Next Article in Journal
Estimation of Appropriate Acceleration Lane Length for Safe and Efficient Truck Platooning Operation on Freeway Merge Areas
Next Article in Special Issue
Selected Economic Determinants of Labor Profitability in Family Farms in Poland in Relation to Economic Size
Previous Article in Journal
Study on the Optimal Cross-Sectional Shapes of the PEMFC Endplates by Using a Moment of Inertia and 3D FEM Models
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Scientometric Analysis of Climate Change Adaptation Studies

by
Tiberiu Iancu
1,
Valentina Constanta Tudor
2,*,
Eduard Alexandru Dumitru
3,
Cristina Maria Sterie
4,
Marius Mihai Micu
2,
Dragos Smedescu
2,
Liviu Marcuta
2,
Elena Tonea
1,
Paula Stoicea
2,
Catalin Vintu
2,
Andy Felix Jitareanu
5 and
Luiza Carmen Costuleanu
5
1
Department of Management and Rural Development, Faculty of Management and Rural Tourism, University of Life Sciences “King Mihai I” from Timisoara, Calea Aradului, No. 119, 300645 Timisoara, Romania
2
Faculty of Management and Rural Development, University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, 010961 Bucharest, Romania
3
Office for Rural Development, Research Institute for Agriculture Economy and Rural Development, 010961 Bucharest, Romania
4
Doctoral School of Economics II, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 010374 Bucharest, Romania
5
Department of Agroeconomics, Faculty of Agriculture, Ion Ionescu de la Brad Iasi University of Life Sciences, Mihail Sadoveanu Alley, No. 3, 700490 Iasi, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(19), 12945; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912945
Submission received: 22 September 2022 / Revised: 3 October 2022 / Accepted: 8 October 2022 / Published: 10 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Agricultural Economy)

Abstract

:
In recent years, climate change has begun to put pressure on humanity and affect natural and human systems. The aim of this paper is to provide an improved understanding of the state of the literature on the impacts of climate change that can be addressed through measures related to disaster risk reduction, sustainable agricultural practices, and the circular economy. This review also represents a valuable and fundamental reference for both researchers and practitioners in these fields. A total of 74,703 articles (climate change adaptation, 45,030; disaster risk reduction, 5920; sustainable agricultural practices, 7940; circular economy, 15,813) published between 1990 and 2022 were extracted from the Web of Science Core Collection, and the links between these areas were mapped using VOSviewer. There has been an increase in the amount of published research on these four topics since 2007, indicating the increasing involvement of researchers to address these topics, influenced by the concerns of national and international bodies to address these changes.

1. Introduction

Researchers have detected significant changes in climate over 150 years, manifested mainly by a 0.8 °C increase in average temperature [1,2]. This has been driven by increasing greenhouse emissions, and by 2100, temperatures are expected to increase by between 1.8 and 4.0 °C [3,4]. CO2, CH4, and N2O contents in the atmosphere have increased significantly since 1750 [5,6], driven by fossil fuel use, changes in land use, and increased agricultural activity [7,8,9].
Across the world, many natural systems are being affected by climate change, particularly due to rising temperatures [10,11,12]. The number of glacial lakes is increasing, river flows are being fed by melting snow, glacier melt is significantly increasing, and river and lake temperatures are rising [13,14,15,16,17]. With respect to birds, migrations start earlier and species are spreading toward the poles [18,19,20].
The effects of global warming are evidenced by countless observations of increased air and ocean temperatures and melting snow and glaciers [21,22], leading to an increase in global average sea levels [23,24]. Changes in ocean salinity, wind, and extreme weather events, such as droughts, heavy rain, and heat waves, have also been identified [25,26].
In terms of food production, temperature increases exceeding 1–3 °C could result in decreased yields, increasing the risk of famine [23,27].
The risk of coastal erosion will increase as a result of climate change and rising sea levels, with millions of people expected to be inundated each year, especially in low-lying, densely populated areas. The greater the effects of climate change, the greater the negative impacts on industries, settlements, and societies, especially poor communities, which are particularly vulnerable, and the greater the economic and social costs [6,7,28].
In Europe, wide-ranging impacts are expected, including glacial retreat, longer growing seasons, and changes in the geographical distribution of species, with implications for all regions of Europe. The risk of flooding will also increase, and many species in mountain areas will suffer [27,28,29]. In northern Europe, a reduction in heating needs due to increasing temperatures is expected, but this advantage will be outweighed by many disadvantages [30,31].
Some agricultural crops may be more productive if temperatures increase by 1–2 °C but will be negatively affected if temperature increased exceed this range. The latest economic data indicate that with a temperature increase of 4 °C, the average global loss would be between 1 and 5% of the global GDP [15,18,32].
Extreme climatic effects are expected to increase and become more frequent; the increased frequency and intensity of heat waves could lead to a decrease in agricultural production, affecting water availability and increasing heat-related deaths [33,34].
In some colder areas, an increase in temperature would lead to fewer cold nights, resulting in increased agricultural productivity, fewer deaths related to cold, and a reduction in energy required for heating. Furthermore, increased heavy rainfall would increase the risk of flooding and soil erosion and reduce surface water quality [13,14,18].
In developed and developing countries, the focus in recent decades has been on consumption of products in all sectors, leading to resource depletion and environmental impacts. Thus, practices that have been useful since the development of mankind are being revived with the aim of protecting the environment [14,35].
The effects of climate change are visible, so the most appropriate way forward is to adapt to climate change through measures aimed at reducing the risk of (natural) disasters, using sustainable agricultural practices, and implementing a circular economy (Figure 1).
According to the latest scenarios produced by researchers, global temperatures are projected to increase by 0.2 °C every decade [36,37,38]. Furthermore, warming tends to reduce the absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere on land and in the oceans, leading to more man-made emissions remaining in the atmosphere [39,40,41].
Although there are some limitations to the effects of climate change, scientists report that over the last 30 years, global warming has had a measurable impact on physical and biological systems [42,43]. Furthermore, some regional effects are only now emerging and are difficult to disentangle because they depend on factors other than climate [44,45,46,47].
The impact of warming is viewed from several perspectives, namely the expected impact on natural systems, on human populations, and on specific regions. The effects of climate change affect all regions of the Earth, from the North Pole to the South Pole and from the Americas to Asia, with repercussions on natural systems and implications for water and ecosystems, as well as for people, affecting food production, industries, settlements, and societies. Therefore, action needs to be taken globally to mitigate these challenges associated with climate change (Figure 2).
Research in the field reveals bleak predictions unless action is taken to combat global warming [17,19,36]. Natural systems will suffer in terms of water availability and river flows, which will increase in high-latitude areas and decrease in some mid-latitude areas and in the tropics [21,27,40]. Additionally, one-sixth of the world’s population will be affected by water availability [26,27,28].
Between 20 and 30% of plant and animal species will be at increased risk of extinction, leading to major ecosystem changes, affecting biodiversity and the supply of water and food to the population [45,46,47].
In research, we visually present an overview of the literature in the fields of climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, sustainable agricultural practices, and the circular economy. Research collaboration between countries, organizations, and authors is also presented based on a series of cooperative analyses. In terms of bibliometric analysis of existing works, we aim to provide a valuable and fundamental reference for both researchers and practitioners in these areas.

