Biodiversity Management: A Bibliometric Analysis of Scopus Database Publications
Khairul Hafezad Abdullah1*, Davi Sofyan2, Mohd Firdaus Roslan3, Nadin Nadhirah Mohd Shukri4, Waleed A. Hammood5
1 Universiti Teknologi MARA, Perlis Branch, Arau Campus, Malaysia
2 Universitas Majalengka, West Java, Indonesia
3 Tunku Abdul Rahman University of Management and Technology, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
4 Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Kedah, Malaysia
5 Bayan University, Kurdistan, Iraq
*Corresponding Author: [email protected] Accepted: 15 October 2022 | Published: 1 November 2022
DOI:https://doi.org/10.55057/ajfas.2022.3.3.5
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: The concept of biodiversity encompasses the diversity of life and the preservation of natural ecosystems to foster species’ evolution. Humans entail biodiversity for survival, well- being, and comfortable living. This study investigates the publication growth and trends of the worldwide research domain in biodiversity management. The Scopus database was utilised to retrieve 949 articles for this investigation. The analysis consisted of six primary parameters: (1) publication dispersion, (2) geographical distribution, (3) author-affiliated institutions, (4) source titles, (5) prolific authors, and (6) keywords. The results indicated a recent increase in annual publications on biodiversity management. The United States is significant in publishing extensively in this discipline. Dutch authors have published more works in this scientific field than authors from other regions. With 29 available publications, the CNRS Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique in France is the most prominent organisation. This study determined that Biodiversity and Conservation is the leading publication for biodiversity management. The keywords “climate change”, “invasive species”, “protected area”, “biodiversity conservation”, “species richness”,
“restoration”, “conservation”, “ecosystem services”, “biodiversity”, and “sustainability” are the primary linked research subfields in biodiversity management. Notably, the keyword
“biodiversity management” has a significant nexus strength to “conservation”. The interpretation of these results reveals that biodiversity management is directly related to conservation and gives a more substantial relationship to biodiversity. This paradigm has proven useful in evaluating recent research trends and assisting academics and researchers with biodiversity management and policy advance.
Keywords: biodiversity management, bibliometrics, Scopus database
___________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
Biodiversity is not just the assortment of life on Earth; it also encompasses preserving natural habitats and encouraging favourable conditions in which living things might flourish. Humans also need biodiversity for survival, well-being, and quality of life. Consequently, comprehensive and
optimal biodiversity management with systematic planning can benefit all life and ensure the sustainability and stability of the world’s ecosystems. In a changeable environment, biological insurance theory predicts that aggregate ecosystem attributes will vary less in more varied communities because decreases in some species’ performance or abundance will be countered by smoother declines or increases in others (Loreau et al., 2021).
Increasing ecological variety improves stability via multiple processes, including functional redundancy, broader utilisation of available resources, weak among-species interactions, and alternate energy pathways (McCann, 2000). Linking the idea of ecosystem multifunctionality with ecosystem stability can alter the perception of the consequences of diversity on ecological stability and aid in translating this research into policy-relevant knowledge (Pennekamp et al., 2018). Both fundamental and practical ecological study emphasises ecological stability (Kéfi et al., 2019).
Since the late 18th century, life and natural scientists have studied thresholds or points of transition.
Over the past three decades, ecologists and economists worldwide have studied ‘ecological thresholds’ in natural and modified systems to create tools to conserve and sustainably manage natural resources (Huggett, 2005).
Progresses in the theory and practice of stability measurement are necessary if we understand how ecosystems adapt to ongoing environmental changes. This facet necessitates the reasonable maintenance of biodiversity. A likely reason is that the existing network of protected areas worldwide has two significant flaws: it does not cover all ecosystems, and locals frequently dislike competent administration (Bhagwat & Rutte, 2006). In addition, the lack of public support for and opposition to biodiversity management initiatives has often been attributed to the general public’s ostensibly limited awareness of biodiversity (Buijs et al., 2008). Therefore, community-driven initiatives that engage, educate, and empower locals to promote species’ sustainability, especially wildlife, should be strengthened (Goddard et al., 2013). Given the regional and temporal changes in species dominance, this is significant because biodiversity may be vital for the maintenance and resilience of ecological systems (Lohbeck et al., 2016). Simultaneously, more outstanding efforts in conserving urban biodiversity, particularly for fauna species, will raise the urban community’s understanding of fauna conservation (Ahli et al., 2022). Thus, the urban community will be able to appreciate the preservation of faunal species and recognise the impending extinction of the metropolis.
