Celebrating Half a Century of Environment and Behavior : A Bibliometric Review

Abstract

Environment and Behavior is a leading international journal that publishes research examining the relationships between human behavior and the built and natural environments since 1969. Motivated by its half-century anniversary, the present article uses the Web of Science Core Collection database to provide a bibliometric overview of the leading trends that have occurred in the journal during the 1969-2018 period. The impact of the journal has increased over the years, Gary W. Evans is the author with most published papers, articles by Paul C. Stern and Thomas Dietz have made a notable scientific impact, the University of Michigan is the institution with the highest number of publications, and there is a growing trend in the number of women and international contributors to the journal. This bibliographic review provides strong evidence of the scientific impact of the journal, and the wider Environment-and-Behavior community should be proud of its story of success.

Keywords

bibliometrics journal co-citation web of science VOSviewer

Introduction

Environment and Behavior (hereafter E&B) is a leading international journal examining the relationships between everyday human behavior and the built and natural environments. Gary Winkel was the founding Editor-in-Chief and noted in the introductory volume that E&B was first conceived by him and Philip Thiel in 1966, with Francis Ventre joining the journal conceptualization effort soon afterward (Winkel, 1969). The multidisciplinary intent of E&B is stated clearly in the journal’s editorial introduction and first issue. Winkel (1969) noted the contributions made by architects, designers, economists, geographers, historians, psychologists, sociologists, urban designers and planners to environmental research, and the five papers of the inaugural issue included contributions from forest research, geography, urban design, urban planning, and psychology. When describing the scope of the journal, he wrote,

Broadly speaking, the editorial intent of Environment and Behavior is to report scholarly work describing the reciprocal relationships which exist between the physical environment and behavior. The breadth of this mandate is a reflection of the multidisciplinary nature of environmental research. Every effort will be made to offer a flexible response to genuine differences in technical descriptions, problem-solving approaches, and theoretical formulations. At the same time, it is our hope that contributions will recognize the opportunities which exist for the development of truly integrated and interdisciplinary researches (sic) into environment-behavior relationships. (p. 4).

E&B has become one of the main outlets for environmental research since its creation half a century ago, with clear indicators of growth and prestige. E&B had two issues in its first year, three issues the year after, and became a quarterly journal during the 1973-1980 period. E&B increased its number of publications substantially in the following decades, having six issues per year between 1981 and 2012, and then eight issues in 2013 and 2014. Since 2015, the journal has published 10 issues per year and has received more than 500 manuscript submissions in 2017 and 2018 (A. Devlin, personal communication, November 21, 2018). The Web of Science places E&B within the two broad research categories of “environmental studies” and “psychology, multidisciplinary,” and the 2017 Journal Citation Reports (JCR) place E&B in the 20th position out of 109 and in the 15th position out of 135 journals in these categories, respectively. Another marker of prestige of E&B is its impact factor. The journal impact factor is the average number of times articles from the journal published in the past 2 years have been cited in the JCR for a given year. This means that the higher the journal impact factor, the more frequently articles in that journal are cited by other articles and the more highly ranked the journal. The impact factor of E&B has shown a steady increase over the decades, from 0.42 in 1997 to 3.55 in 2017 (see Supplemental Table S1). An impact factor of 3 places E&B in the top 19% of all 12,061 journals in the JCR database (Gann, 2017).

To celebrate the 50th anniversary of E&B, we conducted a systematic bibliometric analysis to report significant trends in E&B’s history to date in terms of number of published papers over the years, most cited papers, and leading authors, institutions, and countries. Following recommendations for succinct and accessible quantitative summaries of the scientific literature (Glass, McGaw, & Smith, 1981), our bibliometric analysis provides a concise overview of key indicators of E&B that highlights its history of success. We start by describing the usefulness of analyzing bibliometric data.

Review of Bibliometric Analyses

Scholars have defined bibliometrics as the research field of library and information sciences that studies bibliographic material with quantitative methods (Broadus, 1987; Pritchard, 1969; see also Gaviria-Marín, Merigó, & Popa, 2018), providing a comprehensive overview in trends of publications. Studies using bibliometric methods are increasing rapidly with the advances in computational power and new technologies (Bar-Ilan, 2008; Ding, Rousseau, & Wolfram, 2014), and are very useful in providing a historical and quantitative overview of a set of bibliographic data.

One main characteristic of bibliometric methods is their flexibility and applicability to various areas of science (Biemans, Griffin, & Moenaert, 2007; Yu, Xu, Kao, & Lin, 2018). To illustrate, researchers have used bibliometric methods to analyze the literature in the sciences and social sciences (Glänzel & Schoepflin, 1999), to develop a database of publications by Dutch authors (Moed, De Bruin, & Van Leeuwen, 1995), and to analyze publications related to tsunami (Chiu & Ho, 2007), radio-frequency identification (Chao, Yang, & Jen, 2007), and fuzzy research and decision-making (Blanco-Mesa, Merigó, & Gil-Lafuente, 2017; Merigó, Gil-Lafuente, & Yager, 2015; Yu et al., 2018), to name a few. Bibliometric studies addressing research topics related to E&B have also been published. These include analyses of research into environmental marketing/management (Leonidou & Leonidou, 2011), highly cited articles in environmental science journals (Khan & Ho, 2012), as well as the scientific productivity within the field of environmental psychology between 1960 and 1996 in Mexico, published in this journal by Monteroy Lopez Lena (1997). Moreover, Milfont and Page (2013) conducted a bibliometric review of full-length articles published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology to celebrate its 30th anniversary (see also Milfont & Lewicka, 2012), and Giuliani and Scopelliti (2009) conducted a review focusing on temporal changes in research interests of empirical studies published in that journal and E&B.

There are several bibliometric indicators available (Merigó, Mas-Tur, Roig-Tierno, & Ribeiro-Soriano, 2015; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Bachrach, 2008), but there is a lack of consensus in the field regarding a single optimal method, and authors tend to focus on a single indicator or a group of indicators (e.g., Bonilla, Merigó, & Torres-Abad, 2015; Merigó & Yang, 2017). Consistent indicators that have been used include number of published papers (Cobo, Martínez, Gutiérrez-Salcedo, Fujita, & Herrera-Viedma, 2015; Yi & Yang, 2014; Yu, Xu, Pedrycz, & Wang, 2017), total citations (Ma & Stern, 2006; Valenzuela, Merigó, Johnston, Nicolás, & Jaramillo, 2017), and the h-index (Alonso, Cabrerizo, Herrera-Viedma, & Herrera, 2009; Hirsch, 2005)—“An entity has an h-index value of y if the entity has y publications that have all been cited at least y times” (Hodge & Lacasse, 2011, p. 583). The present study considers a group of indicators to present a comprehensive understanding of the bibliometric trends of E&B.

Method

The source of the bibliometric data used was the Web of Science Core Collection. We used “Environment and Behavior” as the keyword considering it as “publication name,” and the search process was conducted in November 2018 and updated in March 2019, focusing on papers published until the end of December 2018. Overall, a total of 1,684 documents have been published in the journal between 1969 and 2018. A brief inspection of the data indicates that these publications have received so far a total of 59,704 citations, with an h-index of 110 indicating that 110 papers have received at least 110 citations.