2. Materials and Methods

Data collected from the Web of Science platform on the number of publications on the topics of climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, sustainable agriculture practices, and circular economy were entered into SPSS statistical software (SPSS Statistics 20, IBM Software Group, Chicago, IL, USA). We performed descriptive statistics on studies published between 1990 and 2022. To this end, the minimum, maximum, range mean, and standard deviation were determined, as well as the Skewness and Kurtosis indices, which are important to characterize the distribution of the analysed series [48]. A total of 74,703 articles were analysed and classified into four domains over a period of 33 years (N) (1990–2022): climate change adaptation, 45,030; disaster risk reduction, 5920; sustainable agricultural practices, 7940; circular economy, 15,813. The data for 2022 are partial, as only studies published by mid-year were quantified.
Scientometrics is considered one of the most important disciplines of science, defined as an informational process performed through the quantitative study of science. For the purpose of our work, we use the term science in the epistemological sense, which implies a general development of the system under analysis, with emphasis on inter-relationships and disciplinary structure. As a structural entity of scientometrics, structural scientometrics was approached through bibliometric links, cocitation, and cognitive structure mapping of science perceptions [48,49].
The aim of this process is to provide an objective picture of how science develops over the years; how it evaluates timeliness by generating the main topics of interest used in academic work; and how it optimally organizes research systems and activities, management, and research productivity [50,51].
The term “bibliometrics” was first used by Alan Pritchaed as early as 1969 and is considered a statistical and mathematical method, the scope of which is books and publications, and is also considered a branch of scientometrics. In this research, Web of Science database search results were exported into text format, including scientific articles on the topics of adaptation to climate change, reduction in disaster risk reduction, sustainable agricultural practices, and circular economy. We then uploaded these text data to VOSviewer software (Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands) to generate maps based on keywords of the included publications classified according to the main topic, research directions, and degree of cooperation between countries [51]. Through these keywords used to generate the database, we obtained unique results for publications studying these topics. Changing the search words generated completely different results (Table 1).
Scientometric analysis was used to identify the performance of the articles and their results, as well as the journals, the mode of collaboration, and the research constructs [51].
Data were extracted from the Web of Science database, for which advanced search mode was used for the time period from 1990 to 2022, including various types of publications. Step 2 consisted of processing the extracted data and generating maps on the topics of interest for, about which conclusions were made in the third step (Figure 3).

3. Results

In terms of the evolution of the number of WOS articles published according to the field analysed, there has been a considerable increase in the number of articles on the topic of “effects of climate change” (6008 publications in 2021). There has also been a marked increase in the number of articles on the “circular economy”, reaching 4730 in 2021 (Figure 4).
Regarding descriptive statistics of the variables analysed, we observe that the most publications were recorded in the case of climate change adaptation, reaching a maximum of 6008 publications, as well as in the case of circular economy, with 4730 publications. In the last 10 years, the interest of researchers in climate change adaptation has accelerated, compared to the circular economy, which has seen a substantial increase in publications only in the last 5 years. This also explains the positive values of the Skewness and Kurtosis indices. Thus, the four variables with a value greater than 0 indicate that the distribution analysed is not symmetrical, tending more towards the lower part. Additionally, the Kurtosis index shows values higher than 0, which indicates a leptokurtic distribution of the analysed data (Table 2).