The Significance of Bibliometric Analysis of Biodiversity Management
In bibliometrics research, mapping the knowledge domain is a vital study area. It offers researchers a visual viewpoint and assists them in comprehending the overall problems of specific research fields (Abdullah et al., 2020). Using bibliometric analysis to ascertain research direction is becoming increasingly prevalent. A plausible explanation is that it can be used to assess published materials’ quantity and quality to observe patterns in any research area (Gazali et al., 2021). Also, it enables us to dissect the evolutionary nuances of a particular research field and shed light on its emerging areas (Donthu et al., 2021). Numerous highly influential articles employing bibliometric techniques to examine the evolutionary nuances of various subject areas and identify emerging trends have been published by leading journals and scholars from multiple academic fields (Mukherjee et al., 2022).
Bibliometric analysis has been performed in the field of biodiversities, including general research on biodiversity (Stork & Astrin, 2014), greenspace biodiversity, health, and well-being (Houlden et al., 2021), biodiversity accounting and reporting (Blanco-Zaitegi et al., 2022), and biodiversity loss (Tan et al., 2022). Despite this, its application in biodiversity management is still relatively new and, in many instances, underdeveloped. Therefore, the current bibliometric analysis aims to investigate the publication growth and trends of the worldwide research domain in biodiversity management by addressing the following research questions (RQs):
• RQ1: How many publications on biodiversity management have been dispersed over the years?
• RQ2: What is the geographical distribution of biodiversity management research?
• RQ3: What is the frequency of author affiliations within the articles?
• RQ4: How are source titles distributed throughout the articles?
• RQ5: Who are the most prolific authors communicating global research ideas on biodiversity management?
• RQ6: What are the fundamental concepts relevant to the analysis of the authors’ keywords that could contribute to the knowledge on biodiversity management?
2. Methodology
Bibliometric analysis has become an effective method for examining and analysing enormous quantities of scientific data from various databases such as Scopus and Web of Science (Sofyan &
Abdullah, 2022). This is because the number of articles published in a particular field of study, whether it is pure science or social science, allows researchers to obtain the most relevant data to conduct further analysis and trace the evolution of the subject (Abdullah, 2022). Consequently, this method is projected to comprehend the publication growth and summarise the current state of an established or emerging research topic in biodiversity management.
In this study, bibliometric analysis was performed using the VOSviewer software version 1.6.18, developed by Van Eck and Waltman. VOSviewer utilised mapping-based visual elements to assist researchers in converting CSV-formatted publication data into diagrams or clusters that provide valuable information to the targeted readers (Van Eck & Waltman, 2014). In addition, mapping techniques promote researchers in analysing data from articles comprised of information pertinent to authors, locations, institutions, citations, co-citations, and other refined aspects (Sofyan et al., 2022).
Figure 1 illustrates the protocol for collecting and analysing data following the systematic outline by Zare et al. (2017). Using a Scopus database subscription, the information was retrieved in September 2022 from the digital collection of Perpustakaan Tun Abdul Razak, Universiti Teknologi MARA. Numerous scholars frequently cite publications in the Scopus database. Also, Scopus contains a significantly greater number of documents than Web of Science and PubMed.
Based on these reasons, therefore, the Scopus database has been chosen for the current study.
The bibliometric analysis began with identifying keywords that would lead to accurate information pertinent to the research questions (Abdullah, 2021). The Scopus database was searched using the keyword “Biodiversity Management” to identify relevant articles. The search strategy was organised through TITLE-ABS-KEY search refinement without considering publication years.