Our bibliometric analysis considers cites per paper, cites per year, citation thresholds, citing articles, and evolution over time of certain indicators. These indicators are used to provide summary information about most cited papers, and leading authors, institutions, countries, and keywords. When comparing leading institutions, we also report the ranking of the universities in the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) and the Quacquarelli and Symonds (QS) University Ranking. This information allows us to assess the rank of universities publishing in E&B in relation to world ranking. When comparing leading countries, we also consider population size and use the number of papers and citations per million inhabitants. This information allows us to verify whether population size is related to leading countries with publications in E&B.

Moreover, we also map the bibliographic material graphically to provide a visual representation of key indicators. There are many computer programs available for building graphical maps based on bibliographic data (Cobo, Lopez-Herrera, Herrera-Viedma, & Herrera, 2011). Here, we used the visualization of similarities (VOS) viewer software developed by van Eck and Waltman (2010) to facilitate bibliometric mapping with visual reports, including bibliographic coupling relations, co-citation analysis, and co-occurrence of keywords (e.g., Laengle, Modak, Merigó, & Zurita, 2018; Merigó, Cancino, Coronado, & Urbano, 2016; Tang, Liao, & Su, 2018). Bibliographic coupling occurs when two papers cite the same third paper or overlap in the reference lists of publications (Cancino, Merigó, Coronado, Dessouky, & Dessouky, 2017; Kessler, 1963). Graphs built with bibliographic coupling reflect the most cited sources (size of the circle) and the links show those that more frequently receive citations from the same sources (Modak, Merigó, Weber, Manzor, & Ortuzar, 2019). Co-citation occurs when two different papers are cited by the same third paper (Laengle et al., 2017; Small, 1973). Maps with co-citation show the most cited items (size of the circles) and those that receive citations more frequently from the same sources. Co-occurrence examines the most common keywords used (size of the circles), and the network connections visualize the keywords that appear more frequently in the same published papers (Martínez-López, Merigó, Valenzuela, & Nicolás, 2018; Merigó, Pedrycz, Weber, & de la Sotta, 2018). The VOSviewer provides a graphical visualization of the bibliometric data through a network representation, where the size of a circle increases with an item’s relevance, and the network connections identify more closely linked items so closely related items are located close to each other in the map. The software is freely available at http://www.vosviewer.com/. For similar implementations of this approach, see Tur-Porcar, Mas-Tur, Merigó, Roig-Tierno, and Watt (2018) and Wang et al. (2018).

Bibliographic coupling occurs when two papers cite the same third paper or overlap in the reference lists of publications (Cancino, Merigó, Coronado, Dessouky, & Dessouky, 2017; Kessler, 1963). Graphs built with bibliographic coupling reflect the most cited sources (size of the circle) and the links show those that more frequently receive citations from the same sources (Modak, Merigó, Weber, Manzor, & Ortuzar, 2019). Co-citation occurs when two different papers are cited by the same third paper (Laengle et al., 2017; Small, 1973). Maps with co-citation show the most cited items (size of the circles) and those that receive citations more frequently from the same sources. Co-occurrence examines the most common keywords used (size of the circles), and the network connections visualize the keywords that appear more frequently in the same published papers (Martínez-López, Merigó, Valenzuela, & Nicolás, 2018; Merigó, Pedrycz, Weber, & de la Sotta, 2018).

Results and Discussion

Publication and Citation Structure of E&B

We started the bibliometric analysis by focusing on the number of published papers per year in E&B. As clearly seen in Figure 1, there is an increasing trend in the number of papers published year by year since the first issue in 1969. The figure also shows E&B has had four Editors-in-Chief for the 1969-2018 period considered in our analysis, with Robert B. Bechtel serving the longest for three decades (Stanley T. Asah is the current Editor-in-Chief).

To provide insights into the quality of the published papers, Table 1 provides comprehensive information for each year based on different bibliometric indicators. The table first presents the number of papers that received more than 200, 100, 50, 20, 10, 5, and 1 citations, followed by the total number of papers and the total number of citations per year. The information in Table 1 shows that 2001 was the year with the highest number of citations, and the year with the highest number of papers (seven) that received more than 200 citations. This might be explained by the impactful special issue on restorative environments organized by Terry Hartig in that year (see Hartig, 2001). It is worth noting that 3% of E&B papers have received more than 200 citations during the years of analysis, while 65% of the papers have received at least 10 citations (see last two rows of Table 1).

Table 1.

Annual Citation Structure of Environment and Behavior.

Year	≥200	≥100	≥50	≥20	≥10	≥5	≥1	TP	TC
1969	0	2	3	6	7	9	10	10	397
1970	1	1	5	12	13	15	15	16	772
1971	0	0	1	6	9	13	19	21	302
1972	0	1	1	8	13	18	18	18	431
1973	0	2	6	11	16	22	24	24	860
1974	0	0	3	11	14	19	20	21	444
1975	0	0	4	7	8	11	15	16	434
1976	0	2	6	15	24	27	29	29	826
1977	0	1	2	11	15	23	30	30	554
1978	1	2	5	8	16	20	25	25	1,060
1979	0	0	3	7	14	21	25	26	506
1980	0	1	3	11	22	28	32	32	728
1981	1	3	6	11	15	21	28	29	1,136
1982	0	3	6	15	21	25	34	35	1,081
1983	1	3	11	17	22	24	27	29	1,634
1984	0	1	4	14	22	25	29	31	799
1985	0	1	3	11	17	26	30	32	614
1986	0	2	6	13	23	27	32	34	943
1987	1	1	3	11	15	22	30	31	835
1988	0	1	6	12	15	23	31	33	800
1989	1	3	8	16	21	25	31	33	1,189
1990	2	4	7	13	23	27	35	37	1,403
1991	3	3	12	21	31	33	35	35	2,313
1992	0	2	4	16	27	30	37	39	1,030
1993	1	4	6	17	21	27	33	34	1,725
1994	2	4	9	12	22	27	31	32	1,403
1995	2	4	6	19	26	27	35	35	1,869
1996	2	5	7	18	24	27	29	31	1,749
1997	1	4	9	14	21	26	27	29	1,280
1998	3	7	12	27	34	35	37	37	2,471
1999	1	4	9	22	30	36	38	38	1,649
2000	2	5	12	24	36	38	40	40	2,166
2001	7	13	20	29	33	37	39	39	3,784
2002	3	5	16	27	37	44	44	44	2,693
2003	2	6	16	29	38	41	42	43	2,435
2004	1	6	9	25	33	36	38	38	1,977
2005	0	3	11	20	29	32	34	35	1,416
2006	1	4	13	26	35	41	43	43	1,858
2007	2	6	14	25	31	36	38	38	1,974
2008	1	2	13	24	29	32	36	36	1,683
2009	1	2	6	21	30	36	40	40	1,317
2010	0	0	4	19	30	35	40	40	959
2011	0	0	1	18	28	35	38	38	785
2012	0	2	3	14	24	32	38	38	878
2013	0	1	3	10	23	35	41	42	765
2014	0	0	3	11	25	32	40	41	679
2015	0	0	0	2	22	38	48	49	508
2016	0	0	0	2	13	27	49	53	407
2017	0	0	0	0	3	11	36	44	140
2018	0	0	0	0	0	1	20	41	43
Total	43	126	320	738	1,100	1,358	1,615	1,684	59,704
%	3	7	19	44	65	81	96

Note. ≥200, ≥100, ≥50, ≥20, ≥10, ≥5, ≥1 = number of papers with more than 200, 100, 50, 20, 10, 5, and 1 citations, respectively; TP = total number of papers; TC = total number of citations.