3.1. Climate Change Adaptation

According to the Web of Science database, the subject of “adaptation to climate change” is increasingly addressed, with 45,032 papers identified written between 1990 and 2022 in categories such as environmental sciences (14,302 papers), environmental studies (8701 papers), ecology (5656 papers), meteorology atmospheric science (5579 papers), water resources (3541 papers), green sustainable science technology (2948 papers), and multidisciplinary geosciences (2527 papers) (Figure 5).
The main interlinked keywords are impact of change, decision making, evolution, climate impact, government, policy, adaptation pathways, global environmental change, climate risk, integrated assessment, global warming, and global environmental change (Figure 6).
These are grouped into clusters. The first cluster (green) includes terms such as impact of change, system, responses, uncertainty, variability, climate resilience, evolution, model, water resources, decision making, evolution, model, scenarios, irrigation, energy, global warming, climate impact, adaptation measures, simulation, crop yield, wheat, maize, crop production, economic impact, land use, agriculture, food security, productivity, farmer perception, and temperature (Figure 6).
The second cluster (red) is associated with the following topics: resilience, policy, knowledge, sustainable adaptation, overcoming barriers, government, institutions, state, innovation, plans, public health, urban, cities, sustainability, urban planning, spatial planning, integration, zones, municipalities, adaptation pathways, adaptive governance, transformation, opportunities, global environmental change, climate risk, marine, land, integrated assessment, diversification, and impact assessment (Figure 6).
The third cluster (blue) includes terms such as future, risk, foresight, vulnerability assessment, communication, change, climate justice, framework, management, science, conservation, forest management, adaptive management, biodiversity, restoration, risk assessment, region, infrastructure, forest, and carbon (Figure 6).
The fourth cluster (orange) is interconnected with the following terms: social science, costs, vulnerability, capacity, economics, climate policy, public policy, development, insights, equality, indicators, migration, and poverty (Figure 6).
The fifth cluster (purple) includes keywords such as strategies, migration, perceptions, change mitigation, agriculture, perspectives, risk perceptions, trust, floods, resettlement, smallholder farmers, attitudes, choice, farmers, soil, smallholder, and information (Figure 6).
In 2015, the main topics addressed were management, climate impact, social science, environmental, risk management, capacity, migration, local government, finance, flood, food, crop, costs, global warning, forest, ecosystem, and trends (Figure 7).
In 2016 and 2017 research focused on implementation, tourism, disaster risk reduction, science, transformation, conservation, biodiversity, model, agriculture, variability, choice, informational, perception, farmers, system, resettlement, governance, barriers, resilience, politics, adaptation panning, water, poverty, communities, and climate change policy (Figure 7).
In 2018, the following topics emerged: food security, yields, rice, land use, soil, productivity, climate adaptation, change adaptation, social-ecological systems, economic impact, climate justice, state, behaviour, decision-making, and level adaptation (Figure 7).
In 2019, researchers took a keen interest in the following topics: perceptions, mitigation of change, farmer, social capital, small farmers, determinants, adaptation, technical efficiency, rice yield, technology, strategies, climate resilience, agricultural adaptation, water-use efficiency, irrigation, land, biodiversity conservation, opportunities, city, urban, plans, area, awareness, resources, power. The evolution over time of the connectivity of the keywords analysed underwent a shift from climate change impacts, covering a more general set of topics, to the analysis of more specific topics, with a focus on solutions to adapt to climate change, particularly in relation to agriculture, with a focus on farmers, efficiency techniques, irrigation, and rational water use (Figure 7).
Austria, the United States, and the Netherlands are countries that attach particular importance to the specified topic, all of them addressing different research topics.
According to the map, there are six research directions, with Romania, Portugal, Poland, Finland, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Belgium, Sweden, Scotland, Italy, and Germany pursuing a similar research direction, with Romania in close collaboration with Portugal and Poland. The close association between authors from member countries of the European Union can be attributed to the various research programs funded by the European Union that foster partnerships between these countries. At the other end of the spectrum are authors from the USA, whose collaborations are mainly with researchers from India. In general, the interconnectivity between authors is global on the theme of “climate change adaptation”, as is to be expected, given that this is a global problem (Figure 8).

3.2. Disaster Risk Reduction

Between 1991 and 2022, 5920 scientific papers were published on the subject of disaster risk reduction, covering topics such as multidisciplinary geosciences (1729 papers), meteorology atmospheric science (1495 papers), water resources (1445 papers), environmental studies (1359 papers), environmental science (1259 papers), occupational environmental public health (636 papers), and civil engineering (350 papers) (Figure 9).
According to the bibliometric analysis, the main topics were climate change, policy, built environment, hazards, disaster risk management, social vulnerability, Hurricane Katrina, uncertainty, variability, community, education, people, and children. These keywords occurred at least five times in a survey and are grouped into clusters (Figure 10).
The first cluster (yellow) is linked to the following keywords: resilience, climate change adaptation challenges, governance, policy, sustainable development, built environment, disaster risk governance, sustainable development goals, disaster resilience, capacity, management, organisations, integration, community disaster risk, community participation, and future (Figure 10).
The second cluster (green) is about the consequences of disasters in different areas and countries, with the following keywords highlighted: disaster risk management, natural disaster, reduction, risk, hazards, hazards, insurance, losses, region, flood risk, flood risk, risk assessment, economics, developing countries, landside, and consequences (Figure 10).
The third cluster (blue) includes main human issues, such as framework, city, disaster, disaster, determinants, mortality, public health, emergency, poverty, strategies, social media, decision making, infrastructure, risk perception, urban, urban, and model exposure (Figure 10).
The fourth cluster (purple) includes keywords such as vulnerability, climate change, social vulnerability, Hurricane Katrina, uncertainty, variability, cities, adaptive capacity, community resilience, systems, scientific knowledge, and sustainability (Figure 10).
The sixth cluster (orange) shows key community elements, such as community, education, people, people, children, youth, education, students, participation, children, people, school, disaster education, response, and preparedness (Figure 10).
In 2016, the focus of research was on disaster, hazards, losses, risk assessment, disaster mitigation, developing countries, variability, integration, globalization, mortality, culture, simulation, rights, gender, risk analysis, climate, institutions, and disaster reduction (Figure 10).
In 2017, researchers focused on disaster risk reduction, perception, risk perception, public health, recovery, flood, build environment, government, local government, and strategies (Figure 11).
In 2018 and 2019 researchers focused on politics, cities, future, state, health, education, impact, services, settlements, disaster governance, social vulnerability, communities, emergency, and climate change. The connectivity between the keywords used in relation to “disaster risk reduction” indicates a wide range of research spheres, with analysis performed from various perspectives, taking into account the multitude of disasters that can occur. (Figure 11).
Countries showing a particular interest in the topic of disaster risk reduction are Japan, Switzerland, the United States, and England. It is worth noting the considerable interest of authors in Japan on this topic, given that this country frequently faces such disasters (earthquakes). There are six research directions, with researchers from Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Taiwan clustering in the same direction, whereas England, New Zealand, South Africa, Malawi, and Zimbabwe cluster in another direction. This topic is also investigated by researchers in the European Union from countries such as Belgium, Sweden, and Hungary, representing another research direction (Figure 12).