Accordingly, 949 publications were retrieved, with the initial year of publication being 1992.
Notably, the results may vary if other researchers use similar keywords and retrieve them at different times. This resulted from the constant updating of data within the Scopus database.
The obtained results were then downloaded in CSV and RIS format and processed with VOSviewer and Publish or Perish to analyse the bibliometric parameters. There were 776 journal sources, 85 books, 46 conference papers, 34 book series, and eight trade journals. A total of 907 publications were written in English, and another 47 were written in Chinese, French, Spanish, German, and Italian.
Once the data has been collected, the next step is to eliminate duplicate publications. The process of removing identical publication lists is carried out in Microsoft Excel using conditional formatting by identifying the same titles, authors, and publishers. This strategy discovered six similar publications which needed to be obliterated before the subsequent analysis. Hence, this study ascertained the total number of valid and defensible publications was 943.
Figure 1: Research Protocol for Obtaining Data
3. Results
Publications Dispersion
The number of publications is a crucial factor in determining the growth of research in biodiversity management. The first indexed article in the Scopus database was published in 1992, accounting for two publications, as shown in Figure 2. In the 1990s, the number of publications remained constant at one digit, less than ten per year. This means that Scopus index journals published few biodiversity management publications during the period. In 2006, Scopus began publishing more
than 20 articles, which peaked at 68 in 2021. The intensification of biodiversity management publications in the Scopus database is anticipated to continue over the next few years. A possible reason is that before the end of the year 2022, Scopus had already published 63 related articles, and the number of publications for this year will be updated soon as there are still three months left in 2022 at the time this analysis is conducted.
Figure 2: Publication Dispersion
Geographical distribution: Author-affiliated Countries
Tabulated in Table 1 is the list of ten author-affiliated countries with a minimum number of 49 publications. It is noteworthy that the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom published more than 100 copies of research on biodiversity management. Consequently, these developed countries have published the most significant number of articles on this topic. France, India, and Germany were among the countries that had published more than 70 research papers. In this study, Canada, Brazil, Italy, and Spain published fewer than sixty copies of their articles.
Table 1: Author-Affiliated Countries
No. Country Publications
1 United States 139
2 Australia 127
3 United Kingdom 100
4 France 82
5 India 75
6 Germany 74
7 Canada 54
8 Brazil 49
9 Italy 49
10 Spain 49
2 2 2 5 4 6 4 8 10 6
1115 14 15 3229
4043 44 30
38 63
41 49
57 52
65 66 6568 63
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Annual Publication
Year
Author-affiliated Institutions
An author’s affiliation in a scholarly publication is the institution at which the work being reported was completed. It is crucial to comprehend that the list of institutions in Table 2 is recorded based on the corresponding authors’ information. Table 2 lists ten institutions that actively published related work on biodiversity management comprised of research organisations and universities.
The top published institution recognised in this study was France-based CNRS Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. This institution has published a total of 29 publications. Next is Wageningen University & Research in the Netherlands, with 26 publications. Both institutions have published more than 20 related articles on biodiversity management.
Table 2: Author-Affiliated Institutions
No. Institutions Types Countries Publications
1 CNRS Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique Research Organisation France 29
2 Wageningen University & Research University Netherlands 26
3 The University of Queensland University Australia 14
4 Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina University Brazil 13 5 Chinese Academy of Sciences Research Organisation China 13
6 Helsingin Yliopisto University Finland 12
7 Helmholtz Zentrum für
Umweltforschung Research Organisation Germany 12
8 Bioversity International Research Organisation Italy 12
9 Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet University Sweden 11
10 Stellenbosch University University South Africa 10
Source Titles
The source titles parameter in this study refers to the journal-title. This study recorded 13 source titles with a minimum of eight publications, as designated in Table 3. The source title Biodiversity and Conservation was identified as the leading publication for biodiversity management articles, with 23 such works appearing in the journal. Forest Ecology and Management is in second place.
