Next Article in Journal
Effect of Smashing Ridge Tillage Depth on Soil Water, Salinity, and Yield in Saline Cotton Fields in South Xinjiang, China
Previous Article in Journal
Hydrogeochemical Assessment of Groundwater and Suitability Analysis for Domestic and Agricultural Utility in Southern Punjab, Pakistan
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Water
Volume 13
Issue 24
10.3390/w13243591
water-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Where Do We Stand Now? A Bibliometric Analysis of Water Research in Support of the Sustainable Development Goal 6

by
Mrittika Basu
1,* and
Rajarshi Dasgupta
2
1
Laboratory of Sustainable Rural Development, Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606 8502, Japan
2
Integrated Sustainability Centre, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), 2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Kanagawa 240 0115, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2021, 13(24), 3591; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13243591
Submission received: 18 October 2021 / Revised: 7 December 2021 / Accepted: 11 December 2021 / Published: 14 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Water Resources Management, Policy and Governance)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The connections between the scientific findings and SDG 6 are often not clear, which results in increasing the gap between technical developments and academic discourse, and the policy practitioners and/or implementers. The present paper explores the existing scientific research on water that directly connects to SDG 6 using a bibliometric analysis. The 637 scientific articles published between 2015–2021 (till 13 May 2021) were investigated for temporal development, scientific collaboration, existing research focus and the gaps. Interdisciplinary journals such as Science of the Total Environment and Journal of Environmental Management are found to be dominant sources along with water specific journals such as Water Research and Water (Switzerland). Open access journals make a dominant footprint and majority of author collaborations are found among authors from countries such as USA and UK while the research connections among authors from Global South are observed to be weak. Targets 6.1 (safe and affordable water), 6.3 (treatment and reuse of wastewater) and 6.5 (IWRM including through transboundary cooperation) are identified to be the highest referred to targets in scientific research in support of SDG 6. Though a significant evolution of scientific research is observed in connection to SDG 6 with increasing studies on groundwater, water governance, wastewater treatment, etc., in recent years, scientific studies connecting emerging concepts such as water security, water-energy-food nexus and ecosystem based approaches are still in an infant stage which calls for more research connecting these concepts and approaches to SDG 6 targets to attain a sustainable water environment by 2030 and beyond. This paper significantly contributes to tracking the progress in scientific research in connection to SDG 6 as well as highlights the hotspots where more collaboration between scientific communities and policy makers are required.

1. Introduction

Water, undoubtedly one of the most precious natural resources, is key to human development and prosperity. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (adopted in September 2015) reinforced the importance of water and sanitation to sustainable human development, once again, with the formulation of Sustainable Development Goal 6 enforced on 1 January 2016 (hereafter SDG 6). The primary and main call of this goal is to ensure “availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all by 2030” [1]. To achieve this goal, eight targets were formulated that not only includes safe and affordable water (6.1), and adequate and equitable sanitation (6.2) for all, but also treatment and reuse of wastewater (6.3), water use efficiency and sustainable withdrawals of freshwater (6.4), Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) including through transboundary cooperation (6.5), protect and restore water-related ecosystems (6.6), international cooperation and capacity building support (6.a) and community participation in water and sanitation management (6.b). However, the progress of SDG 6 is under question and is anticipated to be off-track (UN-Water, 2020). With increasing population, urbanization, land use change, changing consumption patterns, unsustainable use, increased pollution, climate change, etc., it is likely that many countries may fail to reach the SDG 6 targets by 2030 [2]. It is also evident that achieving SDG 6 in isolation will hinder its implementation and progress, and there is a need for better understanding the interlinkages. SDG 6 targets are significantly interlinked with other SDG targets, for example, access to water and sanitation for all (6.1 and 6.2) is essential to reduce the proportion of people living in poverty in all its dimensions (1.2) and end all forms of malnutrition (2.2). Similarly, there are direct synergies between sustainable production and consumption pattern (12.1), sustainable management and use of natural resources (12.2) and reduction in global food waste (12.3), and treatment and reuse of wastewater (6.3), Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) including through transboundary cooperation (6.5) and protect and restore water-related ecosystems (6.6) [3]. On the contrary, the interlinkages could be inversely linked between different SDG 6 targets and other targets, and it is imperative to understand the trade-offs, for effective implementation of the targets. For example, there are potential conflicts between per capita economic growth (8.1), reliable, sustainable, and resilient infrastructure (9.1), inclusive and sustainable industrialization (9.2) and safe and affordable housing and basic services (11.1) and targets on water quality (6.3), sustainable water use (6.4) and ecosystems (6.6) [3]. The interlinkages demonstrate the interdependency between different SDGs and failure to address SDG 6 will significantly affect the progress of other SDGs.
With less than 10 years to achieve the targets of 2030 Agenda, a discourse on transformations is underway to speed up the implementation of SDG targets, for 2030 and beyond. The World in 2050 [4], a global research initiative by UN SDSN, The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Stockholm Resilience Center (SRC), and the Earth Institute, Columbia University, identified six transformations that will help in achieving SDGs by 2030 and long-term sustainability to 2050. It has been widely acknowledged that scientific evidence and science-based approaches are key to SDG transformations [4,5,6]. The scientific community plays a significant role by developing sustainable tools and indicators, developing methodologies for multi-stakeholder engagement and identify the synergies and trade-offs for long-term sustainability, and transform the scientific knowledge to policy decisions [6]. The SDG 6 Global Acceleration Framework [2], formulated to accelerate the implementation of SDG 6, emphasizes on innovation in science, ICT, emerging technologies, governance and business models, and ecological/traditional approaches to effectively inform policy making. Despite the recognition, inclusion of scientific research and science-based approaches in accelerating and implementation of SDGs have not made satisfactory progress [5] and the existing gap between science and policy is getting widened.
The UN 2030 Agenda clearly stated the significance of science, technology and innovation which can build inclusive societies, sustainable environments, good governance, and sustainable livelihoods [1]. Bearing this context in mind, this paper focuses on the scientific discourse that has characterized the first 7 years of SDG 6 after the commencement of 2030 Agenda. Bibliometric analysis has been carried out on 637 articles to assess the research trends, influential authors, sources, and countries; emerging thematic areas and potential future research directions that would ensure the attainment of specific targets of SDG 6. Results of this study can be used to better understand how the scientific studies are connecting to the implementation and progress of SDG 6; to inform key researchers and policy makers about the key journals, authors, and publications that they could refer for better understanding of the field; and most importantly, can inform the existing key thematic areas of research as well as the research gaps that need to be more explored in future. The existing national-level agencies who are mainly overlooking the implementation and progress of SDG 6 can call for scientific interventions through the published research articles for better understanding of the innovations and their adoption and translation to achieve SDG 6 targets. It is required to reduce the gap between scientific community and decision makers for effective implementation of the scientific innovations for which it is of utmost importance to recognize the scientific research in support of SDG 6.

