Analysis of scientific production on environmental risk assessment in ecosystems with a circular economy-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Analysis of scientific production on environmental risk assessment in ecosystems with a circular economy

Published:2024-12-09 Issue:234 Volume:91 Page:116-125
ISSN:2346-2183
Container-title:DYNA
language:
Short-container-title:DYNA

Author:

Sánchez-Suárez Yasniel^ORCID,Pancorbo-Sandoval José Armando^ORCID,Leyva-Ricardo Sonia Emilia^ORCID,Sánchez-Castillo Verenice^ORCID

Abstract

Ecosystems are currently at risk, and scientific methods have been developed to assess these impacts. In this scenario, the circular economy makes it possible to reuse raw materials and reduce waste. The objective of the research is to analyze the scientific production related to the evaluation of environmental risks in ecosystems with a circular economy approach. Quantitative research was carried out, with a retrospective and descriptive approach, from a bibliometric study in the SCOPUS database in the period 2014 - 2024. The peak of research was 4, where research articles predominated with 7 in 12 areas of knowledge. The most producing country was the United States. The most producing journal was Thunderbird International Business Review with 159. four research lines and their gaps were identified. Environmental risk assessment is much more than a legal requirement; it is an opportunity to demonstrate an organization's commitment to sustainability.

Publisher

Universidad Nacional de Colombia

Reference62 articles.

1. [1] Reyes-Fornet, A., Saabedra-García, J.F., Zúñiga-Igarza, L.-M., and Fornet-Hernández, E.B., Modelo conceptual del patrimonio natural en la gestión ambiental para la conservación de ecosistemas. Ecosistemas, 29(2), pp. 2003-2003, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7818/ECOS.2003

2. [2] Ao, A., Changkija, S., and Tripathi, S.K., Patterns of forest community diversity, regeneration potential and carbon storages along an altitudinal gradient in Eastern Himalaya, India. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 22, art. 100399, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2024.100399

3. [3] Zou, K., Zhu, Y., Jiang, Y., Ma, S., Li, M., Zhao, W., and Wang, J. Distinct stochastic processes drive bacterial community assembly and co-occurrence patterns with common antibiotic resistance genes in two highly urbanised coastal ecosystems of the Pearl River Estuary. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 459, art. 132161, 2023. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2023.132161

4. [4] Buda, J., Łokas, E., Pietryka, M., Richter, D., Magowski, W., Iakovenko, N.S., Porazinska, D.L., Budzik, T., Grabiec, M., and Grzesiak, J., Biotope and biocenosis of cryoconite hole ecosystems on Ecology Glacier in the maritime Antarctic. Science of The Total Environment, 724, art. 138112, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138112

5. [5] Robert, J., Kubler, S., and Ghatpande, S., Enhanced lightning Network (off-chain)-based micropayment in IoT ecosystems. Future Generation Computer Systems, 112, pp. 283-296, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2020.05.033