Third place is a tie between Biological Conservation and the Journal of Applied Ecology. The findings suggest that these sources have been providing helpful information that will be sourced by future researchers and valuable in their work toward biodiversity management. Moreover, this indicates that the source titles make it less complicated for readers to access and manipulate the data they need.
Table 3: Source Titles
No. Source Titles Publications
1 Biodiversity and Conservation 23
2 Forest Ecology and Management 21
3 Biological Conservation 16
4 Journal of Applied Ecology 16
5
Community Biodiversity Management Promoting Resilience and The Conservation of Plant Genetic Resources
14
6 Conservation Biology 12
7 PLOS One 12
8 Ecological Indicators 9
9 Sustainability Switzerland 9
10 Acta Horticulturae 8
11 Business Strategy and The Environment 8
12 Ecological Applications 8
13 Environmental Management 8
Prolific Authors
A publication’s author is the person or people responsible for its creation or conception, making them ultimately accountable for its contents. Table 4 displays that a total of nine authors have published at least five works on biodiversity management. According to Table 4, Dutch authors published more publications in this research domain than authors from other countries. The author, de Boef, W.S., was affiliated with Wageningen University & Research, the Netherlands, and had 13 publications on biodiversity management. Subedi, A., the second-ranked author from Wageningen University & Research, the Netherlands, published nine works. Sthapit, B., the third active author from Bioversity International, Italy, issued seven articles. In the context of this study, these authors may be regarded as the current leading scholars.
Table 4: Prolific Authors
No. Authors Affiliations Countries Publications
1 de Boef, W.S. Wageningen University & Research Netherlands 13 2 Subedi, A. Wageningen University & Research Netherlands 9
3 Sthapit, B. Bioversity International Italy 7
4 Boiral, O. Université Laval Canada 6
5 Fischer, A. Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet Sweden 6
6 Heras-Saizarbitoria,
I. Universidad del Pais Vasco Spain 6
7 Shrestha, P. Research and Development LI-BIRD Nepal 6
8 Rocchini, D. Alma Mater Studiorum Università di
Bologna Italy 5
9 Thijssen, M. Wageningen University & Research Netherlands 5
Authors’ Keywords
In research articles, the author’s keywords define the article’s field, subfield, topic, and research issue. Researchers can find articles by conducting a subject search. Most electronic search engines, databases, and journal websites use author keywords to identify relevant documents and present them to attentive readers. This section analyses the keywords used by previous authors using VOSviewer. Similar American and British spellings and singular and plural keyword forms, including abbreviations, may be merged to complete the analysis. Along with that, the thesaurus file is used to avoid using words with the same meaning but different spellings. These manual operations organise data and eliminate duplicate terms, producing more substantial results.
VOSviewer mapped the authors’ keywords observed in this analysis. Figure 3 depicts a network diagram of the co-occurrence of the author’s keywords. The connecting lines’ colour, node size, font size, and thickness are used to represent the relationship between those keywords. Figure 3
shows four clusters containing 14 items out of 2960 keywords after considering a minimum number of citations of ten. The list of items is shown in Table 5. It is noted that the keyword
“biodiversity management” has been linked to ten keywords with a total link strength of 31 and occurrences of 101. The ten keywords were “climate change”, “invasive species”, “protected area”, “biodiversity conservation”, “species richness”, “restoration”, “conservation”, ecosystem services”, “biodiversity”, and “sustainability”. In order to better comprehend the development of the biodiversity management concept, clarify its fundamental components, and pinpoint avenues for future study, this map has specified subtopics related to biodiversity management.
Figure 3: Network Visualization Map of Author Keywords
Following that, the occurrences in this study depicted that the more significant node’s size, the more occurrences occurred. The line nexus between the two nodes represents the total link strength; the thicker it is, the strong relationship has tied up. The keyword “biodiversity management” has a more significant link strength of seven with the keyword “conservation”. The keyword “conservation” has a link strength of 17 with “biodiversity”. Interpreting these results makes us understand that biodiversity management is closely associated with conservation and provides more connection to biodiversity.
Table 5: Clusters of Keywords Items
Clusters Represented Colours Items
First Cluster Red 1. Adaptation
2. Climate change 3. Invasive species 4. Management 5. Protected areas
Second Cluster Green 1. Biodiversity conservation
2. Biodiversity management 3. Species richness
4. Sustainability
Third Cluster Blue 1. Conservation 2. Ecosystem services 3. Restoration
Forth Cluster yellow 1. Biodiversity
2. Remote sensing
4. Discussion
The level of biodiversity within an ecosystem is generally accepted as a reliable measure of that ecosystem’s overall vitality. Diverse populations are more able to withstand dangers than concentrated ones of any one species. While individual species may be wiped out by pollution, climate change, or human activity, the ecosystem may be able to recover. Based on a retrieval of the Scopus database, this investigation tracks the development and growth of scholarly articles about worldwide biodiversity management studies. The assessments of the measured parameters have been performed and visualised in a graphical format of the VOSviewer programme.
Scopus began publishing around 20 articles each year in 2006; by 2021, that number had increased to 68. Over the next few years, the number of articles about biodiversity management in Scopus is expected to rise. This may be in reaction to the realisation that increased resource utilisation and emission levels over the past decade have had a negative impact on the planet’s ecosystems, resulting in a loss of biodiversity. Putting the next generation of biodiversity scenarios focus on two immediate steps: recognising the tension between economic growth and biodiversity protection in future policies and exploring socioeconomic trajectories beyond economic growth (Otero et al., 2020). Therefore, previous academics have shown interest in publishing publications connected to this component to address this issue through in-depth and ongoing research in the biodiversity management framework. Remarkably, over a hundred copies of research on biodiversity management were published in the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom.
Therefore, these advanced countries have produced most of the literature on this subject.
Furthermore, the analysis should consider that most Scopus-listed journals are published in English, which benefits countries where the language is spoken.
France-based CNRS Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique has become the most affiliated- author institution that published more research papers on biodiversity management. This institution has published a total of 29 publications. The second most active institution is Wageningen University & Research in the Netherlands, with 26 publications. In addition, Dutch authors published more publications in this research domain than authors from other countries.
The author, de Boef, W.S., was affiliated with Wageningen University & Research, the Netherlands, and had 13 publications on biodiversity management. Subedi, A., the second-ranked author from Wageningen University & Research, the Netherlands, published nine works. The results of this analysis reveal that a comprehensive study on biodiversity management has been welcomed in France and the Netherlands, which significantly impacts improving the strategy for conserving the ecosystem. Integration of policies is being examined more than ever before and is increasingly seen as a fundamental principle of sustainable development. Policy integration procedures and the resulting modifications are essential to biodiversity protection; thus, the practices of nations such as France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden are of the utmost importance (Sotirov & Storch, 2018).
It has been determined that Biodiversity and Conservation is the premier journal for biodiversity management publications. Forest Ecology and Management is positioned second. Biological Conservation and the Journal of Applied Ecology are tied for the third position. Consequently, it is understood that these periodicals are tangential to scientific studies about biodiversity management. This skewed distribution is expected in bibliometrics since only a few journals are devoted to specific topics, even though numerous others may publish scholarly papers on the subject. It is indicated that these source titles have contributed knowledge that will allow future scholars to refer to them and enhance their biodiversity management study.
The keywords “climate change”, “invasive species”, “protected area”, “biodiversity conservation”,
“species richness”, “restoration”, “conservation”, “ecosystem services”, “biodiversity”, and
“sustainability” were the ten keywords that strongly linked to biodiversity management. This map identifies biodiversity management subtopics to facilitate comprehension of the evolution of the idea of biodiversity management, clarification of its core components, and identification of opportunities for further research. Also, it is indicated that many researchers previously concentrated their research on biodiversity management concerning those ten keywords. Besides, essential to emphasise is that the keyword “biodiversity management” strongly connects with
“conservation”. And the keywords “conservation” and “biodiversity” have a strength of nexus between them. These data, when interpreted, reveal that biodiversity management is directly related to conservation and provides a more vital link to biodiversity. Notably, in practice, the fundamental components of biodiversity are the abundance of local and global species, the genetic diversity of populations and species, the spatial range and condition of natural habitats, and the survival-critical function of ecosystems (Haahtela, 2019). Future scholars can continue their investigations on other elements to expand the research domain in biodiversity management based on the author’s keyword analysis. This means that the results of the author’s keywords analysis in this study can identify research gaps that future researchers can investigate further to ensure the development of biodiversity management research.
5. Conclusion
This study summarises the results of a bibliometric evaluation of the literature on biodiversity management, providing a quantitative understanding of the field’s prevailing trends in this area of study. However, there are bounds on the analytical method and record categorisation that must be considered. It is important to remember that the bibliometric review might have been conducted using alternative databases, such as the Web of Science (WoS) or Google Scholar. Furthermore, a bibliometric review is essentially meaningless in and of itself. Publications were only included if they satisfied the search criteria and filtering specifications outlined in the methodology (“biodiversity management”).
Bibliographic mapping was shown to help assess the interconnectedness of the chosen resources, which facilitated a clearer understanding of the results. The key analysed elements showed that the field of biodiversity management has increased, especially after 2006, with over 20 studies recorded yearly. Based on the keyword analysis, it is recommended that future research consider the following: (1) the systemic approach to biodiversity management, which seeks to bridge the information gap between biodiversity and sustainability; (2) biodiversity management of tropical ecosystems and other critical ecosystems; and (3) biodiversity management that addresses
anthropogenic, climate change, and environmental issues in an integrated manner. In addition, as biodiversity management research progresses, new vital research areas are expected to arise.
Principally, new threats are posed to efforts to preserve biodiversity due to climate change. Current reserves will be unable to sustain all the species they were created to protect because of how species ranges and ecological dynamics respond to recent climatic alterations.
Scholars and researchers can benefit greatly from this study’s concise explanation of the future of biodiversity management. Adding significantly to the existing body of research and development on biodiversity management is also helpful. Lastly, this study demonstrated the current state of biodiversity management research and knowledge gaps, which may encourage the development of new studies and worldwide scientific output pertinent to biodiversity management and policy advance.
References
Abdullah, K. H. (2021). Mapping of marine safety publications using VOSviewer. ASM Science Journal, 16, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.32802/asmscj.2021.774
Abdullah, K. H. (2022). Publication trends in Biology Education: A bibliometric review of 63 years. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 19(2), 465-480.
http://tused.org/index.php/tused/article/view/1190
Abdullah, K. H., Hashim, M. N., & Abd Aziz, F. S. (2020). A 39 years (1980-2019) bibliometric analysis of safety leadership research. TEST Engineering and Management, 83, 4526-4542.
http://www.testmagzine.biz/index.php/testmagzine/article/view/13730/10495
Ahli, N., Suratman, R., Hosen, N., & Jagun, Z. T. (2022). A review of urban biodiversity management: Local Authority approach. Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal, 7(19), 349-356. https://doi.org/10.21834/ebpj.v7i19.3250
Bhagwat, S. A., & Rutte, C. (2006). Sacred groves: Potential for biodiversity management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4(10), 519-524.
https://doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2006)4[519:SGPFBM]2.0.CO;2
Blanco-Zaitegi, G., Etxeberria, I. Á., & Moneva, J. M. (2022). Biodiversity accounting and reporting: A systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 133677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133677
Buijs, A. E., Fischer, A., Rink, D., & Young, J. C. (2008). Looking beyond superficial knowledge gaps: Understanding public representations of biodiversity. The International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management, 4(2), 65-80. https://doi.org/10.3843/Biodiv.4.2:1 Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a
bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285- 296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
Gazali, N., Cendra, R., Saputra, H. D., Saad, N. B., Winarno, M. E., Hanief, Y. N., ... & Tulyakul, S. (2021). Trends and patterns of 2013 curriculum research in physical education:
Bibliometric analysis from 2013-2020. Multilateral: Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga, 20(3), 179-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.20527/multilateral.v20i3.11656
Goddard, M. A., Dougill, A. J., & Benton, T. G. (2013). Why garden for wildlife? Social and ecological drivers, motivations and barriers for biodiversity management in residential
landscapes. Ecological economics, 86, 258-273.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.07.016
Haahtela, T. (2019). A biodiversity hypothesis. Allergy, 74(8), 1445-1456.
https://doi.org/10.1111/all.13763
Houlden, V., Jani, A., & Hong, A. (2021). Is biodiversity of greenspace important for human health and wellbeing? A bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review. Urban Forestry &
Urban Greening, 66, 127385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127385
Huggett, A. J. (2005). The concept and utility of ‘ecological thresholds’ in biodiversity
conservation. Biological conservation, 124(3), 301-310.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.01.037
Kéfi, S., Domínguez‐García, V., Donohue, I., Fontaine, C., Thébault, E., & Dakos, V. (2019).
Advancing our understanding of ecological stability. Ecology Letters, 22(9), 1349-1356.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.13340
Lohbeck, M., Bongers, F., Martinez‐Ramos, M., & Poorter, L. (2016). The importance of biodiversity and dominance for multiple ecosystem functions in a human‐modified tropical landscape. Ecology, 97(10), 2772-2779. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.1499
Loreau, M., Barbier, M., Filotas, E., Gravel, D., Isbell, F., Miller, S. J., ... & Dee, L. E. (2021).
Biodiversity as insurance: From concept to measurement and application. Biological Reviews, 96(5), 2333-2354. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12756
McCann, K. S. (2000). The diversity–stability debate. Nature, 405(6783), 228-233.
https://doi.org/10.1038/35012234
Mukherjee, D., Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., & Donthu, N. (2022). Guidelines for advancing theory and practice through bibliometric research. Journal of Business Research, 148, 101-115.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.042
Otero, I., Farrell, K. N., Pueyo, S., Kallis, G., Kehoe, L., Haberl, H., ... & Pe'Er, G. (2020).
Biodiversity policy beyond economic growth. Conservation letters, 13(4), e12713.
https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12713
Pennekamp, F., Pontarp, M., Tabi, A., Altermatt, F., Alther, R., Choffat, Y., ... & Petchey, O. L.
(2018). Biodiversity increases and decreases ecosystem stability. Nature, 563(7729), 109- 112. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0627-8
Sofyan, D., & Abdullah, K. H. (2022). College sport publication trends over 15 decades: A bibliometric analysis. Khizanah Al-Hikmah: Jurnal Ilmu Perpustakaan, Informasi, Dan Kearsipan, 10(1), 69-82. https://doi.org/10.24252/kah.v10i1a7
Sofyan, D., Abdullah, K. H., Akinci, A. Y., Oluwatoyin, I. M., Rojo, J. R., Shompong, S., &
Tanucan, J. C. M. (2022). Sports activities during the Covid 19 pandemic: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Metrics Studies and Social Science, 1(1), 50-60.
https://doi.org/10.56916/jmsss.v1i1.76
Sotirov, M., & Storch, S. (2018). Resilience through policy integration in Europe? Domestic forest policy changes as response to absorb pressure to integrate biodiversity conservation, bioenergy use and climate protection in France, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. Land use policy, 79, 977-989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.04.034
Stork, H., & Astrin, J. J. (2014). Trends in biodiversity research—a bibliometric assessment. Open Journal of Ecology, 4(07), 354. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/oje.2014.47033
Tan, Y. L., Yiew, T. H., Habibullah, M. S., Chen, J. E., Mat Kamal, S. N. I., & Saud, N. A. (2022).
Research trends in biodiversity loss: A bibliometric analysis. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22211-9
Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2014). Visualising bibliometric networks. In Measuring scholarly impact (pp. 285-320). Springer, Cham. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8_13
Zare, F., Elsawah, S., Iwanaga, T., Jakeman, A. J., & Pierce, S. A. (2017). Integrated water assessment and modelling: A bibliometric analysis of trends in the water resource sector. Journal of Hydrology, 552, 765-778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.07.031
