Ureña, N. Yakovleva, and F. Camacho-Ferre, “Analysis of the circular economic production models and their approach in agriculture and agricultural waste biomass management,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 17, no. 24, p. 9549, 2020.
[8] N. Donthu, S. Kumar, D. Mukherjee, N. Pandey, and W. M. Lim, “How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 133, pp. 285–296, 2021.
[9] N. J. Van Eck and L. Waltman, “Visualizing bibliometric networks,” in Measuring scholarly impact: Methods and practice, Springer, 2014, pp. 285–320.
[10] C. Huang et al., “Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China,” Lancet, vol. 395, no. 10223, pp. 497–506, 2020.
[11] S. S. Lim et al., “A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010,” Lancet, vol. 380, no. 9859, pp. 2224–2260, 2012.
[12] K. E. Train, Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge university press, 2009.
[13] C. J. L. Murray et al., “Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019,” Lancet, vol. 396, no. 10258, pp. 1223–1249, 2020.
[14] W. Willett et al., “Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems,” Lancet, vol. 393, no. 10170, pp. 447–492, 2019.
[15] S. Bhatt et al., “The global distribution and burden of dengue,” Nature, vol. 496, no. 7446, pp. 504–507, 2013.
[16] M. Laplante and D. M. Sabatini, “mTOR signaling in growth control and disease,” Cell, vol. 149, no. 2, pp. 274–293, 2012.
[17] D. W. Kolpin et al., “Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in US streams, 1999− 2000: A national reconnaissance,” Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 1202–1211, 2002.
[18] C. A. Pope Iii et al., “Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution,” Jama, vol. 287, no. 9, pp. 1132–1141, 2002.
[19] G. Oberdörster, E. Oberdörster, and J. Oberdörster, “Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles,” Environ. Health Perspect., vol. 113, no. 7, p. 823, 2005.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Loso Judijanto
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Facebook 
Instagram 
Twitter 
Youtube 
westscience.journals@gmail.com