We then focused on the geographic regions of the published papers. For this analysis, we divided the countries into nine distinct regions, and for each region, we report information regarding total number of papers, total number of citations, h-index, citation per year, as well as the number of papers that received more than 200, 100, 50, or 20 citations. Table 2 reports the results ranking the regions by total number of citations, with the results representing the impact of papers in E&B for each of the supranational regions. As shown in Table 2, the North America region has the highest indicators with almost 4 times more papers and over 3 times more citations than the second region, Western Europe.

Table 2.

Publications by Supranational Regions.

Region	TP	TC	H	TC/TP	≥200	≥100	≥50	≥20
North America	1,222	43,548	96	35.64	29	90	225	548
Western Europe	340	12,715	58	37.40	11	29	75	154
Oceania	85	2,162	27	25.44	0	2	11	39
Eastern Asia	56	1,527	21	27.27	0	4	8	22
Middle East	45	1,350	18	30	2	2	0	16
Latin America	15	227	9	15.13	0	0	0	4
Eastern Europe	11	132	7	12	0	0	0	2
Rest of Asia	9	132	5	14.67	0	0	1	2
Africa	7	93	6	13.29	0	0	0	2

Most Influential Papers in E&B

In this section, we review the most influential papers published in E&B during the 1969-2018 period. We start with the Top 50 most cited papers presented in Supplemental Table S2, with the Top 10 shown in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, the study by Stern, Dietz, and Kalof (1993) examining the relations between values and environmental concern, and possible moderation by gender, has received the highest number of citations. In addition to this paper, it is noteworthy that Paul C. Stern and Thomas Dietz have co-authored three other papers with Gregory A. Guagnano in the Top 10 most cited papers in E&B.

Table 3.

The 10 Most Cited Documents in Environment and Behavior.

Rank	TC	Title	Author(s)	Year	C/Y
1	760	Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern	Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Kalof, L,	1993	30.40
2	535	Restorative effects of natural-environment experiences	Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. W.	1991	19.81
3	511	Gender and environmental risk concerns—A review and analysis of available research	Davidson, D. J., & Freudenburg, W. R.	1996	23.23
4	500	Personal projects—A rationale and method for investigation	Little, B. R.	1983	14.29
5	472	Influences on attitude-behavior relationships—A natural experiment with curbside recycling	Guagnano, G. A., Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T.	1995	20.52
6	447	Environment and crime in the inner city—Does vegetation reduce crime?	Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C.	2001	26.29
7	432	Toward a social psychology of place—Predicting behavior from place-based cognitions, attitude, and identity	Stedman, R. C.	2002	27.00
8	429	Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern	Dietz, T., Stern, P. C., & Guagnano, G. A.	1998	21.45
9	424	Recycling as altruistic behavior—Normative and behavioral strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program	Hopper, J. R., & Nielsen, J. M.	1991	15.70
10	410	The new ecological paradigm in social-psychological context	Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., & Guagnano, G. A.	1995	17.83

Note. TC = total number of citations; C/Y = citations per year. See Supplemental Table S2 for the full list of the Top 50.

Table 4 presents the Top 40 books or papers cited by published papers in E&B. The most cited publication is the 1989 book by Rachel Kaplan and Stephen Kaplan on the experience of nature within the framework of attention restoration theory, followed by the 1960 book by Kevin Lynch on mental maps of urban landscapes, and the two publications by Riley E. Dunlap, Kent D. Van Liere and colleagues on the New Environmental Paradigm (NEP) Scale (for a meta-analytical review of this measure, see Hawcroft & Milfont, 2010). Table 4 provides further evidence of the scientific impact of the research collaboration between Stern and Dietz. Results in Table 4 shows that these scholars have five papers (three of them with Guagnano) published in other journals that are highly cited in E&B, and Stern also has a solo-authored paper among the Top 10 most cited.

Table 4.

Top 40 Most Frequently Cited Publications in Environment and Behavior papers.

Rank	Year	First author	Reference	Volume	Page	Type	TC	Co-citations
1	1989	Kaplan, R.	Experience of Nature: A psychological Perspective			B	94	87
2	1960	Lynch, K.	The Image of the City			B	86	53
3	1978	Dunlap, R. E.	The Journal of Environmental Education	9	10	A	77	70
4	2000	Dunlap, R. E.	Journal of Social Issues	56	425	A	62	55
5	2000	Stern, P. C.	Journal of Social Issues	56	407	A	62	57
6	1975	Fishbein, M.	Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research			B	58	47
7	1980	Vanliere, K. D.	Public Opinion Quarterly	44	181	A	57	56
8	1991	Ajzen, I.	Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes	50	179	A	55	52
9	1995	Kaplan, S.	Journal of Environmental Psychology	15	169	A	51	50
10	1993	Stern, P. C.	Environment and Behavior	25	322	A	51	50
11	1991	Ulrich, R. S.	Journal of Environmental Psychology	11	201	A	50	49
12	1991	Hopper, J. R.	Environment and Behavior	23	195	A	48	48
13	1977	Schwartz, S. H.	Advances in Experimental Social Psychology	10	221	A	46	46
14	1975	Altman, I.	The Environment and Social Behavior			B	45	27
15	1995	Guagnano, G. A.	Environment and Behavior	27	699	A	42	42
16	1961	Jacobs, J.	The Death and Life of Great American Cities			B	42	30
17	1994	Stern, P. C.	Journal of Social Issues	50	65	A	41	41
18	1984	Ulrich, R. S.	Science	224	420	A	40	33
19	1986	Baron, R. M.	Journal of Personality and Social Psychology	51	1173	A	39	30
20	1966	Hall, E. T.	The Hidden Dimension			B	39	30
21	1991	Oskamp, S.	Environment and Behavior	23	494	A	39	39
22	1995	Stern, P. C.	Environment and Behavior	27	723	A	39	39
23	1998	Dietz, T.	Environment and Behavior	30	450	A	38	36
24	1990	Vining, J.	Environment and Behavior	22	55	A	38	37
25	1991	Hartig, T.	Environment and Behavior	23	3	A	36	36
26	1970	Milgram, S.	Science	167	1461	A	36	24
27	1975	Appleton, J.	Experience Landscape			B	35	32
28	1982	Kaplan, S.	Cognition and Environment			B	35	28
29	1982	Geller, E. S.	Preserving the Environment: New Strategies for Behavior Change			B	32	26
30	1992	Schwartz, S. H.	Advances in Experimental Social Psychology	25	1	A	32	32
31	1980	Ajzen, I.	Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior			B	30	28
32	1974	Mehrabian, A.	An Approach to Environmental Psychology			B	30	22
33	1972	Newman, O.	Defensible Space Theory			B	30	25
34	1988	Cohen, J.	Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences			B	29	23
35	1994	Gamba, R. J.	Environment and Behavior	26	587	A	29	29
36	1983	Proshansky, H. M.	Journal of Environmental Psychology	3	57	A	29	14
37	1995	Stern, P. C.	Journal of Applied Social Psychology	25	1611	A	29	29
38	1970	Appleyard, D.	Environment and Behavior	2	100	A	28	24
39	1990	Cialdini, R. B.	Journal of Personality and Social Psychology	58	1015	A	28	23
40	1994	Scott, D.	Environment and Behavior	26	239	A	28	28

Note. Type: A = article; B = book; TC = total number of citations.

Leading Institutions, Countries, and Authors

In this section, we report results identifying the leading institutions, countries, and authors that have published in E&B. Starting with the institutions, Table 5 indicates that with 38 institutions, the United States dominates the Top 50 institutions with published papers in E&B, followed by four institutions in Canada, two institutions each in Australia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, and one institution each in France and Italy. The salience of the North American region and the United States in particular might not be surprising because E&B has strong links with the Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA), which is based in the United States and promotes E&B to its members. E&B is also published in English, and people who have English as their first language may have an advantage in terms of communicating their work.

Table 5.

The Most Productive and Influential Institutions in Environment and Behavior.

Rank	University	Country	TP	TC	H	TC/TP	≥200	≥100	≥50	≥20	ARWU	QS
1	University of Michigan	USA	47	2,553	25	54.32	2	9	13	27	27	20
2	Cornell University	USA	37	1,319	20	35.65	1	1	11	21	12	14
3	Texas AM University of College Station	USA	32	1,400	19	43.75	1	4	7	18	151-200	203
4	University of North Carolina	USA	32	771	15	24.09	0	1	5	13	30	83
5	Penn State University	USA	31	1,913	17	61.71	2	5	12	16	74	95
6	University of Minnesota Twin Cities	USA	29	639	15	22.03	0	1	4	10	37	156
7	University of Illinois Urbana Champaign	USA	28	2,826	18	100.93	5	10	13	17	41	71
8	University of British Columbia	CAN	27	736	15	27.26	0	1	4	12	43	47
9	University of California Irvine	USA	27	1,718	19	63.63	1	5	8	18	83	169
10	Arizona State University	USA	26	943	17	36.27	0	1	9	15	101-150	212
11	Ohio State University	USA	24	1,073	15	44.71	0	3	9	13	94	89
12	University of California Davis	USA	23	429	13	18.65	0	0	0	10	96	100
13	Virginia Polytechnic Institute State University	USA	23	583	14	25.35	0	1	3	11	201-300	338
14	University of Utah	USA	21	639	14	30.43	0	2	4	10	101-150	345
15	Grand Valley State University	USA	20	580	15	29.00	0	0	2	14	—	—
16	University of Washington	USA	20	469	11	23.45	0	0	3	8	14	66
17	Georgia Institute of Technology	USA	18	754	13	41.89	0	2	4	10	79	69
18	University of Wisconsin–Madison	USA	17	1,164	11	68.47	2	2	6	8	28	53
21	University of Illinois Chicago	USA	17	1,084	11	63.76	2	3	5	10	201-300	214
20	University of California Los Angeles	USA	17	509	11	29.94	0	1	5	8	11	32
21	University of Kansas	USA	17	317	9	18.65	0	0	1	5	201-300	367
22	University of Victoria	CAN	16	529	9	33.06	0	2	3	5	301-400	359
23	Rutgers State University of New Brunswick	USA	16	287	10	17.94	0	0	1	4	101-150	283
24	University of California Berkeley	USA	15	603	10	40.20	1	2	3	5	5	27
25	University of Groningen	NLD	14	1,390	10	99.29	3	3	7	9	66	120
26	Claremont Graduate School	USA	14	698	8	49.86	2	2	2	5	—	—
27	Sapienza University of Rome	ITA	14	398	10	28.43	0	0	3	7	201-300	217
28	University of Colorado Boulder	USA	13	646	7	49.69	1	2	2	4	38	190
29	Eindhoven University of Technology	NLD	13	512	10	39.38	1	1	2	8	301-400	99
30	Colorado State University	USA	13	408	10	31.38	0	1	2	5	201-300	450
31	University of Exeter	UK	12	551	8	45.92	1	1	4	5	151-200	154
32	University of Georgia	USA	12	411	8	34	0	1	3	6	201-300	431
33	University of Melbourne	AUS	12	262	9	21.83	0	0	1	5	38	39
34	Clark University	USA	12	203	7	16.92	0	0	1	3	—	461
35	University of Surrey	UK	10	920	9	92	1	3	6	7	301-400	248
36	University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee	USA	11	410	9	37.27	0	0	3	5	401-500	—
37	North Carolina State University	USA	11	303	6	27.55	0	1	2	4	151-200	279
38	Florida State University	USA	11	284	8	25.82	0	0	3	3	201-300	472
39	Michigan State University	USA	11	271	9	24.64	0	0	1	6	101-150	141
40	University of Sorbonne Paris City ComUE	FRA	11	254	8	23.09	0	0	2	4	36	75
41	University of Western Australia	AUS	11	202	8	18.36	0	0	1	3	93	91
42	University of South Carolina	USA	11	192	8	17.45	0	0	0	3	301-400	561-570
43	Indiana University of Bloomington	USA	10	318	7	31.80	0	1	3	3	101-150	323
44	Washington State University	USA	10	236	6	23.60	0	1	1	3	301-400	391
45	University of Toronto	CAN	10	128	6	12.80	0	0	0	3	23	28
46	University of Maryland College Park	USA	10	123	5	12.30	0	0	0	3	51	126
47	Ball State University	USA	9	233	7	25.89	0	1	1	5	—	—
48	Connecticut College	USA	9	224	7	24.89	0	1	1	3	—	—
49	Florida International University	USA	9	215	8	23.89	0	0	0	6	401-500	801-1,000
50	Harvard University	USA	9	204	6	22.67	0	0	1	3	1	3

Note. TP = total number of papers; TC = total number of citations; H = h-index; TC/TP = the total number of citations divided by the total number of papers; ≥200, ≥100, ≥50, ≥20 = number of papers with more than 200, 100, 50, and 20 citations, respectively. ARWU and QS = Academic Ranking of World Universities and QS University Ranking, respectively. The ARWU and QS rankings are specific until the Top 100 (or Top 200), but at lower positions, it is not easy to differentiate between universities. For this reason, it is better to group a particular university with a set of universities in a specific ranking level (Top 151-200, 201-300, etc.).

As shown in Table 5, the University of Michigan and Cornell University appear as the top institutions and also among the Top 10 institutions in a follow-up analysis examining temporal shifts in the ranking of institutions with publications in E&B (see Supplemental Table S3). It is also worth noting the contribution of the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, with five E&B publications with more than 200 citations and 10 publications with more than 100 citations. The last two columns of Table 5 present the ranking of each institution (if available) and indicate that researchers based in leading universities in the world elect E&B to publish their work.

Table 6 presents the Top 50 countries based on the bibliometric indicators. Unsurprisingly considering the results presented so far, the United States appears as the leading country with 7 times more papers than the second ranked country, and it is followed by three other English-speaking countries (Canada, United Kingdom, and Australia). Follow-up results show that these four English-speaking countries are consistent over the years as the leading countries with papers in E&B (see Supplemental Table S4). However, when population size is taken into consideration (see last two columns of Table 6), Canada places better than the United States, and both the Netherlands and New Zealand appear as leading countries. It is also worth noting that the other Top 7 countries (Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Italy, France, Israel, and Spain) have more than 20 published papers, indicating the international relevance of E&B and that the journal attracts publications from scholars for whom English is not their native language.

Table 6.

The Most Productive and Influential Countries in Environment and Behavior.

Rank	Country	TP	TC	H	TC/TP	≥250	≥100	≥50	Population	TP/Pop
1	United States	1,096	39,314	92	35.87	19	83	201	326,766	3.354
2	Canada	148	5,795	39	39.16	3	10	30	36,953	4.005
3	United Kingdom	108	3,935	33	36.44	2	8	25	66,573	1.622
4	Australia	68	1,784	25	26.24	0	2	10	24,772	2.745
5	Netherlands	58	3,014	27	51.97	3	8	15	17,084	3.395
6	Germany	46	2,072	19	45.04	2	6	10	82,293	0.559
7	Sweden	31	2,222	20	71.68	2	7	14	9,982	3.106
8	Italy	28	686	15	24.50	0	1	4	59,290	0.472
9	Spain	26	793	13	30.50	0	2	5	46,397	0.560
10	Israel	25	925	12	37	0	2	7	8,452	2.958
11	France	25	374	11	14.96	0	0	2	65,233	0.383
12	Turkey	17	410	11	24.12	0	0	2	81,916	0.208
13	New Zealand	16	352	10	22	0	0	1	4,749	3.369
14	Japan	15	418	10	27.87	0	2	2	127,185	0.118
15	Norway	15	413	9	27.53	0	1	1	5,353	2.802
16	China	15	386	8	25.73	0	1	2	1,415,045	0.011
17	Mexico	12	265	7	22.08	0	0	2	130,759	0.092
18	Switzerland	12	312	9	26	0	1	1	8,544	1.404
19	Taiwan	11	510	11	46.36	0	1	4	23,694	0.464
20	South Korea	11	185	7	16.82	0	0	0	51,164	0.215
21	Denmark	8	288	6	36	0	1	2	5,754	1.390
22	Brazil	8	139	7	17.38	0	0	0	210,867	0.038
23	Finland	7	313	5	44.71	0	1	1	5,542	1.263
24	Austria	7	236	5	33.71	0	0	3	8,751	0.800
25	India	7	106	4	15.14	0	0	1	1,354,051	0.005
26	Belgium	7	72	5	10.29	0	0	0	11,498	0.609
27	Portugal	6	223	5	37.17	0	0	2	10,291	0.583
28	Nigeria	4	69	4	17.25	0	0	0	195,875	0.020
29	Greece	4	44	4	11	0	0	0	11,142	0.359
30	Venezuela	4	15	3	3.75	0	0	0	32,381	0.124
31	Czech Republic	3	17	2	5.67	0	0	0	10,625	0.282
32	Chile	2	57	2	28.50	0	0	0	18,197	0.110
33	Poland	2	54	2	27	0	0	0	38,104	0.052
34	Colombia	2	34	2	17	0	0	0	49,464	0.040
35	Ireland	2	32	2	16	0	0	0	4,803	0.416
36	Papua N Guinea	2	32	2	16	0	0	0	8,418	0.238
37	Jordan	2	28	2	14	0	0	0	9,903	0.202
38	Saudi Arabia	2	27	2	13.50	0	0	0	33,554	0.060
39	Pakistan	2	26	2	13	0	0	0	200,813	0.010
40	Iran	2	23	2	12	0	0	0	82,011	0.024
41	Croatia	2	19	2	9.50	0	0	0	4,164	0.480
42	South Africa	2	17	2	8.50	0	0	0	57,398	0.035
43	Argentina	1	23	1	23	0	0	0	44,688	0.022
44	Indonesia	1	21	1	21	0	0	0	266,794	0.004
45	Thailand	1	22	1	22	0	0	0	5,791	0.173
46	Cuba	1	16	1	16	0	0	0	11,489	0.087
47	Cyprus	1	7	1	7	0	0	0	1,189	0.841
48	Ghana	1	7	1	7	0	0	0	29,463	0.034
49	Bangladesh	1	6	1	6	0	0	0	166,368	0.006
50	Russia	1	2	1	2	0	0	0	143,964	0.007

Note. TP = total number of papers; TC = total number of citations; H = h-index; TC/TP = the total number of citations divided by the total number of papers; ≥200, ≥100, ≥50 = number of papers with more than 200, 100, and 50 citations, respectively; TP/Pop = total papers per million inhabitants.

Examination of the Top 50 leading authors in E&B reported in Table 7 indicates that Gary W. Evans has the highest number of papers published in E&B, followed by Thomas R. Herzog and Jack L. Nasar. We highlight from the list Linda Steg, Mirilia Bonnes, and Billie Giles-Corti who are among the Top 20 leading authors but work outside North America (we also note Steg is among the most highly cited authors). We complement this analysis with lists of Top 40 authors, institutions, countries, and journals who/that have cited papers published in E&B (see Supplemental Table S5). Linda Steg, Gary W. Evans, and Tommy Gärling are the scholars who have cited more papers published in E&B, while the University of North Carolina, the University of Michigan and the Texas AM University (College Station) are the top three institutions of this ranking. In terms of countries, the United States once again leads the ranking other English-speaking countries, and then Germany and China. Finally, E&B itself, the Journal of Environmental Psychology and Landscape and Urban Planning are the leading journals that have cited papers published in E&B.

Table 7.

The Top 50 Most Productive and Influential Authors in Environment and Behavior.

Rank	Author	University	TP	TC	H	TC/TP	≥200	≥100	≥50	≥20
1	Evans, G. W.	Cornell University	22	1,562	16	71	2	2	10	14
2	Herzog, T. R.	Grand Valley State University	18	527	15	29.28	0	0	2	13
3	Nasar, J. L.	Ohio State University	15	789	11	52.60	0	3	7	9
4	Stamps, A. E.	Institute of Environment and Quality	13	251	9	19.31	0	0	0	7
5	Sullivan, W. C.	University of Illinois	12	1,980	12	165	5	8	8	9
6	Kaplan, R.	University of Michigan	12	1,065	9	88.75	1	4	6	8
7	Sadalla, E. K.	Arizona State University	11	445	9	40.45	0	1	3	7
8	Sommer, R.	University of California Davis	11	195	6	17.73	0	0	0	4
9	Kuo, F. E.	University of Illinois	10	1,962	9	196.20	5	8	8	9
10	Zimring, C.	Georgia Institute of Technology	10	433	9	43.30	0	1	3	5
11	Geller, E. S.	Virginia Polytechnic Institute State University	10	211	9	21.10	0	0	1	3
12	Suedfeld, P.	University of British Columbia	10	206	7	20.60	0	0	1	4
13	Steg, L.	University of Groningen	9	1,308	9	145.33	3	3	7	8
14	Kaplan, S.	University of Michigan	9	883	7	98.11	1	4	7	7
15	Gifford, R.	University of Victoria	9	429	7	47.67	0	2	3	4
16	Schultz, P. W.	California State University	9	281	8	31.22	0	0	1	5
17	Leon, G. R.	University of Minnesota	9	131	7	14.56	0	0	0	2
18	Bonnes, M.	Sapienza University of Rome	8	314	8	39.25	0	0	3	6
19	Giles-Corti, B.	University of Melbourne	8	130	7	16.25	0	0	0	2
20	Wapner, S.	Clark University	8	95	5	11.88	0	0	0	1
21	Devlin, A. S.	Connecticut College	8	91	6	11.38	0	0	0	2
22	Baum, A.	University of California Davis	7	353	7	50.43	0	1	2	6
23	Werner, C. M.	University of Utah	7	252	6	36	0	1	2	4
24	Rotton, J.	Florida International University	7	188	7	26.86	0	0	0	5
25	Butler, D. L.	Ball State University	7	131	6	18.71	0	0	0	4
26	Bell, P. A.	Colorado State University	7	105	7	15	0	0	0	1
27	Hartig, T.	Uppsala University	6	864	6	144	2	2	3	3
28	De Young, R.	University of Michigan	6	518	6	86.33	0	3	3	5
29	Kaiser, F. G.	Otto von Guericke University of Magdeburg	6	377	5	62.83	1	1	2	4
30	Bonaiuto, M.	Sapienza University of Rome	6	230	6	38.33	0	0	2	5
31	Biner, P. M.	Ball State University	6	116	5	19.33	0	0	0	4
32	Stern, P. C.	Norwegian University of Science & Technology	5	2,054	5	410.80	4	4	4	4
33	Vining, J.	University of Illinois	5	543	5	108.60	1	1	3	4
34	Lindell, M. K.	Texas AM University of College Station	5	400	5	80	1	1	2	5
35	Russell, J. A.	University of British Columbia	5	382	5	76.40	0	1	4	5
36	Sundstrom, E.	University of Tennessee	5	332	4	66.40	0	1	3	4
37	Wansink, B.	Cornell University	5	300	3	60.00	1	1	2	2
38	Matthies, E.	Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg	5	266	4	53.20	0	1	2	3
39	Brown, B. B.	University of Utah	5	248	4	49.60	0	1	2	4
40	Pol, E.	University of Barcelona	5	241	5	48.20	0	1	2	2
41	Corral-Verdugo, V.	University of Sonora	5	180	5	36	0	0	2	3
42	Altman, I.	University of Utah	5	164	5	32.80	0	1	1	3
43	Moser, G.	Paris Descartes University	5	117	5	23.40	0	0	1	2
44	Becker, F. D.	Cornell University	5	104	4	20.80	0	0	0	3
45	Sandal, G. M.	University of Bergen	5	76	4	15.20	0	0	0	1
46	Steel, G. D.	Lincoln University	5	75	5	15	0	0	0	1
47	Pahl, S.	Plymouth University	5	49	4	9.80	0	0	0	0
48	Kocher, S.	Sara Kocher Consulting	5	39	4	7.80	0	0	0	1
49	Levi, D.	California Polytechnic State University	5	39	4	7.80	0	0	0	1
50	Ruback, R. B.	Penn State University	5	27	3	5.40	0	0	0	0

Graphical Analysis of Bibliometric Data for E&B

We then used the VOSviewer software to analyze selected bibliometric indicators in a graphical form. We start by analyzing co-citations of journals cited in E&B. Co-citations happen when two papers published in different journals receive a citation from a third paper from another journal. Figure 2 depicts the co-citations of journals cited in E&B between 1969 and 2018 using a minimum threshold of 30 citations and 100 most representative connections. The large circle for E&B indicates that self-citations dominate the map, a feature common in most journals. Apart from self-citations, the Journal of Environmental Psychology is the most influential journal followed by applied and reviewed psychological journals (e.g., Journal of Applied Psychology Psychological Bulletin).

We followed up this global analysis of co-citations by examining temporal periods of E&B’s existence using a minimum threshold of 15 citations and 100 most representative connections. Supplemental Figures S1 to S4 present co-citation information for particular years of E&B. Besides self-citations, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology was the most influential journal for E&B in the 1969-1988 period (see Supplemental Figure S1). The Journal of Environmental Psychology was first published in 1981, and its influence for E&B in terms of co-citations becomes well defined from 1989 onward (see Supplemental Figures S2-S4). Supplemental Table S6 provides detailed co-citation data.

We then conducted similar co-citation analysis but focusing on authors instead of journals. Figure 3 depicts the co-citations of authors in E&B between 1969 and 2018 using a minimum threshold of 30 citations and 100 most representative connections. This analysis clusters together authors who have similar research profiles or cite similar bibliographic material, and three clearly distinct clusters emerge from co-citations of authors. The red cluster comprises authors who publish research on environmental concern, sustainability, and pro-environmental behaviors (e.g., Stern, Dunlap, Geller), and this cluster does not co-cite authors from other clusters. The blue cluster comprises authors who conduct research on restorative environments (e.g., Rachel and Stephen Kaplan, Ulrich, Stamps), while the green cluster comprises authors who have provided theoretical/conceptual approaches to the field on spatial behavior (e.g., Altman, Sommer, Rapoport). Interestingly, the co-citation data indicate Gary W. Evans is the author who crosses the bridge between the blue and the green clusters by linking publications in design with restorative environments.

Figure 4 presents the bibliographic coupling of institutions that publish in E&B using a minimum threshold of five documents and 100 links. The obtained results confirm the salience of United States institutions noted earlier, and, in particular, the University of Michigan has the highest level of collaboration with other institutions. This could be explained by the fact that Rachel and, until his death in 2018, Stephen Kaplan have been based in this university, and their environmental preference and attention restoration theories have had widespread scientific impact and have led to fruitful collaborations. Overall, the connections between institutions from the same country are stronger, indicating authors from the same country tend to collaborate more with colleagues within than between countries. This is expected given the proximity principle (see, for example, Ebbesen, Kjos, & Konecni, 1976) indicating that the probability of collaborating on a research project increases as the distance between people decreases—although new technologies allow better, faster, and closer collaborations from international teams (see, for example, Milfont et al., 2018).

The salience of the United States is confirmed in Supplemental Figure S5 presenting bibliographic coupling of countries in E&B using a minimum threshold of five documents and 50 connections. As expected, based on previous results, the United States appears in the center of the figure indicating it is the most productive country and with connections to all other countries (except Finland). Many countries (Brazil, China, India, Mexico, Portugal) only have connections to the United States in the network, indicating researchers in these countries are consuming and citing research conducted in the United States but not in other countries. Overall, the spread of the network indicates that E&B is a truly global journal.

Finally, we examined the leading keywords in E&B based on the co-occurrence of author keywords in the journal using a threshold of three occurrences and 100 most representative connections. Figure 5 presents the network of keywords co-occurrence, Supplemental Table S7 provides more detailed data, and Supplemental Figures S6 and S7 show possible temporal variability in keywords used for the 1999-2008 and 2009-2018 periods, respectively. Environmental Attitudes, Environment, Children, Physical Activity, Neighborhood, Place Attachment, Walking, Attitudes, Environmental Concern, and Built Environment are the Top 10 keywords most frequently used in E&B. As keywords are nominated by authors, the results indicate change in research topics over time. While Environmental Attitudes and Children are keywords that persist in the Top 5 in the temporal analysis, Physical activity, Neighborhood, and Built Environment appear as frequent keywords more recently. Moreover, the prevalence of environmental attitudes is unsurprising given past reviews showing that more than half of all peer-reviewed papers in environmental psychology deal with this topic (Kaiser, Wölfing, & Fuhler, 1999; Milfont, Duckitt, & Wagner, 2010). An inspection of E&B publications that have used Children as a keyword indicates research topics cover many areas, including the effect of natural environments on children’s cognitive functioning (Wells, 2000), and their pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors (Evans et al., 2007) and connection to nature (Cheng & Monroe, 2012).

Conclusion

E&B celebrates its 50th year in 2019. Motivated by this special occasion, we conducted systematic analysis of bibliometric data obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection database for the 1969-2018 period. Considering cites per paper, cites per year, citation thresholds, citing articles, and evolution over time of certain indicators, our bibliometric analysis identified the most cited papers, and leading authors, institutions, countries, and keywords.

Here, we summarize key findings from our bibliometric analysis: (a) the prestige of the journal has increased over the decades in terms of impact factor, journal ranking, number of annual submissions, and published papers; (b) most papers in E&B are from North America and, in particular, the United States, but the international scope of E&B is evident; (c) E&B papers published by Paul C. Stern and Thomas Dietz have made a notable scientific impact; (d) Gary W. Evans is the author who has published most in E&B, with 22 papers; (e) Rachel and Stephen Kaplan have made a remarkable scientific impact by having published a book that is the most highly cited publication in E&B papers, and by engaging their students in a research endeavor at the University of Michigan that is the most productive and influential institution for E&B; (f) E&B and the Journal of Environmental Psychology have a very strong co-citation rate, but E&B is also strongly connected to other journals; and (g) co-citation of authors showed three clear research clusters within E&B papers, namely: (1) environmental concern/pro-environmental behaviors, (2) restorative environments, and (3) perception of physical settings and urban design.

Bibliometric indicators are useful for providing an overview of trends in publication data, and the information we provide in our analysis provides a good example of their usefulness. However, bibliometric indicators do not fully capture the multidimensional complexities of research quality and scientific impact, and our analysis was based on bibliometric data from Web of Science Core Collection, which, although widely used, has particular limitations. For example, papers with multiple coauthors obtain better results than single-author papers because the database does not account for the number of authors, and the data consider affiliation (both institution and country) at the time of publication, but this information might not accurately represent where authors currently work.

Notwithstanding these limitations, the data clearly show E&B’s accomplishments over its first five decades of existence. Notably, the bibliometric data indicate a growing geographic, gender, and ethnic/racial diversity of the field as reflected in the published work in the journal. It is safe to conclude that there is a new female and international face of impact for E&B, one that should be celebrated and fostered further.

In addition to these changes, we look back to the journal’s origins to provide a recommendation for the future of E&B. In his introductory paper launching E&B, Winkel (1969) wrote, “It is our belief that substantive progress in environmental research will be achieved only by careful attention to the art of scientific investigation” (p. 4). We believe attention to rigorous science is even more relevant today, given calls spreading across disciplines to improve transparency and reproducibility of scientific findings. Regarding content areas that require our attention going forward, we are facing unprecedented environmental issues coupled with overweight and aging populations as well as culturally diverse communities in many parts of the world. E&B will remain an important outlet for disseminating theoretical models and research on how to best address these issues. We believe E&B will continue to set high publishing standards and present carefully conducted scientific investigations for years to come.

Supplemental Material

Suplementary_file_revised – Supplemental material for Celebrating Half a Century of Environment and Behavior: A Bibliometric Review

Supplemental material, Suplementary_file_revised for Celebrating Half a Century of Environment and Behavior: A Bibliometric Review by Taciano L. Milfont, Keivan Amirbagheri, Elena Hermanns and José M. Merigó in Environment and Behavior

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Keivan Amirbagheri is now affiliated to Escola Università Salestiana de Sarrià, Spain.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: José M. Merigó acknowledges support from the Government of Chile through the Fondecyt Regular Program (project number 1160286).

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

ORCID iD

Taciano L. Milfont

Author Biographies

Taciano L. Milfont, PhD, is director of the Centre for Applied Cross-Cultural Research and reader in the School of Psychology at the Victoria University of Wellington. His research interests are in cross-cultural environmental psychology and intergenerational decision-making.

Keivan Amirbagheri is a PhD candidate at the University of Barcelona and lecturer at the Escola Università Salestiana de Sarrià. His research interests are in green supply chain management, environmental management, and bibliometrics.

Elena Hermanns completed her BSc in environmental psychology at the University of Groningen, conducting her undergraduate thesis at the Victoria University of Wellington under the supervision of Taciano L. Milfont. Her research interests are in environmental psychology and links between religious beliefs and pro-environmental actions. She is currently working as a statistical analyst at Statistics New Zealand.

José M. Merigó, PhD, is a professor of information technology in the School of Information, Systems & Modelling at the University of Technology Sydney. His research interests are in computational and business intelligence, decision-making systems, and bibliometrics and scientometrics.

References

Alonso

Cabrerizo

F. J.

Herrera-Viedma

Herrera

(2009). h-Index: A review focused in its variants, computation and standardization for different scientific fields. Journal of Informetrics, 3, 273-289. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2009.04.001

Bar-Ilan

(2008). Informetrics at the beginning of the 21 century—A review. Journal of Informetrics, 2, 1-52. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2007.11.001

Biemans

Griffin

Moenaert

(2007). Twenty years of the journal of product innovation management: History, participants, and knowledge stock and flows. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24, 193-213. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2007.00245.x

Blanco-Mesa

Merigó

J. M.

Gil-Lafuente

A. M.

(2017). Fuzzy decision making: A bibliometric-based review. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 32, 2033-2050. doi:10.3233/JIFS-161640

Bonilla

Merigó

J. M.

Torres-Abad

(2015). Economics in Latin America: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 105, 1239-1252. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1747-7

Broadus

R. N.

(1987). Toward a definition of “Bibliometrics.” Scientometrics, 12, 373-379. doi:10.1007/BF02016680

Cancino

Merigó

J. M.

Coronado

Dessouky

(2017). Forty years of Computers & Industrial Engineering: A bibliometric analysis. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 113, 614-629. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2017.08.033

Chao

C. C.

Yang

J. M.

Jen

W. Y.

(2007). Determining technology trends and forecasts of RFID by a historical review and bibliometric analysis from 1991 to 2005. Technovation, 27, 268-279. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2006.09.003

Cheng

J. C.-H.

Monroe

M. C.

(2012). Connection to nature: Children’s affective attitude toward nature. Environment and Behavior, 44, 31-49. doi:10.1177/0013916510385082

10.

Chiu

W. T.

Y. S.

(2007). Bibliometric analysis of tsunami research. Scientometrics, 73, 3-17. doi:10.1007/s11192-005-1523-1

11.

Cobo

M. J.

Lopez-Herrera

A. G.

Herrera-Viedma

Herrera

(2011). Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62, 1382-1402. doi:10.1002/asi.21525

12.

Cobo

M. J.

Martínez

M. A.

Gutiérrez-Salcedo

Fujita

Herrera-Viedma

(2015). 25 years at Knowledge-Based Systems: A bibliometric analysis. Knowledge-Based Systems, 80, 3-13. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2014.12.035

13.

Ding

Rousseau

Wolfram

(2014). Measuring scholarly impact: Methods and practice. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

14.

Ebbesen

E. B.

Kjos

G. L.

Konecni

V. J.

(1976). Spatial ecology: Its effects on the choice of friends and enemies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 505-518. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(76)90030-5

15.

Evans

G. W.

Brauchle

Haq

Stecker

Wong

Shapiro

(2007). Young children’s environmental attitudes and behaviors. Environment and Behavior, 39, 635-658. doi:10.1177/0013916506294252

16.

Gann

(2017, August 8). What is considered a good impact factor? [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://mdanderson.libanswers.com/faq/26159

17.

Gaviria-Marín

Merigó

J. M.

Popa

(2018). Twenty years of the Journal of Knowledge Management: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22, 1655-1687. doi:10.1108/JKM-10-2017-0497

18.

Giuliani

M. V.

Scopelliti

(2009). Empirical research in environmental psychology: Past, present, and future. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29, 375-386. doi:10.1108/JKM-10-2017-0497

19.

Glass

G. V.

McGaw

Smith

M. L.

(1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

20.

Glänzel

Schoepflin

(1999). A bibliometric study of reference literature in the sciences and social sciences. Information Processing & Management, 35, 31-44. doi:10.1016/S0306-4573(98)00028-4

21.

Hartig

(2001). Guest editors’ introduction: Restorative environments. Environment and Behavior, 33, 475-479. doi:10.1177/00139160121973098

22.

Hawcroft

L. J.

Milfont

T. L.

(2010). The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the last 30 years: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 143-158. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.10.003

23.

Hirsch

J. E.

(2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 16569-16572. doi:10.1073/pnas.0507655102

24.

Hodge

D. R.

Lacasse

J. R.

(2011). Ranking disciplinary journals with the Google Scholar h-index: A new tool for constructing cases for tenure, promotion, and other professional decisions. Journal of Social Work Education, 47, 579-596. doi:10.5175/JSWE.2011.201000024

25.

Kaiser

F. G.

Wölfing

Fuhler

(1999). Environmental attitude and ecological behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 1-19. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.11.008

26.

Kessler

M. M.

(1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14, 10-25. doi:10.1002/asi.5090140103

27.

Khan

M. A.

Y. S.

(2012). Top-cited articles in environmental sciences: Merits and demerits of citation analysis. Science of the Total Environment, 431, 122-127. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.05.035

28.

Laengle

Merigó

J. M.

Miranda

Slowinski

Bomze

Borgonovo

. . . Teunter

(2017). Forty years of the European Journal of Operational Research: A bibliometric overview. European Journal of Operational Research, 262, 803-816. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2017.04.027

29.

Laengle

Modak

N. M.

Merigó

J. M.

Zurita

(2018). Twenty-five years of Group Decision and Negotiation: A bibliometric overview. Group Decision and Negotiation, 27, 505-542. doi:10.1007/s10726-018-9582-x

30.

Leonidou

C. N.

Leonidou

L. C.

(2011). Research into environmental marketing/management: A bibliographic analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 45, 68-103. doi:10.1108/03090561111095603

31.

Stern

D. I.

(2006). Environmental and ecological economics: A citation analysis. Ecological Economics, 58, 491-506. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.07.023

32.

Martínez-López

F. J.

Merigó

J. M.

Valenzuela

Nicolás

(2018). Fifty years of the European Journal of Marketing: A bibliometric analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 52, 439-468. doi:10.1108/JBIM-04-2016-0079

33.

Merigó

J. M.

Cancino

C. A.

Coronado

Urbano

(2016). Academic research in innovation: A country analysis. Scientometrics, 108, 559-593. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1984-4

34.

Merigó

J. M.

Gil-Lafuente

A. M.

Yager

R. R.

(2015). An overview of fuzzy research with bibliometric indicators. Applied Soft Computing, 27, 420-433. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2014.10.035

35.

Merigó

J. M.

Mas-Tur

Roig-Tierno

Ribeiro-Soriano

(2015). A bibliometric overview of the Journal of Business Research between 1973 and 2014. Journal of Business Research, 68, 2645-2653. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.04.006

36.

Merigó

J. M.

Pedrycz

Weber

de la Sotta

(2018). Fifty years of Information Sciences: A bibliometric overview. Information Sciences, 432, 245-268. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2017.11.054

37.

Merigó

J. M.

Yang

J. B.

(2017). A bibliometric analysis of operations research and management science. Omega—International Journal of Management Science, 73, 37-48. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2016.12.004

38.

Milfont

T. L.

Duckitt

Wagner

(2010). The higher order structure of environmental attitudes: A cross-cultural examination. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 44, 263-273. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.09.001

39.

Milfont

T. L.

Bain

P. G.

Kashima

Corral-Verdugo

Pasquali

Johansson

L.-O.

,…, & Einarsdóttir

(2018). On the relation between social dominance orientation and environmentalism: A 25-nation study. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 802-814. doi: 10.1177/1948550617722832

40.

Milfont

T. L.

Lewicka

(2012). Celebrating 30 years of the Journal of Environmental Psychology. Population and Environmental Psychology Bulletin, 7(4), 6-9. Retrieved from https://www.apadivisions.org/division-34/publications/newsletters/epc/2012/10/celebrating-30-years.aspx

41.

Milfont

T. L.

Page

(2013). A bibliometric review of the first thirty years of the Journal of Environmental Psychology. Psyecology, 4, 195-216. doi:10.1080/21711976.2013.10773866

42.

Modak

N. M.

Merigó

J. M.

Weber

Manzor

Ortuzar

J. D.

(2019). Fifty years of Transportation Research journals: A bibliometric overview. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 120, 188-223. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2018.11.015

43.

Moed

De Bruin

Van Leeuwen

T. H.

(1995). New bibliometric tools for the assessment of national research performance: Database description, overview of indicators and first applications. Scientometrics, 33, 381-422. doi:10.1007/BF02017338

44.

Monteroy Lopez Lena

. (1997). Scientific productivity in environmental psychology in Mexico: A bibliometric analysis. Environment and Behavior, 29, 169-197. doi:10.1177/001391659702900202

45.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

N. P.

Bachrach

D. G.

(2008). Scholarly influence in the field of management: A bibliometric analysis of the determinants of university and author impact in the management literature in the past quarter century. Journal of Management, 34, 641-720. doi:10.1177/0149206308319533

46.

Pritchard

(1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 25, 348-349.

47.

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, 24, 265-269. doi:10.1002/asi.4630240406

48.

Stern

P. C.

Dietz

Kalof

(1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322-348. doi:10.1177/0013916593255002

49.

Tang

Liao

H. C.

S. F.

(2018). A bibliometric overview and visualization of the International Journal of Fuzzy Systems between 2007 and 2017. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 20, 1403-1422. doi:10.1007/s40815-018-0484-5

50.

Tur-Porcar

Mas-Tur

Merigó

J. M.

Roig-Tierno

Watt

(2018). A bibliometric history of the Journal of Psychology between 1936 and 2015. Journal of Psychology, 152, 199-225. doi:10.1080/00223980.2018.1440516

51.

Valenzuela

Merigó

J. M.

Johnston

Nicolás

Jaramillo

(2017). Thirty years of the Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 32, 1-18. doi:10.1108/jbim-04-2016-0079

52.

van Eck

N. J.

Waltman

. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84, 523-538. doi:10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

53.

Wang

Laengle

Merigó

J. M.

Herrera-Viedma

Cobo

M. J.

Bouchon-Meunier

(2018). A bibliometric analysis of the first twenty-five years of the International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 26, 169-193. doi:10.1142/S0218488518500095

54.

Wells

N. M.

(2000). At home with nature: Effects of “greenness” on children’s cognitive functioning. Environment and Behavior, 32, 775-795. doi:10.1177/00139160021972793

55.

Winkel

G. H.

(1969). Editor’s introduction and preface. Environment and Behavior, 1, 3-6.

56.

Yang

(2014). Research trends of post disaster reconstruction: The past and the future. Habitat International, 42, 21-29. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2013.10.005

57.

Z. S.

Kao

Lin

C. T.

(2018). The structure and citation landscape of IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems (1994-2015). IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 26, 430-442. doi:10.1016/j.datak.2008.05.004

58.

Z. S.

Pedrycz

Wang

W. R.

(2017). Information Sciences 1968-2016: A retrospective analysis with text mining and bibliometric. Information Sciences, 418-419, 619-634. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2017.08.031

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

1.55 MB