IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i17p9101-d624343.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

HIA and EIA Are Different, but Maybe Not in the Way We Thought They Were: A Bibliometric Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Jinhee Kim

    (Centre for Health Equity Research Training and Evaluation (CHETRE), Australia Research Centre for Primary Health Care & Equity, A Unit of Population Health, Member of the Ingham Institute, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia)

  • Fiona Anne Haigh

    (Centre for Primary Health Care & Equity, A Unit of Clinical Services Integration and Population Health, Health Equity Research Development Unit (HERDU), The University of New South Wales, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia)

Abstract

Background: The fields of Health Impact Assessment (HIA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) have grown with increasing numbers of disciplines and sectors contributing to their advancements, but with it, perceived conflict over methodological and disciplinary approaches to integrate health in impact assessments. This study maps the current field of HIA and health in EIA to examine the scientific landscape of the field. Methods: We carried out a bibliometric analysis of HIA papers and EIA papers that included a health focus in peer-reviewed journals in the Web of Science Core Collection ( n = 229). We carried out co-authorship and co-citation network analyses of authors and documents in VOSviewer. Results: We identified two main co-authorship and co-citation groupings. Our document co-citation analysis also identified four clusters with two major groups, the Defining HIA cluster and the Describing the fields cluster versus the Active transport quantitative HIA cluster, and the Quantitative modelling tools cluster. Conclusion: Our findings strongly suggest that there exist two groups of thought in the scholarly fields of HIA and health in EIA. Barriers to developing more methodologically integrated approaches to considering health within EIA are related more to disciplinary differences than field (HIA versus EIA)-based differences and we advocate for the development of transdisciplinary approaches to both HIA and EIA.

Suggested Citation

  • Jinhee Kim & Fiona Anne Haigh, 2021. "HIA and EIA Are Different, but Maybe Not in the Way We Thought They Were: A Bibliometric Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-15, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:17:p:9101-:d:624343
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/17/9101/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/17/9101/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Acedo, Francisco José & Casillas, José Carlos, 2005. "Current paradigms in the international management field: An author co-citation analysis," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 619-639, October.
    2. Hendriek Boshuizen & Stefan Lhachimi & Pieter Baal & Rudolf Hoogenveen & Henriette Smit & Johan Mackenbach & Wilma Nusselder, 2012. "The DYNAMO-HIA Model: An Efficient Implementation of a Risk Factor/Chronic Disease Markov Model for Use in Health Impact Assessment (HIA)," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 49(4), pages 1259-1283, November.
    3. Henry Small, 1973. "Co‐citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 24(4), pages 265-269, July.
    4. Martina K Linnenluecke & Mauricio Marrone & Abhay K Singh, 2020. "Conducting systematic literature reviews and bibliometric analyses," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 45(2), pages 175-194, May.
    5. Ben Cave & Ryngan Pyper & Birgitte Fischer-Bonde & Sarah Humboldt-Dachroeden & Piedad Martin-Olmedo, 2021. "Lessons from an International Initiative to Set and Share Good Practice on Human Health in Environmental Impact Assessment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-23, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhichao Wang & Valentin Zelenyuk, 2021. "Performance Analysis of Hospitals in Australia and its Peers: A Systematic Review," CEPA Working Papers Series WP012021, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    2. Yicheng Wei & Qiaoping Zhang & Jing Guo & Min Chen, 2023. "Learning to teach through noticing: a bibliometric review of teacher noticing research in mathematics education during 2006–2021," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-15, December.
    3. Ruth Zárate-Rueda & Yolima Ivonne Beltrán-Villamizar & Daniella Murallas-Sánchez, 2021. "Social representations of socioenvironmental dynamics in extractive ecosystems and conservation practices with sustainable development: a bibliometric analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(11), pages 16428-16453, November.
    4. Sandip Solanki & Seema Singh & Meeta Joshi, 2023. "A Bibliometric Analysis of the International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy: 2013-2022," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 13(5), pages 260-270, September.
    5. Manuel Portugal Ferreira & Cláudia Frias Pinto & Fernando Ribeiro Serra, 2014. "The transaction costs theory in international business research: a bibliometric study over three decades," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(3), pages 1899-1922, March.
    6. Jingwei Zheng & Ke Zhang & Boya Han & Jiayi Hou, 2023. "Research Interdisciplinarity and Citation Impact: A Network Analysis of Social Networking Sites Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, August.
    7. Abderahman Rejeb & John G. Keogh & Wayne Martindale & Damion Dooley & Edward Smart & Steven Simske & Samuel Fosso Wamba & John G. Breslin & Kosala Yapa Bandara & Subhasis Thakur & Kelly Liu & Bridgett, 2022. "Charting Past, Present, and Future Research in the Semantic Web and Interoperability," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-32, May.
    8. Raphaël Maucuer & Alexandre Renaud, 2019. "Business Model Research: A Bibliometric Analysis of Origins and Trends," Post-Print hal-01918188, HAL.
    9. Zuschke, Nick, 2020. "An analysis of process-tracing research on consumer decision-making," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 305-320.
    10. Jeong, Yoo Kyung & Song, Min & Ding, Ying, 2014. "Content-based author co-citation analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 197-211.
    11. Kuntner, Tobias & Teichert, Thorsten, 2016. "The scope of price promotion research: An informetric study," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 2687-2696.
    12. Rialp, Alex & Merigó, José M. & Cancino, Christian A. & Urbano, David, 2019. "Twenty-five years (1992–2016) of the International Business Review: A bibliometric overview," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 1-1.
    13. Jan Wiers & Didier Chabaud, 2022. "Bibliometric analysis of immigrant entrepreneurship research 2009–2019," Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Springer;UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, vol. 12(1), pages 441-464, December.
    14. Yanto Chandra, 2018. "Mapping the evolution of entrepreneurship as a field of research (1990–2013): A scientometric analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-24, January.
    15. Piñeiro-Chousa, Juan & López-Cabarcos, M. Ángeles & Romero-Castro, Noelia María & Pérez-Pico, Ada María, 2020. "Innovation, entrepreneurship and knowledge in the business scientific field: Mapping the research front," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 475-485.
    16. Guan-Can Yang & Gang Li & Chun-Ya Li & Yun-Hua Zhao & Jing Zhang & Tong Liu & Dar-Zen Chen & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2015. "Using the comprehensive patent citation network (CPC) to evaluate patent value," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 1319-1346, December.
    17. Tsung Teng Chen, 2012. "The development and empirical study of a literature review aiding system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(1), pages 105-116, July.
    18. Gaviria-Marin, Magaly & Merigó, José M. & Baier-Fuentes, Hugo, 2019. "Knowledge management: A global examination based on bibliometric analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 194-220.
    19. Filippo Corsini & Rafael Laurenti & Franziska Meinherz & Francesco Paolo Appio & Luca Mora, 2019. "The Advent of Practice Theories in Research on Sustainable Consumption: Past, Current and Future Directions of the Field," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, January.
    20. Pamela E. Sandstrom, 2001. "Scholarly communication as a socioecological system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(3), pages 573-605, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:17:p:9101-:d:624343. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.