3.3. Sustainable Agricultural Practices

The subject of “sustainable agricultural practices” registered 7941 papers in the Web of Science database between 1990 and 2022, included in categories such as environmental sciences (2327 papers), agronomy (979 papers), green sustainable science technology (977 papers), multidisciplinary agriculture (963 papers), environmental studies (888 papers), and ecology (643 papers) (Figure 13).
According to the map generated by VOSviewer software, keywords are grouped into clusters. The first cluster (blue) contains terms related to environment and agriculture, such as biodiversity, ecological intensification, agroecological practices, common agricultural policy, soil health, farming, intercropping, organic carbon soil, microbial community, agri-environment schemes, and rural development (Figure 14).
The second cluster (green) covers diverse topics, including policy, extension, sustainability, conservation, agroecology, ecology, barriers, rural development, transition, design, farm, security, challenges, governance, perspectives, management, and agriculture (Figure 14).
The third cluster (yellow) includes keywords such as poverty, soil, climate change, adoption, farmers, behaviour, technology adoption, attitudes, insecurity, decision, perception, smallholder farmers, determination, multivariate probit, and water conservation (Figure 14).
The fifth cluster (red) is associated with carbon, quality, soil quality, climate, no-till, corn stover, crop rotation, reduced-tillage, crop, deforestation, wheat, fertilization, system, impact, and soil organic carbon (Figure 14).
The sixth cluster (brown) includes the following terms: agrobiodiversity, food, sustainable intensification, protection, crops, health, and performance (Figure 14).
In terms of the year in which researchers wrote about certain topics, since 2014 and 2015 the focus has been on transition, policy, agriculture extension, soil erosion, biomass, cover crop, ecological agriculture, nitrogen, soil quality, simulation, and water quality (Figure 15).
In 2016 and 2017, researchers were concerned with keywords including cropping system, carbon, growth, knowledge, biodiversity, agriculture, agroecology, participation, bioenergy, diffusion, education, networks, and farm (Figure 15).
In 2018 and 2019, the focus of researchers was on the following topics: farmers, poverty, adaptation, impact, soil, migration, innovation, food, strategies, conservation agriculture, smallholder farmers, determination, diversity, healthy, agroecological practices, and determinants (Figure 15).
In 2020, the main topics were functional diversity, organic carbon, intensification practices, barriers, patterns, bacteria, soil health, decisions, and crop productivity. The year 2014 was the new programming period for the European Union’s Community agricultural policy (2014–2020), especially considering that seven of the top 10 countries ranked by origin are part of the European Union. Thus, the topics covered focused predominantly on transition and policies, whereas at the end of this programming period, studies focused more on the results of the directions set by the European Union (Figure 15).
The countries with the most papers indexed in the Web of Science on the topic of “sustainable agricultural practices” were the USA, with 1605 papers; China, with 861 papers; India, with 656 papers; and Italy, with 567 papers. The top authors were from countries with highly industrialised agricultural industries where the practice of sustainable agriculture is a necessity and is also linked to the need for food in the context of population growth (i.e., China and India) (Figure 16).

3.4. Circular Economy

The interest in the topic of “circular economy” is illustrated by the multitude of 15,813 research papers published between 1989 and 2022 according to the Web of Science database. Most of the papers were included in the following categories: environmental science (6039 papers), green sustainable science technology (4373 papers), environmental engineering (3287 papers), environmental studies (2244 papers), energy fuels (1287 papers), and multidisciplinary materials science (1010 papers) (Figure 17).
The interest in the topic of “circular economy” is illustrated by the multitude of 14,453 research papers written between 1989 and 2022 according to the Web of Science database. Most of the papers were included in the following categories: environmental science (5523 papers), green sustainable science technology (3972 papers), environmental engineering (3037 papers), environmental studies (2027 papers), energy fuels (1164 papers), and multidisciplinary materials science (925 papers) (Figure 18).
Cluster one (blue) contains terms related to our topic, such as indicators, industry, system, construction, build environment, evolution, index system, policy, context, energy, opportunities, green, food, bioeconomy, agriculture, food waste, biomass, history, and ecology (Figure 18).
The second cluster (red) includes the following keywords: implementation, internet, business models, COVID-19, future, trends, big data, capabilities, knowledge, digital technologies, supply chain management, and circularity (Figure 18).
The third cluster (purple) focuses on logistics and includes the following keywords: product, reverse logistics, design, reuse, remanufacturing, model, emissions, information, evolution system, network design, efficiency, environmental sustainability, sharing economy, recourse, life cycle, and integration (Figure 18).
The fourth cluster (green) includes keywords such as cleaner production, TOPSIS, loop, industrial ecology, industrial symbiosis, level, resource efficiency, sector, and content analysis (Figure 18).
Terms related to the subject matter by year show research topics since 2017 such as: index system, reverse logistics, evolution, performance evolution, data development, resource, agriculture, optimization, and awareness (Figure 19).
In 2018 and 2019, researchers addressed the following topics: efficiency, environment, recycling, model, energy, implementation, product design, loop, eco-efficiency, organizations, and recovery (Figure 19).
In 2020 and 2021, researchers addressed the most numerous topics: indicators, level, governance, strategies, barriers, opportunities, big data, firm performance, digitalization, food waste, smart, tool, benefits, supply chain, blockchain, business, and transition (Figure 19).
According to the Web of Science database, the top countries with the most papers published between 1989 and 2022 on the circular economy are China, with 2101 papers; followed by Italy, with 1850 papers; Spain, with 1468 papers; England, with 1367 papers; and the USA, with 1017 papers. The great interest of Chinese authors in the field of “circular economy” is relevant in the context of finding solutions to meet the needs of the population and correlated with increasing living standards. The directions taken by the European Union in this area also influenced the direction of research in EU countries (Figure 20).

4. Discussion

Although emissions are expected to cause unavoidable warming, even if the volume of greenhouse gas concentrations remains at 2000 levels; therefore, adaptation is the only solution. Many of the incipient effects of climate change can be addressed through adaptation, although associated costs will tend to increase [53,54]. Adaptation solutions include technological, behavioural (changing consumption habits), policy, and management solutions [53,54,55]. Policies established by the European Union as a whole, in conjunction with the funding of research activities, have succeeded in creating synergies between Member States, finding and developing solutions to help adapt to climate change.
The effects of climate change can be seen by all and are visible in the increasing frequency and intensity of natural disasters, especially in developed countries, where economic losses slow their development and, in poor countries, contribute to the loss of human life. The links between ‘disaster risk reduction’ and other keywords are based, in particular, on the occurrence of phenomena that cause significant economic and social losses, thus justifying the number of publications in countries vulnerable to such events, such as Japan and the USA [55,56,57].
Sustainable agricultural practices can contribute to reduced vulnerability to climate change and can also lead to increased resilience [58,59]. However, climate change tends to slow down this process, both by exposing negative impacts and by eroding adaptive capacity [60,61,62]. The top countries to report on this topic (sustainable agricultural practices) are predominantly European Union member countries, which, although not experiencing significant population growth as in other continents, are concerned about the use of sustainable agricultural practices to ensure continuity for future generations [63,64,65].
Although the ‘circular economy’ is a relatively new field, research interest has grown in recent years as a result of the inability to meet the needs for goods and food in the context of a growing population, as well as in countries where increases in living standards have been identified. More than 30 years ago, in communist-ruled countries, this process was commonplace, even if it was not known by that name; “everything was used and nothing was wasted” with a desire to save money [64,65,66,67,68,69].

5. Conclusions

Climate change is already having a measurable impact on natural and human systems, which has encouraged researchers around the world to focus on solutions for climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, natural resource management, sustainable agricultural practices, and, more recently, the circular economy, with a particular focus on society [70,71,72].
Many policy instruments can be applied to stimulate mitigation actions, both nationally and internationally, with advantages and disadvantages of each action [73,74]. Regulation and standardisation can create certainty about the level of emissions but discourage innovation [73,74,75].
By imposing carbon taxes, policy makers can create an effective mitigation incentive but cannot ensure a predetermined decrease. Subsidies and credits in this area are a possible solution for the development and diffusion of new technologies, which are often costly but essential [70,71,72,73].
Clearly, policies set at the local or regional level may make it more difficult for companies to develop or may jeopardise people’s living standards, but they are the only way to adapt to climate change. Funding for research is a key component, and this is also reflected in the many collaborations at the European level as a result of policies adopted by the European Commission [64,65,66].

Author Contributions

The authors worked together for this research, but, per structure: conceptualization, V.C.T., T.I. and C.V.; methodology, software validation, and resources, E.T., D.S. and L.M.; formal analysis, M.M.M., C.M.S. and E.A.D. writing—original draft preparation, review, and editing, P.S., A.F.J. and L.C.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The publication of this paper was made possible by the funds of University of Life Sciences “King Mihai I” from Timisoara.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Smith, J.B.; Lenhart, S.S. Climate change adaptation policy options. Clim. Res. 1996, 6, 193–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Fankhauser, S. Adaptation to Climate Change. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2017, 9, 209–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Neset, T.-S.; Opach, T.; Lion, P.; Lilja, A.; Johansson, J. Map-Based Web Tools Supporting Climate Change Adaptation. Prof. Geogr. 2016, 68, 103–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Carrico, A.R.; Truelove, H.B.; Vandenbergh, M.P.; Dana, D. Does learning about climate change adaptation change support for mitigation? J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 41, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Biesbroek, G.R.; Swart, R.J.; Carter, T.R.; Cowan, C.; Henrichs, T.; Mela, H.; Morecroft, M.D.; Rey, D. Europe adapts to climate change: Comparing National Adaptation Strategies. Glob. Environ. Change-Hum. Policy Dimens. 2010, 20, 440–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bouwer, L.M.; Aerts, J.C.J.H. Financing climate change adaptation. Disasters 2006, 30, 49–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Prasad, R.S.; Sud, R. Implementing climate change adaptation: Lessons from India’s national adaptation fund on climate change (NAFCC). Clim. Policy 2019, 19, 354–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wise, R.M.; Fazey, I.; Smith, M.S.; Park, S.E.; Eakin, H.C.; Van Garderen, E.R.M.A.; Campbell, B. Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change and response. Glob. Environ. Change-Hum. Policy Dimens. 2014, 28, 325–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Wiréhn, L. Nordic agriculture under climate change: A systematic review of challenges, opportunities and adaptation strategies for crop production. Land Use Policy 2018, 77, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Macintosh, A.; Foerster, A.; McDonald, J. Policy design, spatial planning and climate change adaptation: A case study from Australia. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2015, 58, 1432–1453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Timilsina, G.R. Financing Climate Change Adaptation: International Initiatives. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Xiao, X.; Perry, E.E.; Gao, J.; Lu, J.; Manning, R. Winter tourism and climate change: Exploring local and non-local snowmobilers’ perceptions of climate change and adaptation behaviors. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2020, 31, 100299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bator, A.; Borek, A. Adaptation to Climate Change under Climate Change Treaties. Int. Community Law Rev. 2021, 23, 158–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Neset, T.-S.; Glaas, E.; Ballantyne, A.G.; Linnér, B.-O.; Opach, T.; Navarra, C.; Johansson, J.; Bohman, A.; Rød, J.K.; Goodsite, M. Climate change effects at your doorstep: Geographic visualization to support Nordic homeowners in adapting to climate change. Appl. Geogr. 2016, 74, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Peñalba, L.M.; Elazegui, D.D.; Pulhin, J.M.; Cruz, R.V.O. Social and institutional dimensions of climate change adaptation. Int. J. Clim. Change Strateg. Manag. 2012, 4, 308–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pearce-Higgins, J.; Antão, L.; Bates, R.; Bowgen, K.; Bradshaw, C.; Duffield, S.; Ffoulkes, C.; Franco, A.; Geschke, J.; Gregory, R.; et al. A framework for climate change adaptation indicators for the natural environment. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 136, 108690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Fu, L.; Cao, Y.; Kuang, S.-Y.; Guo, H. Index for climate change adaptation in China and its application. Adv. Clim. Change Res. 2021, 12, 723–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Werners, S.E.; van Slobbe, E.; Bolscher, T.; Oost, A.; Pfenninger, S.; Trombi, G.; Bindi, M.; Moriondo, M. Turning points in climate change adaptation. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 20, 3. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/26270274 (accessed on 17 June 2022). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Juhola, S.; Klein, N.; Käyhkö, J.; Neset, T.-S.S. Climate change transformations in Nordic agriculture? J. Rural Stud. 2017, 51, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Paterson, J.A.; Ford, J.D.; Ford, L.B.; Lesnikowski, A.; Berry, P.; Henderson, J.; Heymann, J. Adaptation to climate change in the Ontario public health sector. BMC Public Health 2012, 12, 452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Macheka, L.; Mudiwa, T.; Chopera, P.; Nyamwanza, A.; Jacobs, P. Linking Climate Change Adaptation Strategies and Nutrition Outcomes: A Conceptual Framework. Food Nutr. Bull. 2022, 43, 201–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Orlowsky, B.; Calanca, P.; Ali, I.; Ali, J.; Hilares, A.E.; Huggel, C.; Khan, I.; Neukom, R.; Nizami, A.; Qazi, M.A.; et al. Climate corridors for strategic adaptation planning. Int. J. Clim. Change Strateg. Manag. 2017, 9, 811–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hackenbruch, J.; Kunz-Plapp, T.; Müller, S.; Schipper, J.W. Tailoring Climate Parameters to Information Needs for Local Adaptation to Climate Change. Climate 2017, 5, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Tompkins, E.L.; Adger, W.N.; Boyd, E.; Nicholson-Cole, S.; Weatherhead, E.K.; Arnell, N. Observed adaptation to climate change: UK evidence of transition to a well-adapting society. Glob. Environ. Change 2010, 20, 627–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Joakim, E.P.; Mortsch, L.; Oulahen, G. Using vulnerability and resilience concepts to advance climate change adaptation. Environ. Hazards 2015, 14, 137–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Pearce, T.; Ford, J.D.; Caron, A.; Kudlak, B.P. Climate change adaptation planning in remote, resource-dependent communities: An Arctic example. Reg. Environ. Change 2012, 12, 825–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Delaporte, I.; Maurel, M. Adaptation to climate change in Bangladesh. Clim. Policy 2018, 18, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Paavola, J.; Adger, W.N. Fair adaptation to climate change. Ecol. Econ. 2006, 56, 594–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Adger, W.N.; Brown, I.; Surminski, S. Advances in risk assessment for climate change adaptation policy. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2018, 376, 20180106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Dorward, P.; Osbahr, H.; Sutcliffe, C.; Mbeche, R. Supporting climate change adaptation using historical climate analysis. Clim. Dev. 2019, 12, 469–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Keskitalo, E.C.H.; Bergh, J.; Felton, A.; Björkman, C.; Berlin, M.; Axelsson, P.; Ring, E.; Ågren, A.; Roberge, J.-M.; Klapwijk, M.J.; et al. Adaptation to Climate Change in Swedish Forestry. Forests 2016, 7, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Bedsworth, L.W.; Hanak, E. Adaptation to Climate Change. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2010, 76, 477–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Biesbroek, G.R.; Klostermann, J.E.M.; Termeer, C.J.A.M.; Kabat, P. On the nature of barriers to climate change adaptation. Reg. Environ. Change 2013, 13, 1119–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Füssel, H.-M. Adaptation planning for climate change: Concepts, assessment approaches, and key lessons. Sustain. Sci. 2007, 2, 265–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Iwami, A.; Matsui, T.; Kimura, M.; Baba, K.; Tanaka, M. Organizing the Challenges Faced by Municipalities while Formulating Climate Change Adaptation Plans. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Thayer, A.W.; Vargas, A.; Castellanos, A.A.; Lafon, C.W.; McCarl, B.A.; Roelke, D.L.; Winemiller, K.O.; Lacher, T.E. Integrating Agriculture and Ecosystems to Find Suitable Adaptations to Climate Change. Climate 2020, 8, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Shearer, H.; Coiacetto, E.; Dodson, J.; Taygfeld, P. How the structure of the Australian housing development industry influences climate change adaptation. Hous. Stud. 2016, 31, 809–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Warren, R.F.; Wilby, R.L.; Brown, K.; Watkiss, P.; Betts, R.A.; Murphy, J.M.; Lowe, J.A. Advancing national climate change risk assessment to deliver national adaptation plans. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2018, 376, 20170295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Panda, A. Transformational adaptation of agricultural systems to climate change. WIREs Clim. Change 2018, 9, e520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wang, X.-J.; Zhang, J.-Y.; Shahid, S.; Guan, E.-H.; Wu, Y.-X.; Gao, J.; He, R.-M. Adaptation to climate change impacts on water demand. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 2016, 21, 81–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tenzing, J.D. Integrating social protection and climate change adaptation: A review. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.-Clim. Change 2020, 11, e626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Rickards, L.; Howden, S.M. Transformational adaptation: Agriculture and climate change. Crop. Pasture Sci. 2012, 63, 240–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Stewart, M.G.; Wang, X.M.; Nguyen, M.N. Climate change adaptation for corrosion control of concrete infrastructure. Struct. Saf. 2012, 35, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Stadler, F.; Houghton, L. Breathing life into climate change adaptation. J. Ind. Ecol. 2019, 24, 400–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Berrang-Ford, L.; Pearce, T.; Ford, J.D. Systematic review approaches for climate change adaptation research. Reg. Environ. Change 2015, 15, 755–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Scheraga, J.D.; Grambsch, A.E. Risks, opportunities, and adaptation to climate change. Clim. Res. 1998, 11, 85–95. Available online: https://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v11/n1/p85-95/ (accessed on 17 June 2022). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Rosales-Torres, C.; Gijón-Rivera, C.; Garay-Rondero, C.L.; Castillo-Paz, Á.; Domínguez-Ramírez, G. Design, Experimentation and Statistical Validation of a Methodology to Solve Complex Engineering Problems in Higher Education. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Constantin, M.; Sacală, M.-D.; Dinu, M.; Piștalu, M.; Pătărlăgeanu, S.R.; Munteanu, I.-D. Vegetable Trade Flows and Chain Competitiveness Linkage Analysis Based on Spatial Panel Econometric Modelling and Porter’s Diamond Model. Agronomy 2022, 12, 411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pan, L.; Wang, L.; Feng, Q. A Bibliometric Analysis of Risk Management in Foreign Direct Investment: Insights and Implications. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hussain, S.; Lu, L.; Mubeen, M.; Nasim, W.; Karuppannan, S.; Fahad, S.; Tariq, A.; Mousa, B.G.; Mumtaz, F.; Aslam, M. Spatiotemporal Variation in Land Use Land Cover in the Response to Local Climate Change Using Multispectral Remote Sensing Data. Land 2022, 11, 595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lu, X.F. Provision of climate information for adaptation to climate change. Clim. Res. 2011, 47, 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Nalau, J.; Verrall, B. Mapping the evolution and current trends in climate change adaptation science. Clim. Risk Manag. 