Bibliometric analysis reveals trends in drinking water supply research in disaster-affected areas, indicating future research needs.
Providing access to clean drinking water is a critical challenge in the aftermath of natural disasters. The aim of this study is to conduct a bibliometric analysis of research trends on drinking water provision in disaster-affected areas, identifying strengths and weaknesses in the global research community. This study conducted a bibliometric analysis of research on drinking water supply in disaster-affected areas from 2004 to 2024 using Scopus. A comprehensive search query was employed to include relevant studies, excluding unrelated topics. Data were exported to Excel for analysis, and VOSviewer software was used to create network maps based on co-occurrence relationships, author collaborations, and citation patterns. This study analyzes 709 publications on drinking water supply in disaster-affected areas from 2004 to 2024, sourced from 109 countries and authored by 2804 researchers. The findings indicate a consistent rise in publications, reaching a peak in 2021, with a predominant focus on environmental science, engineering, and social sciences. Peer-reviewed journal articles dominate, followed by conference papers. Prominent authors such as Rosario-Ortiz and Pieper have significantly influenced the field. Research clusters highlight wildfire impacts, water quality management, and treatment systems. Major journals include Water and Journal of Hydrology , with the United States, China, and Australia leading global contributions. This study analyzes research trends in providing drinking water during natural disasters, highlighting a focus on floods and wildfires. It emphasizes the need for more attention to water crises caused by earthquakes and tsunamis, the use of predictive models, smart systems, and international collaborations in future research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Saeid et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: