IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i2p795-d1320673.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development Trends in Soil Erosion Fields Based on the Quantitative Evaluation of Innovation Subjects and Innovation Content from 1991 to 2020

Author

Listed:
  • Lihua Zhai

    (Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China, Beijing 100038, China)

  • Liying Sun

    (Key Laboratory of Water Cycle and Related Land Surface Processes, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
    College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

  • Yihui Zhang

    (Key Laboratory of Water Cycle and Related Land Surface Processes, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
    College of Resources and Environment, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China)

Abstract

This paper mainly quantitatively analyzes papers in the field of soil erosion from an objective evaluation perspective. The purpose is to provide researchers in the field of soil and water conservation with a comprehensive understanding of the field. The bibliometric method was used to evaluate the technological innovation and evolution characteristics of soil erosion research. In terms of research scale, China and the United States have an absolute lead in this field. China started late, but the growth rate is faster. The evolution process of soil erosion research is classified into three stages (1991–2000, 2001–2010, and 2011–2020). In terms of innovation subjects (countries and institutions) in soil erosion fields, dominant countries exhibit more concentrated results, with an increase from 57% to 80% with respect to the ratio of the number of output papers in these countries to the total number of output papers in the research field of soil erosion. In contrast, research institutions are increasingly divergent, with a decrease from 36% to 26% with respect to the ratio of the number of output papers in the dominant institutions to the total number of output papers in the research field. The comparison results of the comprehensive innovation strength of major countries indicate that soil erosion research has experienced processes such as domination by the United States, and other countries have caught up via concerted efforts, with China and the USA finally leading comprehensively. The overall leading ability of China and the United States in soil erosion research continues to converge and improve. Belgium and other European countries have small research scale characteristics but greater influence capacities. The study of erosion mechanisms and erosion modelling has always been the main research direction in this field, while the quantitative study of soil erosion on large scales and its effects on element cycling comprises the current main research stream and development trend. The results of the present study could provide scientific support for a better understanding of the evolution of innovation characteristics in the field of soil erosion.

Suggested Citation

  • Lihua Zhai & Liying Sun & Yihui Zhang, 2024. "Development Trends in Soil Erosion Fields Based on the Quantitative Evaluation of Innovation Subjects and Innovation Content from 1991 to 2020," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-15, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:2:p:795-:d:1320673
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/2/795/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/2/795/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sartori, Martina & Philippidis, George & Ferrari, Emanuele & Borrelli, Pasquale & Lugato, Emanuele & Montanarella, Luca & Panagos, Panos, 2019. "A linkage between the biophysical and the economic: Assessing the global market impacts of soil erosion," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 299-312.
    2. Markus Reichstein & Michael Bahn & Philippe Ciais & Dorothea Frank & Miguel D. Mahecha & Sonia I. Seneviratne & Jakob Zscheischler & Christian Beer & Nina Buchmann & David C. Frank & Dario Papale & An, 2013. "Climate extremes and the carbon cycle," Nature, Nature, vol. 500(7462), pages 287-295, August.
    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. Panos Panagos & Pasquale Borrelli & David Robinson, 2020. "FAO calls for actions to reduce global soil erosion," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 25(5), pages 789-790, May.
    2. Zbigniew W. Kundzewicz & Adam Choryński & Janusz Olejnik & Hans J. Schellnhuber & Marek Urbaniak & Klaudia Ziemblińska, 2023. "Climate Change Science and Policy—A Guided Tour across the Space of Attitudes and Outcomes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-20, March.
    3. Wen, Xiaojie & Yao, Shunbo & Sauer, Johannes, 2022. "Shadow prices and abatement cost of soil erosion in Shaanxi Province, China: Convex expectile regression approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    4. Patricia Arrogante-Funes & Carlos J. Novillo & Raúl Romero-Calcerrada, 2018. "Monitoring NDVI Inter-Annual Behavior in Mountain Areas of Mainland Spain (2001–2016)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-24, November.
    5. A. S. Strokov & V. S. Krasilnikova & O. V. Cherkasova, 2022. "Economic Valuation of Recovery and Increased Efficiency in Agricultural Land Use," Studies on Russian Economic Development, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 447-454, August.
    6. Zefeng Chen & Weiguang Wang & Giovanni Forzieri & Alessandro Cescatti, 2024. "Transition from positive to negative indirect CO2 effects on the vegetation carbon uptake," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    7. John M. Humphreys & Robert B. Srygley & David H. Branson, 2022. "Geographic Variation in Migratory Grasshopper Recruitment under Projected Climate Change," Geographies, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-19, January.
    8. Qin Liu & Tiange Shi, 2019. "Spatiotemporal Differentiation and the Factors of Ecological Vulnerability in the Toutun River Basin Based on Remote Sensing Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-19, August.
    9. Yanyan Li & Jinbing Zhang & Hui Zhu & Zhimin Zhou & Shan Jiang & Shuangyan He & Ying Zhang & Yicheng Huang & Mengfan Li & Guangrui Xing & Guanghui Li, 2023. "Soil Erosion Characteristics and Scenario Analysis in the Yellow River Basin Based on PLUS and RUSLE Models," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-19, January.
    10. Humphreys, John M. & Srygley, Robert B. & Lawton, Douglas & Hudson, Amy R. & Branson, David H., 2022. "Grasshoppers exhibit asynchrony and spatial non-stationarity in response to the El Niño/Southern and Pacific Decadal Oscillations," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 471(C).
    11. Jing Wang & Xuesong Wang & Fenli Zheng & Hanmei Wei & Miaomiao Zhao & Jianyu Jiao, 2023. "Ecoenzymatic Stoichiometry Reveals Microbial Carbon and Phosphorus Limitations under Elevated CO 2 , Warming and Drought at Different Winter Wheat Growth Stages," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-24, June.
    12. Aysan Badraghi & Beáta Novotná & Jan Frouz & Koloman Krištof & Martin Trakovický & Martin Juriga & Branislav Chvila & Leonardo Montagnani, 2023. "Temporal Dynamics of CO 2 Fluxes over a Non-Irrigated Vineyard," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-16, October.
    13. Liu, Sen & Gao, Hongxia & He, Chuan & Liang, Zhiwu, 2019. "Experimental evaluation of highly efficient primary and secondary amines with lower energy by a novel method for post-combustion CO2 capture," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 233, pages 443-452.
    14. Mathilde Chomel & Jocelyn M. Lavallee & Nil Alvarez-Segura & Elizabeth M. Baggs & Tancredi Caruso & Francisco Castro & Mark C. Emmerson & Matthew Magilton & Jennifer M. Rhymes & Franciska T. Vries & D, 2022. "Intensive grassland management disrupts below-ground multi-trophic resource transfer in response to drought," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, December.
    15. Sen Chakraborty, Kritika & Chakraborty, Avinandan & Berrens, Robert P., 2023. "Valuing soil erosion control investments in Nigerian agricultural lands: A hedonic pricing model," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    16. Wuepper, David & Borrelli, Pasquale & Mueller, Daniel & Finger, Robert, 2020. "Quantifying the soil erosion legacy of the Soviet Union," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    17. Mustafa Nur Istanbuly & Josef Krása & Bahman Jabbarian Amiri, 2022. "How Socio-Economic Drivers Explain Landscape Soil Erosion Regulation Services in Polish Catchments," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-13, February.
    18. Andrii Zabrodskyi & Egidijus Šarauskis & Savelii Kukharets & Antanas Juostas & Gediminas Vasiliauskas & Albinas Andriušis, 2021. "Analysis of the Impact of Soil Compaction on the Environment and Agricultural Economic Losses in Lithuania and Ukraine," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-13, July.
    19. Matheus B. Patrício & Marcos Lado & Tomás de Figueiredo & João C. Azevedo & Paulo A. A. Bueno & Felícia Fonseca, 2023. "Carbon Storage Patterns and Landscape Sustainability in Northeast Portugal: A Digital Mapping Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(24), pages 1-27, December.
    20. Hunggul Yudono Setio Hadi Nugroho & Tyas Mutiara Basuki & Irfan Budi Pramono & Endang Savitri & Purwanto & Dewi Retna Indrawati & Nining Wahyuningrum & Rahardyan Nugroho Adi & Yonky Indrajaya & Agung , 2022. "Forty Years of Soil and Water Conservation Policy, Implementation, Research and Development in Indonesia: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-33, March.

    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:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:2:p:795-:d:1320673. 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.