2. Materials and Methods

A bibliometric analysis is performed to systematically investigate a field of study and its growth based on a rigorous quantitative approach [7]. Bibliometric analysis also helps to identify important and impactful academic literature of a particular field of study in terms of leading authors, journals, countries, and organizations [8]. The online database of Scopus was used to extract data. Scopus presents an extensive repository of scientific outputs in the fields of science, technology, medicine, social sciences, arts and humanities, and has several operating functions that support bibliometric analysis [9]. To avoid error related to the identification of the papers, a research protocol has been developed. The period between 2015 and 2021 (until the day of data extraction) was the defined time span, running from the official inauguration of Sustainable Development Goals in 2015 to the day of data extraction from the database (13 May 2021). For our search, we used the following search string:
TS = (“SDG 6” OR “Sustainable Development Goal 6”)
The use of this search string helped to sort and collect the scientific papers that have explicitly mentioned SDG 6 in their text. This helps in identifying the thematic areas of research where SDG 6 has been directly linked to. The current study used Boolean operators to choose the final dataset and avoid irrelevant research articles. However, it is important to note that there must be other existing relevant scientific research that contribute to SDG 6, but these papers have not directly mentioned about their relation to SDG 6 which led to their exclusion from the present study. The search in the database returned 837 resources. The extracted data was refined using the filtering functions of Scopus to retain only the research articles (Review papers, commentaries, book chapters, letters, etc., were excluded) published in English. At the end of the process 637 articles remained in the database for bibliometric analysis.

Data Analysis

Science mapping was carried out to examine the relationships between research constituents and highlight the structural and dynamic organization of existing knowledge on SDG 6. The techniques used for science mapping included citation analysis, co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, co-word analysis and co-authorship analysis. VOSViewer, a widely used bibliographic software program, was used as a tool to analyze the extracted data [10]. VOSViewer has a user-friendly graphic interface, and the outputs includes nodes and links, the sizes of which are proportional to the frequency of the objects in consideration and the strength of the links between them, respectively [10].

3. Results

3.1. SDG 6: An Overview

The analysis of the period from 2015 to 2021 (till 13 May 2021) reveals an overall quantity of published papers equal to 637 (Figure 1). Recent years have seen a rapid growth of studies that connects to SDG 6 and its targets with 268 papers published in 2020 and by 13 May 2021 (the day of data collection), already 148 papers focusing on SDG 6 are published. It can be assumed that by the end of 2021, the number of published papers will be much higher. In this sense, it is quite clear that research work towards attaining SDG 6 targets is rapidly growing which increase the visibility of the research work and their translation into SDG 6 related actions in future.
The 637 articles, considered in our study, are published in 251 different sources. Of them, 66.1% have been cited at least one time. The three topmost journals with high number of publications are Water (Switzerland) (73), Sustainability (Switzerland) (52), and Science of the Total Environment (36) (Table 1). Our analysis reveals that nearly 25% of the articles have been published in these three journals. Thus, it is quite evident that main contributions to SDG 6 have not been only confined to journals specialized in water, but to more transdisciplinary journals.
Apart from the journals mentioned in Table 1, despite lower number of publications and lower total link strength, citations of publications in journals such as Nature (295), Nature Sustainability (160), Journal of Industrial Ecology (195), Nature Communications (79) and Ecological Indicators (52) are significantly high. The findings suggest that these sources play a key role in the scientific discourse on SDG 6, especially journals such as Water (Switzerland), Sustainability (Switzerland), Nature, Nature Sustainability, and Science of the Total Environment. On the other hand, dominance of two open access journals in the discourse highlights the importance of free and open accessibility of scientific knowledge.

3.2. Co-Citation Analysis

A science mapping technique, co-citation analysis provides the intellectual structure of a research field by demonstrating the most influencing works that have been cited together [11]. It also helps in discovering the thematic clusters by assuming that more often two documents are cited together, the more they are related to each other; hence, can be considered as a part of the same research area [8,11,12]. In this study, we derive the clusters based on cited articles, journals, and authors.

3.2.1. Articles

The most influential articles on SDG 6 are identified using ‘cited references’ as the unit of analysis in co-citation analysis. The 637 articles cited a total of 38,705 of external sources, out of which only 21 articles were cited at least 5 times. As shown in Figure 2, the most influential publications can be divided into 5 major clusters. Publications in the red cluster mainly focus on water footprint assessment and transboundary water discourses (e.g., [13,14,15,16]). The blue cluster includes three major types of documents that contributes to the methodological assessment and monitors the progress of SDG 6. First, documents such as the agenda for sustainable development [1] and reports on SDG 6 (e.g., [17,18]) that have laid the foundation of Sustainable Development Goals and monitors and reports the progress of the SDG 6. Second, publications on water and sanitation issues are dominant, e.g., [19,20] that focus on the sustainable water supply for maintaining sanitation facilities and hygiene. The third type of documents mainly include the fourth and fifth assessment report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, more specifically the impacts, adaptation, and vulnerabilities of climate change from a global to a regional aspect [21,22,23]. The green cluster, closely connected to the blue cluster, also put significant emphasis on the agenda for sustainable development [1] and on transboundary water politics and groundwater governance, e.g., [24,25,26,27]. The cluster in purple mainly includes the Brundtland report, the document that have developed principles of sustainability [28]. Finally, documents in the last cluster (yellow) cover topics related to rural water sustainability, especially sustainability of groundwater supplies in Africa (e.g., [29,30,31]).

3.2.2. Journals

Results of the co-citation analysis of 16,751 sources reveal that only 60 sources meet the criteria of being cited at least 50 times (Figure 3). The density visualization demonstrates four clusters out of which the two major clusters (red and green in color) include journals that mainly specializes on water research. Some journals in the red cluster such as Water (Switzerland), Water Policy, Sustainability (Switzerland) and Water Resources Research encompasses a wide range of issues related to water. The green cluster is the more interdisciplinary cluster with journals such as Science of the Total Environment, Desalination, Water Research and Journal of Cleaner Production which discusses water issues through multiple perspectives. The third cluster (the blue cluster) mainly includes journals that focuses on human geography and development such as World Development, Geoforum, and Ambio as well as water focused journals such as Water Resources Research, Water Alternatives, Water International and International Journal of Water. Hence, this cluster mainly focuses on connections between water, human geography, and development. The last cluster, on one hand, includes highly influential journals such as Science, Nature, The Lancet, Plos One and BMC Public Health, and, on the other hand, journals such as Chemosphere and Journal of Chemical Education that specifically focuses on the chemicals in the environment. Hence it can be inferred that, though small, this cluster of journals specially emphasizes on the connection between water and public health. It is worth noting that this co-citation analysis is based on the references that has been cited by the 637 articles included in this study. However, it can be observed that results of co-citation analysis match well with the list of most influential journals that have highest number of citations (Table 1) with some changes in the order of journals.

3.2.3. Authors

The most influential authors, involved in publication on SDG 6, are identified by using ‘cited authors’ as the unit of analysis in co-citation analysis. The results show that only 47 authors of 51,839 authors, have been cited at least 50 times. The areas of expertise of the identified authors, to a large extent, are consistent with the previous analysis. As Figure 4 shows, four clusters can be identified according to the author’s expertise. The cluster in red consists of authors who have mainly worked on water quality and health (e.g., Jamie Bartram, Thomas Clasen, Ryan Cronk, and Alan M. MacDonald). The authors in green cluster can be mainly divided under three different areas of expertise–water footprint assessment (e.g., Arjen Y. Hoekstra and Ashok Chapagain), water governance, politics, and management (e.g., Claudia Pahl-Wostl and Karen Bakker) and global water resources and water scarcity assessment (e.g., Matti Kummu and Yoshihide Wada). The connected blue cluster includes authors that have worked on transboundary water governance and hydro-politics (e.g., Hussam Hussein and Mark Zeitoun), and desalination (e.g., Xiuqiang Li and Yiju Li). The last cluster includes the experts of wastewater treatment and desalination (e.g., Yuanhui Zhang and Nirmala Khandan).

3.3. Bibliographic Coupling

Bibliographic coupling, another science mapping technique, assumes that two articles sharing common references are also similar in their content. The thematic clusters created by bibliographic coupling are based on the citing articles, and therefore, the recent publications often gain attention.

3.3.1. Articles

The bibliographic coupling analysis shows that 93 articles share at least ten citations. This demonstrates a fair number of widely adopted documents that are used to design concepts and develop empirical evidence about SDG 6. The density analysis (Figure 5) reveals that the main articles considered within the studies are by Grill and colleagues on the global distribution free-flowing rivers [32]. The other pivotal article that contributes to this discourse is by Jägermeyr and colleagues on environmental flow requirements across different river stretches and examine its importance in implementation of SDG 6 [33]. Some of the highest degree of bibliographic coupling are observed related to implementation of SDGs through different transformations [6] including circular economy practices [34,35] and sociohydrology [36].
To understand which countries have contributed more to the development of studies, bibliographic coupling is used with ‘countries’ as unit of analysis. Results of bibliographic analysis for at least 10 documents a country are shown in Figure 6. The links between the countries demonstrate the research collaboration between authors from different countries and countries with large node sizes had the largest research connections. USA and UK are found to be the dominant countries along with other developed countries such as Germany, Netherlands, and Australia who have active research collaboration and well-established research connections. Research collaboration among developing countries such as China, India, Bangladesh, and South Africa and few African countries such as Kenya, Uganda, Malawi, Ghana, and Nigeria have also been found but the research connections are weaker than the developed nations. To monitor the planning and implementation progress of SDG 6, more research collaboration and knowledge transfer is needed among developed countries and other developing, less developed and Small Island Developing States (SIDS).

3.3.2. Journals

The bibliographic coupling of 637 articles in our dataset can be helpful to better understand the theoretical foundations of these publications. Only 24 journals satisfied the threshold of 5 papers on SDG 6 published. The journals with the highest index of bibliographic coupling are Water (Switzerland), Sustainability (Switzerland), Science of the Total Environment, International Journal of Water Resources Development, Water Resources Research, and Journal of Cleaner Production. Journals such as Environmental Science and Policy, Journal of Hydrology, Water International, Water Alternatives, International Journal of Water, Frontiers in Environmental Science, Utilities Policy and Sustainability Science are found to be referred to by the academics in their discourse on water research in relation to SDG 6. The heterogeneity in the journals and inclusion of sources not specific to water, demonstrate the transdisciplinary approach of adopting and implementation of SDG 6. In addition, the density analysis (Figure 7) demonstrates that Water (Switzerland), Sustainability (Switzerland) and Science of the Total Environment are the main sources referred to by academics within the discourse on SDG 6.

3.3.3. Authors

The analysis revealed that 14 authors are bibliographically coupled as they have published at least 5 papers with an overall number of citation equal or higher than 5 (Figure 8). The findings suggest that the scientific research on meeting the SDG targets, the progress or implementation of SDG 6 is still in a preliminary stage in terms of scientific knowledge. The authors with highest bibliographic coupling are Kalin (University of Strathclyde) and Rivett (University of Strathclyde) from one cluster, and Bartram (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill/University of Leeds), Foster (University of Manchester) and Willetts (University of Technology Sydney) from the second cluster.

3.4. Keyword Analysis

Keyword analysis examines the actual content of publications by assuming that words that frequently occur together have a thematic relationship with one another. The co-occurrences of keywords across different years will help in tracking the evolution of the studies on SDG 6. The first three years after the adoption of 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, from 2015–2018, can be considered as the inception period and period of conceptual development while the period from 2019–2021 is expected to witness adoption as well as initial implementation. This period is also expected to show the direction of future research and will help to identify the current as well as potential research themes on SDG 6 as 2020–2030 signifies the decade of action of SDGs.
In the first phase, starting from the year when SDGs were conceived and adopted in 2015 to the next three years till 2018, 1375 keywords were generated out of which only 39 keywords meet the threshold of co-occurrence of at least 10 times. As shown in Figure 9a, the keywords in the first phase are divided into two clusters. The five most important keywords in the green cluster are found to be “sustainable development” (total link strength of 350 with 36 links), “environmental protection” (total link strength of 136 with 34 links) “sustainable development goals” (total link strength of 111 with 30 links), “sanitation” (total link strength of 96 with 21 links) and “water supply” (total link strength of 71 with 22 links). The red cluster is found to mainly focus on public health and the top five recurring keywords are “human” (total link strength of 461 with 36 links), “female” (total link strength of 339 with 32 links), “male” (total link strength of 272 with 32 links), “adult” (total link strength of 246 with 31 links), and “child” (total link strength of 228 with 32 links). The direct connectivity between “human”, “female”, “male” and “child” in the red cluster with “sustainable development”, “sustainable development goals”, “water supply” and “sanitation” in the green cluster indicates that SDG 6 was mainly considered in relation to water supply and sanitation for public. Most of the studies in this phase focused on how to achieve SDGs, not only with respect to water but also in relation to health and nutrition, food security, sanitation, agriculture, poverty, etc. [37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44]. A considerable amount of literature focused on SDGs and, specifically, on adoption and implementation of SDG 6 targets [43,45,46,47]. Though few, studies on role of different approaches including water security, hydropolitics, hydro-sociology, water-energy-food nexus, Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM), etc., in meeting the targets of SDG 6 gained attention [16,48,49,50]. For example, Gain et al. (2016) [48] developed the Global Water Security Index to monitor the progress towards SDGs. Similarly, Wiegleb and Bruns (2018) [49] in their study on the evolution from MDGs to SDGs as well as overall SDG 6 negotiations reported the prevalence of ‘state-hydraulic paradigm’ and emphasized to ‘acknowledge water as a socio-natural element by putting people and politics at the centre of solutions to water-related problems’. Case studies from India, South Africa, Kazakhstan, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Caribbean Small Island Developing States were also found where study objectives were connected to the targets of SDG 6 for their monitoring assessment [51,52,53,54,55,56,57].
In the second phase (2019–2021, Figure 9b), the 549 articles contained 4913 keywords out of which 144 keywords meet the threshold of co-occurrence of at least 10 times. Network analysis of the keywords for the second phase can be divided into four clusters, as shown in Figure 9b. In cluster 1 or the red cluster, “sustainable development”, continues to be a dominant keyword with an increase from 36 links to 173 links (total link strength of 1528) in the second phase. The other keywords that co-occurred and gained significance in the red cluster since the first phase are “water management” (total link strength of 1287 with 169 links), “water resource” (total link strength of 665 with 142 links), “sustainability” (total link strength of 577 with 144 links) and “sustainable development goals (total link strength of 510 with 137 links). In addition, “water” (total link strength of 615 with 149 links), “planning” (total link strength of 538 with 139 links) and “climate change” (total link strength of 534 with 136 links) emerged as important keywords in the red cluster. It becomes evident that studies relating to SDG 6 and based on its indicators started taking shape and are conducted more deeply with time. The second cluster or the green cluster contains 50 keywords that co-occur in the second phase. The prominent keywords in this cluster such as “water supply” (total link strength of 1732 with 172 links), “human” (total link strength of 1201 with 162 links) and “sanitation” (total link strength of 1050 with 159 links) continues to appear and gained much higher attention in the second phase. The other important keywords that co-occurred in the green cluster are “water quality” (total link strength of 1212 with 167 links), “drinking water” (total link strength of 1087 with 167 links), “potable water” (total link strength of 659 with 147 links) and “rural area” (total link strength of 517 with 138 links). It can be inferred that the green cluster mainly focuses on the core thrust area of SDG 6, i.e., safe drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene, and human health [58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65]. The direct connections between the main keywords like the link between “water supply” in green cluster and “sustainable development” in red cluster (link strength is 56) demonstrates the direct link between the role of water supply in attaining SDG 6. Though not one of the topmost keywords, the occurrence of the keywords like “female” in the green cluster as “water supply” (link strength between “female” and “water supply is 11), “water quality” (link strength between “female” and “water supply is 11) and “sanitation” (link strength between “female” and “sanitation” is 13) demonstrates the increasing focus of studies on water supply and sanitation issues from a gender perspective [66,67,68]. On the other hand, relatively lesser focus on “water governance” (total link strength of 184 with 75 links), “ecosystems” (total link strength of 116 with 64 links), “water security” (total link strength of 119 with 74 links) or “rural water supply” (total link strength of 119 with 60 links) reveals the lack of studies or lack of emphasis of studies to link SDG 6 and its targets with water governance, water security or ecosystem-based approaches. Also, lack of links between “water planning” or “water governance” with “climate change” (Link strength: 5 each) shows the gap in existing knowledge on how planning or governance should be transformed to address the changes in climate.
The blue cluster includes 41 keywords and mainly focus on groundwater and water quality monitoring, and the top five keywords are “groundwater” (total link strength of 619 with 145 links), “environmental monitoring” (total link strength of 561 with 139 links), “water pollution” (total link strength of 410 with 131 links), “agriculture” (total link strength of 400 with 130 links) and “developing countries” (total link strength of 394 with 130 links). It is worth notable that the keywords in blue cluster emerged in the second phase and demonstrate the expansion in the studies on SDG 6 across different water resources and uses. The focus on “developing countries” reveals the importance of groundwater and its role in agriculture as well as water pollution issues in developing countries. The main keyword of blue cluster, i.e., “groundwater” has direct links with the main keywords “water supply” (link strength is 23) and “sustainable development” (link strength is 14) of the two big clusters, i.e., the green and the red clusters, respectively. This enforces groundwater has a principal source of water that plays a significant role in attaining the sustainable development. Though not very dominant, emergence of the keyword “citizen science” (total link strength of 58 with 38 links) denotes a promising field of research where citizen science approaches are widely used for water quality monitoring and contribute to SDG 6.3.2 [69,70,71,72,73]. For instance, Hegarty et al. (2021) [69], in a recent study on river water quality in Ireland, reported a successful attempt by citizen scientists in assessing the nitrate and phosphate monitoring in river water and their role filling up the existing data gaps.
The yellow cluster includes 21 items and principally focus on urban areas and wastewater treatment and management. The five topmost keywords in this cluster are “urban area” (total link strength of 519 with 148 links), “wastewater treatment” (total link strength of 293 with 120 links), “wastewater” (total link strength of 273 with 111 links), “India” (total link strength of 262 with 114 links) and “cities” (total link strength of 242 with 99 links). This cluster also emerged anew in the second phase and directly implies the challenges faced by urban areas in wastewater treatment and management. This includes studies that adopted different treatment technologies and management strategies such as forward-osmosis membrane system to treat industrial wastewater [74], and treated wastewater for irrigation purposes [75,76]. In a recent study, Delanka-Pedige et al. (2021) [77] adopted a multi-criteria decision-making approach based on different criteria related to UN SDGs to evaluate different wastewater infrastructure facilities like membrane bioreactor, high-rate algal pond, etc., in wastewater treatment, especially in urban areas. The positioning of “urban area” and its direct link with other keywords from other clusters like “sustainable development” (link strength: 17), “sustainable development goal” (link strength: 8), “sanitation” (link strength: 13), “water supply” (link strength: 21), and “environmental monitoring” (link strength: 7). This reveals the importance of urban areas and sustainable cities for overall attainment of SDG 6.

4. Discussion

The current study was conducted to assess and analyze scientific publications in which the phrase “SDG 6*” or “Sustainable Development Goal 6*” was mentioned in any part of the article. The present study showed a steep increase in number of publications related to SDG 6 over a period from 2015 to the date of data extraction, i.e., 13 May 2021. Post-data filtration, 637 articles qualified for the bibliometric analysis. The most active journals were found to rank in the Q1 and Q2 list suggesting the preference of the journals to publish water research that relates to SDG 6 targets. Open access journals such as Sustainability (Switzerland) and Water (Switzerland) made a significant presence in SDG 6 related articles, possibly due to their open access publication policy and the large number of papers published by these journals compared to subscription-based journals. Apart from journals that specializes in water such as Water Research and Water Resources Research, interdisciplinary journals such as Science of the Total Environment and World Development were found to publish water research related to SDG 6 demonstrating that research content and quality of SDG 6 -related publications are high and relevant for decision-makers.
Academicians and researchers across different countries and similar expertise are found to interact and make significant contribution to SDG 6 related water research through active research collaboration. The current study showed that countries from Africa, Southeast Asia, East Asia, Mediterranean region, Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and South Asia had very negligible contribution of SDG 6 related water research, while USA and UK are frontline in publishing SDG 6 related scientific research. This risks the overall implementation of the SDG 6 agenda and increases the chances of vulnerable population being ignored, that hinder the progress of SDG 6. This is also evident from other studies on scientific research related to SDGs [78,79], thus confirming the need for scientific research in these regions and utilize the scientific findings in designing technological and innovative solutions to achieve the targets of SDG 6 and make overall progress in ensuring water safety and sustainability.
The keyword analysis over two different time periods revealed a significant expansion in scientific research connecting to SDG 6. In the inception period from 2015 till 2018, only 88 scientific articles were found to connect their research to SDG 6 targets. It is evident from the network analysis that the articles published during this period mainly focused on adoption and implementation plan of SDG 6 as well as reported the transition from MDGs to SDGs. Several approaches including water security, hydropolitics, hydro-sociology, and water-energy-food nexus were highlighted in this period and their prospective role in achieving SDG 6 were discussed. This is highly significant from the point of long-term water sustainability as it demonstrates the recognition of approaches other than technological solutions in achieving SDG 6 by 2030 and beyond. Apart from this, water quality and human health were the main focal areas of scientific research. A significant transformation was observed in the second phase from 2019–2021 (till the day of data collection) during which 549 articles were published that focused not only on water supply and human health but expanded to include scientific articles on groundwater, water governance, wastewater treatment, climate change, remote sensing, and urban and rural areas. It is evident from the current study that water research connecting to SDG 6 gained significant impetus in this phase with 144 keywords meeting the threshold of co-occurrences of at least 10 times. Though scientific research related to SDG 6 increased, a gap can be noticed with insufficient emphasis on research topics other than water supply and management, and sustainable development. For example, the emerging approaches like water security, hydropolitics or water-energy-food nexus were not reported in connection to SDG 6 in the second phase. Though groundwater finds a significant mention in the second phase, research on water governance and/or ecosystem services approach are found to be lacking to a large extent. Scientific research on community participation has gained lot of significance over the last few years, however scientific research on community participation in relation to SDG 6 is found to be completely absent in the selected articles. Overall, the present study revealed that target 6.1 (safe and affordable water), 6.3 (treatment and reuse of wastewater) and 6.5 (IWRM including through transboundary cooperation) were the mostly referred SDG 6 targets in scientific research while targets 6.2 (adequate and equitable sanitation), 6.4 (water use efficiency and sustainable withdrawals of freshwater), 6.6 (protect and restore water-related ecosystems), 6.a (international cooperation and capacity building support) and 6.b (community participation in water and sanitation management) were found to be seldom represented in scientific research. Though it is not necessary to connect every scientific research on water to the SDG 6 targets and indicators, relating them to SDG 6 will make them more visible and easier to implement the science, technology, and innovation in achieving the SDG goals [80].
The limitations of the study are mainly about the method used. The database used was limited to Scopus; other databases such as Web of Science or Google Scholar are not included. This might influence the number of retrieved publications. Second, we focused on peer-reviewed literature and did not include grey literature such as government reports and/or policy briefs. Sometimes, grey literature includes important information and reports national progress regarding SDG implementation. Thirdly, the current study did not distinguish between studies that focus on SDG 6 from those that only mention the term and vice versa. This does not mean that there is no research supporting SDG 6, but that existing research in these areas does not necessarily refer to the goals by addressing SDG 6 anywhere in the article. All these limitations should be taken into consideration when reading the current study. Despite all these, the present study provides a comprehensive existing scenario of scientific research on SDG 6 and highlights the gaps where further collaboration between scientific community and policy makers are required.

5. Conclusions

In this study, we used bibliometric technique to explore the trends and gaps in the existing and ongoing research Sustainable Development Goal 6. Scopus dataset consisting of 637 articles from the year 2015–2021 (till 13 May 2021) were reviewed. The geographical distribution of the studies is skewed, and the USA and UK are found to be the most productive country. A relatively high share of publications in open access journals and presence of few pure open access journals as the main sources of articles demonstrates role of accessible knowledge and information sharing in achieving SDGs as well as dissemination at a wider scale. In addition to water specific journals such as Water (Switzerland), Water Resources Research and Water Research, interdisciplinary journals such as Science of the Total Environment, World Development and Journal of Environmental Management are identified to be dominant sources of scientific water research in support of the SDG 6. The keyword co-occurrence analysis, conducted over two different time periods, revealed significant growth in studies in connection to different targets and/or indicators of SDG 6. The first period, the initial development and planning phase from 2015–2018 mainly witnessed publications that linked human health and water and preliminary studies on connecting water and health with sustainable development. Keyword co-occurrence analysis over the second phase from 2019–2021 (till the day of data collection) revealed an expansion in research across different themes with respect to achieving SDG 6. This second phase observed important research on the emerging fields such as citizen science, circular economy, and ecosystem-based approaches and their contribution to SDG 6. Though few in numbers, these studies open new avenues for research on water and their contribution to sustainable development. A gap in scientific research connecting SDG 6 and concepts such as water security, hydropolitics, water-energy-food nexus or ecosystem services approaches is observed. This also demonstrates the thematic areas that need more scientific focus and provide an interdisciplinary support to SDG 6. As the emphasis on inclusion of scientific discourses in the planning and implementation of SDGs become stronger, the present study helps in accounting the status of connection between scientific research and SDG 6 and identifies the gaps that need to be addressed through active collaboration and knowledge sharing between the scientific community and policy makers at all levels.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.B. and R.D.; methodology, M.B.; software, M.B.; validation, M.B., and R.D.; formal analysis, M.B.; data curation, M.B.; writing—original draft preparation, M.B.; writing—review and editing, R.D.; visualization, M.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The present research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

The first author would like to acknowledge and thank Kyoto University for the Young Faculty Grant to carry out the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. United Nations. Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf (accessed on 23 July 2021).
  2. UN-Water. The Sustainable Development Goal 6 Global Acceleration Framework. Geneva, Switzerland. 2020. Available online: https://www.unwater.org/publications/the-sdg-6-global-acceleration-framework/ (accessed on 23 July 2021).
  3. UN-Water. Water and Sanitation Interlinkages across the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Geneva, Switzerland. 2016. Available online: https://www.unwater.org/publications/water-sanitation-interlinkages-across-2030-agenda-sustainable-development/ (accessed on 23 July 2021).
  4. TWI2050. Transformations to Achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Report Prepared by the World in 2050 Initiative; International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA): Laxenburg, Austria, 2018; Available online: http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/15347 (accessed on 23 July 2021).
  5. Allen, C.; Metternicht, G.; Wiedmann, T. Initial progress in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A review of evidence from countries. Sustain. Sci. 2018, 13, 1453–1467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sachs, J.D.; Schmidt-Traub, G.; Mazzucato, M.; Messner, D.; Nakicenovic, N.; Rockström, J. Six Transformations to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 805–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gaziulusoy, I.; Boyle, C. Proposing a heuristic reflective tool for reviewing literature in transdisciplinary research for sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 48, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W.M. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 133, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Falagas, M.E.; Pitsouni, E.I.; Malietzis, G.; Pappas, G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2007, 22, 338–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software survey: VOS viewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Rana, I.A. Disaster and climate change resilience: A bibliometric analysis. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 50, 101839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hota, P.K.; Subramanian, B.; Narayanamurthy, G. Mapping the Intellectual Structure of Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Citation/Co-citation Analysis. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 166, 89–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hoekstra, A.Y.; Chapagain, A.K.; Van Oel, P.R. Advancing Water Footprint Assessment Research: Challenges in Monitoring Progress towards Sustainable Development Goal 6. Water 2017, 9, 438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Hussein, H. Whose ‘reality’? Discourses and hydropolitics along the Yarmouk River. Contemp. Levant 2017, 2, 103–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hussein, H. Lifting the veil: Unpacking the discourse of water scarcity in Jordan. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 89, 385–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hussein, H.; Menga, F.; Greco, F. Monitoring Transboundary Water Cooperation in SDG 6.5.2: How a Critical Hydropolitics Approach Can Spot Inequitable Outcomes. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Guterres, A. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2019; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2019; Available online: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2019/The-Sustainable-Development-Goals-Report-2019.pdf (accessed on 29 July 2021).
  18. UN-Water. Sustainable Development Goal 6 Synthesis Report on Water and Sanitation; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2018; Available online: https://www.unwater.org/publications/sdg-6-synthesis-report-2018-on-water-and-sanitation/ (accessed on 23 July 2021).
  19. Hutton, G.; Varughese, M. The costs of meeting the 2030 sustainable development goal targets on drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene; The World Bank: Washington DC, USA, 2016; Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/23681 (accessed on 29 July 2021).
  20. Mumssen, Y.; Saltiel, G.; Kingdom, B. Aligning Institutions and Incentives for Sustainable Water Supply and Sanitation Services; The World Bank: Washington DC, USA, 2018; Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/29795 (accessed on 29 July 2021).
  21. IPCC. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Parry, M., Parry, M.L., Canziani, O., Palutikof, J., Van der Linden, P., Hanson, C., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007; Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ar4_wg2_full_report.pdf (accessed on 30 July 2021).
  22. IPCC. Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014; p. 1132. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5-PartA_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 30 July 2021).
  23. IPCC. Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Barros, V.R., Field, C.B., Dokken, D.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Mach, K.J., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014; p. 688. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5-PartB_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2021).
  24. Earle, A. Transboundary Water Management: Principles and Practice, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mirumachi, N. Transboundary Water Politics in the Developing World, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Neal (Patrick), M.J.; Greco, F.; Connell, D.; Conrad, J. The Social-Environmental Justice of Groundwater Governance. In Integrated Groundwater Management; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 253–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. De Chaisemartin, M.; Varady, R.G.; Megdal, S.B.; Conti, K.I.; van der Gun, J.; Merla, A.; Nijsten, G.-J.; Scheibler, F. Addressing the Groundwater Governance Challenge. In Freshwater Governance for the 21st Century; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 205–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Brundtland, G.H. Our Common Future—Call for Action. Environ. Conserv. 1987, 14, 291–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bonsor, H.C.; Oates, N.; Chilton, P.J.; Carter, R.C.; Casey, V.; MacDonald, A.M.; Calow, R.; Tumutungire, M. A Hidden Crisis: Strengthening the Evidence Base on the Sustainability of Rural Groundwater Supplies—Results from a Pilot Study in Uganda; British Geological Survey: Nottingham, UK, 2015; Available online: http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/511071/019 (accessed on 3 August 2021).
  30. Owor, M.; Fallas, H.C.; Macallister, D.J.; Okullo, F.; Katusiime, G.; Berochan, L.; Whaley, E.; Macdonald, A. Physical Factors Contributing to Rural Water Supply Functionality Performance in Uganda UPGro Hidden Crisis Research Consortium, Technical Report—Uganda British Geological Survey (BGS) Open Report, OR/19/056. 2019, p. 25. Available online: http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/527019/1/OR19056.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2021).
  31. Furey, S. Handpumps: Where Now? A Synthesis of Online Discussions (2012–2014). In Rural Water Supply Network; Skat Foundation: St. Gallen, Switzerland, 2014; Available online: https://www.rural-water-supply.net/_ressources/documents/default/1-614-2-1409669801.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2021).
  32. Grill, G.; Lehner, B.; Thieme, M.; Geenen, B.; Tickner, D.; Antonelli, F.; Babu, S.; Borrelli, P.; Cheng, L.; Crochetiere, H.; et al. Mapping the world’s free-flowing rivers. Nature 2019, 569, 215–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Jägermeyr, J.; Pastor, A.; Biemans, H.; Gerten, D. Reconciling irrigated food production with environmental flows for Sustainable Development Goals implementation. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 15900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Schroeder, P.; Anggraeni, K.; Weber, U. The Relevance of Circular Economy Practices to the Sustainable Development Goals. J. Ind. Ecol. 2019, 23, 77–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Masi, F.; Rizzo, A.; Regelsberger, M. The role of constructed wetlands in a new circular economy, resource oriented, and ecosystem services paradigm. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 216, 275–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Di Baldassarre, G.; Sivapalan, M.; Rusca, M.; Cudennec, C.; Garcia, M.; Kreibich, H.; Konar, M.; Mondino, E.; Mård, J.; Pande, S.; et al. Sociohydrology: Scientific Challenges in Addressing the Sustainable Development Goals. Water Resour. Res. 2019, 55, 6327–6355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Lim, S.S.; Allen, K.; A Bhutta, Z.; Dandona, L.; Forouzanfar, M.H.; Fullman, N.; Gething, P.W.; Goldberg, E.M.; I Hay, S.; Holmberg, M.; et al. Measuring the health-related Sustainable Development Goals in 188 countries: A baseline analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet 2016, 388, 1813–1850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Han, M.; Hashemi, S.; Joo, S.H.; Kim, T. Novel integrated systems for controlling and prevention of mosquito-borne diseases caused by poor sanitation and improper water management. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2016, 4, 3718–3723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Liu, L.; Oza, S.; Hogan, D.; Chu, Y.; Perin, J.; Zhu, J.; Lawn, J.E.; Cousens, S.; Mathers, C.; Black, R.E. Global, regional, and national causes of under-5 mortality in 2000–15: An updated systematic analysis with implications for the Sustainable Development Goals. Lancet 2016, 388, 3027–3035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Pérez-Escamilla, R. Food Security and the 2015–2030 Sustainable Development Goals: From Human to Planetary Health. Curr. Dev. Nutr. 2017, 1, e000513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hogan, D.R.; A Stevens, G.; Hosseinpoor, A.R.; Boerma, T. Monitoring universal health coverage within the Sustainable Development Goals: Development and baseline data for an index of essential health services. Lancet Glob. Health 2018, 6, e152–e168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Nhemachena, C.; Matchaya, G.; Nhemachena, C.R.; Karuaihe, S.; Muchara, B.; Nhlengethwa, S. Measuring Baseline Agriculture-Related Sustainable Development Goals Index for Southern Africa. Sustainability 2018, 10, 849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Cuaresma, J.C.; Fengler, W.; Kharas, H.; Bekhtiar, K.; Brottrager, M.; Hofer, M. Will the Sustainable Development Goals be fulfilled? Assessing present and future global poverty. Palgrave Commun. 2018, 4, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Kempster, S.; Hueso, A. Moving Up the Ladder: Assessing Sanitation Progress through a Total Service Gap. Water 2018, 10, 1735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Zhang, Q.; Prouty, C.; Zimmerman, J.B.; Mihelcic, J.R. More than Target 6.3: A Systems Approach to Rethinking Sustainable Development Goals in a Resource-Scarce World. Engineering 2016, 2, 481–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hall, R.P.; Ranganathan, S.C.; GC, R.K. A General Micro-Level Modeling Approach to Analyzing Interconnected SDGs: Achieving SDG 6 and More through Multiple-Use Water Services (MUS). Sustainability 2017, 9, 314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Diaz-Sarachaga, J.M.; Jato-Espino, D.; Castro-Fresno, D. Is the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) index an adequate framework to measure the progress of the 2030 Agenda? Sustain. Dev. 2018, 26, 663–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gain, A.K.; Giupponi, C.; Wada, Y. Measuring global water security towards sustainable development goals. Environ. Res. Lett. 2016, 11, 124015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wiegleb, V.; Bruns, A. Hydro-social arrangements and paradigmatic change in water governance: An analysis of the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Sustain. Sci. 2017, 13, 1155–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Saladini, F.; Betti, G.; Ferragina, E.; Bouraoui, F.; Cupertino, S.; Canitano, G.; Gigliotti, M.; Autino, A.; Pulselli, F.; Riccaboni, A.; et al. Linking the water-energy-food nexus and sustainable development indicators for the Mediterranean region. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 91, 689–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Thomas, V.; Godfrey, S. Understanding water-related emotional distress for improving water services: A case study from an Ethiopian small town. J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 2018, 8, 196–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Mycoo, M.A. Achieving SDG 6: Water resources sustainability in Caribbean Small Island Developing States through improved water governance. Nat. Resour. Forum 2017, 42, 54–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Cole, M.J.; Bailey, R.M.; Jcullis, J.D.; New, M.G. Water for sustainable development in the Berg Water Management Area, South Africa. South Afr. J. Sci. 2018, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Walter, C.T.; Kooy, M.; Prabaharyaka, I. The role of bottled drinking water in achieving SDG 6.1: An analysis of affordability and equity from Jakarta, Indonesia. J. Water Sanit. Hyg. Dev. 2017, 7, 642–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Khan, S.M.; Bain, R.E.S.; Lunze, K.; Unalan, T.; Beshanski-Pedersen, B.; Slaymaker, T.; Johnston, R.; Hancioglu, A. Optimizing household survey methods to monitor the Sustainable Development Goals targets 6.1 and 6.2 on drinking water, sanitation and hygiene: A mixed-methods field-test in Belize. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0189089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Chaudhuri, S.; Roy, M. Rural-urban spatial inequality in water and sanitation facilities in India: A cross-sectional study from household to national level. Appl. Geogr. 2017, 85, 27–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Tussupova, K.; Hjorth, P.; Berndtsson, R. Access to Drinking Water and Sanitation in Rural Kazakhstan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Ferreira, D.C.; Graziele, I.; Marques, R.C.; Gonçalves, J. Investment in drinking water and sanitation infrastructure and its impact on waterborne diseases dissemination: The Brazilian case. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 779, 146279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Rahaman, M.M.; Galib, A.I.; Azmi, F. Achieving drinking water and sanitation related targets of SDG 6 at Shahidbug slum, Dhaka. Water Int. 2021, 46, 462–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Quispe-Coica, A.; Pérez-Foguet, A. Preprocessing alternatives for compositional data related to water, sanitation and hygiene. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 743, 140519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. De Carvalho, R.; Nahas, M.; Heller, L. Localizing Sustainable Development Goal 6: An Assessment of Equitable Access to Sanitation in a Brazilian Metropolitan Region. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Martínez-Córdoba, P.-J.; Raimo, N.; Vitolla, F.; Benito, B. Achieving Sustainable Development Goals. Efficiency in the Spanish Clean Water and Sanitation Sector. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Biswas, R.; Arya, K.; Fernandes, V.; Shah, T. Find a Loo: An app for sanitation governance. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2020, 24, 1586–1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ezbakhe, F.; Giné-Garriga, R.; Pérez-Foguet, A. Leaving no one behind: Evaluating access to water, sanitation and hygiene for vulnerable and marginalized groups. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 683, 537–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Nhamo, G.; Nhemachena, C.; Nhamo, S. Is 2030 too soon for Africa to achieve the water and sanitation sustainable development goal? Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 669, 129–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Wijesiri, B.; Hettiarachchi, A. How gender disparities in urban and rural areas influence access to safe drinking water. Util. Policy 2020, 68, 101141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Akpabio, E.M.; Wilson, N.-A.U.; Essien, K.A.; Ansa, I.E.; Odum, P.N. Slums, women and sanitary living in South-South Nigeria. J. Hous. Built Environ. 2021, 36, 1229–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Lebek, K.; Twomey, M.; Krueger, T. Municipal failure, unequal access and conflicts over water–a hydro-social perspective on water insecurity of rural households in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Water Altern. 2021, 14, 271–292. [Google Scholar]
  69. Hegarty, S.; Hayes, A.; Regan, F.; Bishop, I.; Clinton, R. Using citizen science to understand river water quality while filling data gaps to meet United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 6 objectives. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 783, 146953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bishop, I.J.; Warner, S.; van Noordwijk, T.C.G.E.; Nyoni, F.C.; Loiselle, S. Citizen Science Monitoring for Sustainable Development Goal Indicator 6.3.2 in England and Zambia. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Capdevila, A.S.L.; Kokimova, A.; Ray, S.S.; Avellán, T.; Kim, J.; Kirschke, S. Success factors for citizen science projects in water quality monitoring. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 728, 137843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Fehri, R.; Khlifi, S.; Vanclooster, M. Testing a citizen science water monitoring approach in Tunisia. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 104, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Quinlivan, L.; Chapman, D.V.; Sullivan, T. Validating citizen science monitoring of ambient water quality for the United Nations sustainable development goals. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 699, 134255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. K, A.; Mungray, A.; Agarwal, S.; Ali, J.; Garg, M.C. Performance optimisation of forward-osmosis membrane system using machine learning for the treatment of textile industry wastewater. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 289, 125690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Dragonetti, G.; Khadra, R.; Daccache, A.; Oubelkacem, A.; Choukr-Allah, R.; Lamaddalena, N. Development and Application of a Predictive Model for Treated Wastewater Irrigation Management in a Semiarid Area. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2020, 16, 910–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Reis, M.M.; da Silva, A.J.; Lopes, M.G.; Donato, L.M.S.; Barros, R.E.; Pegoraro, R.F.; Santos, L.D.T. Use of treated wastewater in irrigation: Productive and nutritional aspects of millet and chemical properties of clay and sandy loam soils. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2020, 67, 2063–2076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Delanka-Pedige, H.M.K.; Munasinghe-Arachchige, S.P.; Abeysiriwardana-Arachchige, I.S.A.; Nirmalakhandan, N. Evaluating wastewater treatment infrastructure systems based on UN Sustainable Development Goals and targets. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 298, 126795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sweileh, W.M. Bibliometric analysis of scientific publications on “sustainable development goals” with emphasis on “good health and well-being” goal (2015–2019). Glob. Health 2020, 16, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Rosato, P.F.; Caputo, A.; Valente, D.; Pizzi, S. 2030 Agenda and sustainable business models in tourism: A bibliometric analysis. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 121, 106978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Walsh, P.; Murphy, E.; Horan, D. The role of science, technology and innovation in the UN 2030 agenda. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 154, 119957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Water 13 03591 g001 550
Figure 1. Articles published per year.
Figure 1. Articles published per year.
Water 13 03591 g001
Water 13 03591 g002 550
Figure 2. Density Analysis of co-citation of the articles.
Figure 2. Density Analysis of co-citation of the articles.
Water 13 03591 g002
Water 13 03591 g003 550
Figure 3. Density Analysis of co-citation of the sources.
Figure 3. Density Analysis of co-citation of the sources.
Water 13 03591 g003
Water 13 03591 g004 550
Figure 4. Network analysis of co-citation of ‘cited authors’ (node size is proportional to the number of citations; Four colored clusters represent four thematic areas of research as per the expertise of the authors).
Figure 4. Network analysis of co-citation of ‘cited authors’ (node size is proportional to the number of citations; Four colored clusters represent four thematic areas of research as per the expertise of the authors).
Water 13 03591 g004
Water 13 03591 g005 550
Figure 5. Density analysis of bibliographic coupling of the articles.
Figure 5. Density analysis of bibliographic coupling of the articles.
Water 13 03591 g005
Water 13 03591 g006 550
Figure 6. Network analysis map showing international research collaboration among countries with a minimum of 10 SDG 6-related publications. (Note: Countries in the center with many connections have highest research collaboration while countries at the edge of the map have the least research collaboration).
Figure 6. Network analysis map showing international research collaboration among countries with a minimum of 10 SDG 6-related publications. (Note: Countries in the center with many connections have highest research collaboration while countries at the edge of the map have the least research collaboration).
Water 13 03591 g006
Water 13 03591 g007 550
Figure 7. Density analysis of bibliographic coupling of the journals.
Figure 7. Density analysis of bibliographic coupling of the journals.
Water 13 03591 g007
Water 13 03591 g008 550
Figure 8. Network analysis of bibliographic coupling of the authors.
Figure 8. Network analysis of bibliographic coupling of the authors.
Water 13 03591 g008
Water 13 03591 g009 550
Figure 9. Network analysis of keywords (a) from 2015–2018, and (b) 2019–2021.
Figure 9. Network analysis of keywords (a) from 2015–2018, and (b) 2019–2021.
Water 13 03591 g009
Table
Table 1. Five topmost sources with the highest number of articles and citations.
Table 1. Five topmost sources with the highest number of articles and citations.
SourceDocumentsCitationsTotal Link Strength
Water7334282
Sustainability5220053
Science of the Total Environment3618933
Journal of Cleaner Production171106
Journal of Environmental Management141028
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Basu, M.; Dasgupta, R. Where Do We Stand Now? A Bibliometric Analysis of Water Research in Support of the Sustainable Development Goal 6. Water 2021, 13, 3591. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13243591

AMA Style

Basu M, Dasgupta R. Where Do We Stand Now? A Bibliometric Analysis of Water Research in Support of the Sustainable Development Goal 6. Water. 2021; 13(24):3591. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13243591

Chicago/Turabian Style

Basu, Mrittika, and Rajarshi Dasgupta. 2021. "Where Do We Stand Now? A Bibliometric Analysis of Water Research in Support of the Sustainable Development Goal 6" Water 13, no. 24: 3591. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13243591

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