2021, 32, 100290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Eriksen, S.H.; Nightingale, A.J.; Eakin, H. Reframing adaptation: The political nature of climate change adaptation. Glob. Environ. Change 2015, 35, 523–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Dhar, T.K.; Khirfan, L. Climate change adaptation in the urban planning and design research: Missing links and research agenda. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2017, 60, 602–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ollat, N.; Touzard, J.-M.; van Leeuwen, C. Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations: New Challenges for the Wine Industry. J. Wine Econ. 2016, 11, 139–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Biesbroek, R.; Peters, B.G.; Tosun, J. Public Bureaucracy and Climate Change Adaptation. Rev. Policy Res. 2018, 35, 776–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Schoenefeld, J.J.; Schulze, K.; Bruch, N. The diffusion of climate change adaptation policy. WIREs Clim. Change 2022, 13, e775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Smith, J.B.; Dickinson, T.; Donahue, J.D.; Burton, I.; Haites, E.; Klein, R.J.; Patwardhan, A. Development and climate change adaptation funding: Coordination and integration. Clim. Policy 2011, 11, 987–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Biesbroek, G.R.; Termeer, C.J.A.M.; Klostermann, J.E.M.; Kabat, P. Analytical lenses on barriers in the governance of climate change adaptation. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 2014, 19, 1011–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Doroszkiewicz, J.; Romanowicz, R.J. Guidelines for the adaptation to floods in changing climate. Acta Geophys. 2017, 65, 849–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Berkhout, F. Rationales for adaptation in EU climate change policies. Clim. Policy 2005, 5, 377–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kgosikoma, K.R.; Lekota, P.C.; Kgosikoma, O.E. Agro-pastoralists’ determinants of adaptation to climate change. Int. J. Clim. Change Strateg. Manag. 2018, 10, 488–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Dumitru, E.A.; Ursu, A.; Tudor, V.C.; Micu, M.M. Sustainable Development of the Rural Areas from Romania: Development of a Digital Tool to Generate Adapted Solutions at Local Level. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Iancu, T.; Petre, I.L.; Tudor, V.C.; Micu, M.M.; Ursu, A.; Teodorescu, F.-R.; Dumitru, E.A. A Difficult Pattern to Change in Romania, the Perspective of Socio-Economic Development. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Rahman, S.; Anik, A.R.; Sarker, J.R. Climate, Environment and Socio-Economic Drivers of Global Agricultural Productivity Growth. Land 2022, 11, 512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Asseng, S.; Martre, P.; Maiorano, A.; Rötter, R.P.; O’Leary, G.J.; Fitzgerald, G.J.; Girousse, C.; Motzo, R.; Giunta, F.; Ali Babar, M.; et al. Climate Change Impact and Adaptation for Wheat Protein. Glob. Change Biol. 2018, 25, 155–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Banzhaf, E.; Anderson, S.; Grandin, G.; Hardiman, R.; Jensen, A.; Jones, L.; Knopp, J.; Levin, G.; Russel, D.; Wu, W.; et al. Urban-Rural Dependencies and Opportunities to Design Nature-Based Solutions for Resilience in Europe and China. Land 2022, 11, 480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Campos, I.; Vizinho, A.; Coelho, C.; Alves, F.; Truninger, M.; Pereira, C.; Santos, F.; Penha-Lopes, G. Participation, scenarios and pathways in long-term planning for climate change adaptation. Plan. Theory Pract. 2016, 17, 537–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Keenan, R.J. Climate change impacts and adaptation in forest management: A review. Ann. For. Sci. 2015, 72, 145–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Day, E.; Fankhauser, S.; Kingsmill, N.; Costa, H.; Mavrogianni, A. Upholding labour productivity under climate change: An assessment of adaptation options. Clim. Policy 2018, 19, 367–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Lara, Á.; Moral, L.d. Nature-Based Solutions to Hydro-Climatic Risks: Barriers and Triggers for Their Implementation in Seville (Spain). Land 2022, 11, 868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Schmidt-Thome, P. Towards Applying Climate Change Adaptation. Investig. Geogr.-Spain 2017, 67, 49–60. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10045/67568 (accessed on 17 June 2022). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Kaján, E.; Saarinen, J. Tourism, climate change and adaptation: A review. Curr. Issues Tour. 2013, 16, 167–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ndue, K.; Pál, G. Life Cycle Assessment Perspective for Sectoral Adaptation to Climate Change: Environmental Impact Assessment of Pig Production. Land 2022, 11, 827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Kirk, N.A.; Cradock-Henry, N.A. Land Management Change as Adaptation to Climate and Other Stressors: A Systematic Review of Decision Contexts Using Values-Rules-Knowledge. Land 2022, 11, 791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Measures that can target adaptation to climate change. Own processing via Canva.
Figure 1. Measures that can target adaptation to climate change. Own processing via Canva.
Sustainability 14 12945 g001
Figure 2. Perspectives on the impact of global warming. Own processing via Canva.
Figure 2. Perspectives on the impact of global warming. Own processing via Canva.
Sustainability 14 12945 g002
Figure 3. Steps in data collection and analysis using VOSviewer software. Own processing via Canva.
Figure 3. Steps in data collection and analysis using VOSviewer software. Own processing via Canva.
Sustainability 14 12945 g003
Figure 4. Evolution of the number of articles published in Web of Science Core Collection according to the fields analysed. Own processing.
Figure 4. Evolution of the number of articles published in Web of Science Core Collection according to the fields analysed. Own processing.
Sustainability 14 12945 g004
Figure 5. Tree diagram of Web of Science publications on “climate change adaptation”. Source: Processed from Web of Science website.
Figure 5. Tree diagram of Web of Science publications on “climate change adaptation”. Source: Processed from Web of Science website.
Sustainability 14 12945 g005
Figure 6. Connectivity of keywords used (adaptation to climate change). Source: Proprietary processing based on WoS results using VOSviewer.
Figure 6. Connectivity of keywords used (adaptation to climate change). Source: Proprietary processing based on WoS results using VOSviewer.
Sustainability 14 12945 g006
Figure 7. Connectivity of keywords used (climate change adaptation) by year. Proprietary processing based on WoS results using VOSviewer.
Figure 7. Connectivity of keywords used (climate change adaptation) by year. Proprietary processing based on WoS results using VOSviewer.
Sustainability 14 12945 g007
Figure 8. Graphical representation of coauthor countries (adaptation to climate change). Proprietary processing based on WoS results using VOSviewer.
Figure 8. Graphical representation of coauthor countries (adaptation to climate change). Proprietary processing based on WoS results using VOSviewer.
Sustainability 14 12945 g008
Figure 9. Tree diagram of Web of Science publications on “disaster risk reduction”. Source: Processed from Web of Science website.
Figure 9. Tree diagram of Web of Science publications on “disaster risk reduction”. Source: Processed from Web of Science website.
Sustainability 14 12945 g009
Figure 10. Connectivity of keywords used (disaster risk reduction). Proprietary processing based on WoS results using VOSviewer.
Figure 10. Connectivity of keywords used (disaster risk reduction). Proprietary processing based on WoS results using VOSviewer.
Sustainability 14 12945 g010
Figure 11. Connectivity of keywords used (disaster risk reduction) by year. Proprietary processing based on WoS results using VOSviewer.
Figure 11. Connectivity of keywords used (disaster risk reduction) by year. Proprietary processing based on WoS results using VOSviewer.
Sustainability 14 12945 g011
Figure 12. Graphical representation of coauthor countries (disaster risk reduction). Proprietary processing based on WoS results using VOSviewer.
Figure 12. Graphical representation of coauthor countries (disaster risk reduction). Proprietary processing based on WoS results using VOSviewer.
Sustainability 14 12945 g012
Figure 13. Tree diagram of Web of Science publications on “sustainable agricultural practices”. Source: Processed from Web of Science website.
Figure 13. Tree diagram of Web of Science publications on “sustainable agricultural practices”. Source: Processed from Web of Science website.
Sustainability 14 12945 g013
Figure 14. Connectivity of keywords used (sustainable agricultural practices). Proprietary processing based on WoS results using VOSviewer.
Figure 14. Connectivity of keywords used (sustainable agricultural practices). Proprietary processing based on WoS results using VOSviewer.
Sustainability 14 12945 g014
Figure 15. Connectivity of keywords used (sustainable agricultural practices) by year. Proprietary processing based on WoS results using VOSviewer.
Figure 15. Connectivity of keywords used (sustainable agricultural practices) by year. Proprietary processing based on WoS results using VOSviewer.
Sustainability 14 12945 g015
Figure 16. Top author countries on the topic of sustainable agricultural practices. Own Processing.
Figure 16. Top author countries on the topic of sustainable agricultural practices. Own Processing.
Sustainability 14 12945 g016
Figure 17. Tree diagram of Web of Science publications on “circular economy”. Source: Processed from Web of Science website.
Figure 17. Tree diagram of Web of Science publications on “circular economy”. Source: Processed from Web of Science website.
Sustainability 14 12945 g017
Figure 18. Connectivity of keywords used (circular economy). Proprietary processing based on WoS results using VOSviewer.
Figure 18. Connectivity of keywords used (circular economy). Proprietary processing based on WoS results using VOSviewer.
Sustainability 14 12945 g018
Figure 19. Connectivity of keywords used (circular economy) by year. Proprietary processing based on WoS results using VOSviewer.
Figure 19. Connectivity of keywords used (circular economy) by year. Proprietary processing based on WoS results using VOSviewer.
Sustainability 14 12945 g019
Figure 20. Top author countries for the topic “circular economy”. Own processing.
Figure 20. Top author countries for the topic “circular economy”. Own processing.
Sustainability 14 12945 g020
Table 1. Details of selected themes.
Table 1. Details of selected themes.
CriterionTopicsJustification
1climate change adaptationMost scientists believe that even if efforts are made to reduce emissions, even with concrete results, some climate change is inevitable, a first necessary step is to adapt to its effects [1,2].
2disaster risk reductionOne of the effects of climate change is the disasters caused by these effects, which have resulted in numerous losses of life and property [11,17].
3sustainable agricultural practicesIn 2019, agriculture accounted for a 10.55% share of EU greenhouse gas emissions among all economic sectors. Given this high share, researchers have deemed it necessary to identify environmentally friendly agricultural practices [49].
4circular economyAs the world’s population tends to grow, the demand for raw materials and finished products is increasing, with a major impact on the environment [52].
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of variables. Source: Own calculations based on WoS data.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of variables. Source: Own calculations based on WoS data.
NMinimumMaximumSumMeanStd. DeviationSkewnessKurtosis
StatisticStatisticStatisticStatisticStatisticStatisticStatisticStd. ErrorStatisticStd. Error
Climate change adaptation332600845,0301364.551806.8551.2720.4090.4710.798
Disaster risk reduction3218505920185.00264.7951.5090.4141.0530.809
Sustainable agricultural practices33412237940240.61306.9281.8920.4093.0840.798
Circular economy331473015,813479.181084.1042.7850.4097.6720.798
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Iancu, T.; Tudor, V.C.; Dumitru, E.A.; Sterie, C.M.; Micu, M.M.; Smedescu, D.; Marcuta, L.; Tonea, E.; Stoicea, P.; Vintu, C.; et al. A Scientometric Analysis of Climate Change Adaptation Studies. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12945. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912945

AMA Style

Iancu T, Tudor VC, Dumitru EA, Sterie CM, Micu MM, Smedescu D, Marcuta L, Tonea E, Stoicea P, Vintu C, et al. A Scientometric Analysis of Climate Change Adaptation Studies. Sustainability. 2022; 14(19):12945. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912945

Chicago/Turabian Style

Iancu, Tiberiu, Valentina Constanta Tudor, Eduard Alexandru Dumitru, Cristina Maria Sterie, Marius Mihai Micu, Dragos Smedescu, Liviu Marcuta, Elena Tonea, Paula Stoicea, Catalin Vintu, and et al. 2022. "A Scientometric Analysis of Climate Change Adaptation Studies" Sustainability 14, no. 19: 12945. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912945

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop