Scientific trends through bibliometric analysis approach in hunting and wildlife research

Year 2026, Issue: 064 , 106 - 131 , 30.03.2026

Ahmet Mert , Ayşegül Tekeş Düdükçü , Ahmet Acarer , Esra Bayazıt

https://doi.org/10.59313/jsr-a.1809309

https://izlik.org/JA56GY53UE

Abstract

The research uses bibliometric methodology to study wildlife and hunting patterns through scientific publications from 1978 to 2024 which were obtained by searching for the terms “hunting” and “wildlife” and “wild animal”. We sourced the data from the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection, conducting the analysis with the RStudio-Bibliometrix package and the Biblioshiny tool. The evaluation of 1451 documents showed an 11.29% annual growth rate for publications. The research data shows that academic research in this field has expanded quickly since 2000 while evolving into a multi-disciplinary academic field. The European Journal of Wildlife Research together with Journal of Wildlife Diseases, PLOS ONE and Biological Conservation proved to be the most influential journals while the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and University of Oxford published the most research. The USA along with the UK and Spain lead all countries in terms of their total national output through their highest publication and citation numbers. The keyword analysis indicates the literature is clustered around two fundamental themes: conservation ecology and population management, alongside zoonotic diseases and epidemiology. The research about wildlife and hunting has developed significantly during the last forty years because it now produces more results while scientists work together across different fields and study a wider range of topics. Our research establishes scientific evidence which will guide policymakers to develop regulations for environmental protection and wildlife conservation and disease prevention. This research aligns with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly Goals 15 (Life on Land) and 13 (Climate Action), by supporting biodiversity conservation and sustainable ecosystem management.  

Keywords

Hunting , Bibliometric Analysis , Wildlife , Wild Animal

References

• [1] J. R. Probst and T. R. Crow, “Integrating biological diversity and resource management: An essential approach to productive, sustainable ecosystems,” J. Forestry, vol. 89, no. 2, pp. 12–17, 1991. doi: 10.1093/jof/89.2.12.
• [2] S. Gupta, P. R. Kumaresan, A. Saxena, M. R. Mishra, L. Upadhyay, A. S. TA, and A. H. Magrey, “Wildlife conservation and management: Challenges and strategies,” Uttar Pradesh J. Zool., vol. 44, no. 24, pp. 280–286, 2023. doi: 10.56557/upjoz/2023/v44i243840.
• [3] S. L. Pimm, The Balance of Nature?: Ecological Issues in the Conservation of Species and Communities. University of Chicago Press, 1991.
• [4] G. G. Gray, Wildlife and People: The Human Dimensions of Wildlife Ecology. University of Illinois Press, 1995.
• [5] P. Chardonnet, B. D. Clers, J. Fischer, R. Gerhold, F. Jori, and F. Lamarque, “The value of wildlife,” Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 15–52, 2002. doi: 10.20506/rst.21.1.1323.
• [6] L. Cahoone, “Hunting as a moral good,” Environ. Values, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 67–89, 2009. doi: 10.3197/096327109X404771.
• [7] F. Quirós-Fernández, J. Marcos, P. Acevedo, and C. Gortázar, “Hunters serving the ecosystem: The contribution of recreational hunting to wild boar population control,” Eur. J. Wildl. Res., vol. 63, no. 3, p. 57, 2017. doi: 10.1007/s10344-017-1107-4.
• [8] N. S. Sodhi, B. W. Brook, and C. J. A. Bradshaw, “Causes and consequences of species extinctions,” Princeton Guide to Ecology, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 514–520, 2009. doi: 10.1515/9781400833023.514.
• [9] M. Rianzar and H. Kusuma, “Study on the decline of wildlife population in nature due to illegal breeding and hunting: Implications for biodiversity conservation,” Bioculture J., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 123–140, 2025. doi: 10.61511/bioculture.v2i2.2025.1494.
• [10] M. E. Bachmann, L. Kulik, T. Gatiso, M. R. Nielsen, D. Haase, M. Heurich, … and H. S. Kühl, “Analysis of differences and commonalities in wildlife hunting across the Africa-Europe South-North gradient,” PLoS Biol., vol. 20, no. 8, p. e3001707, 2022. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001707.
• [11] B. G. Parker, M. Khanyari, H. Ambarlı, B. Buuveibaatar, M. Kabir, G. Khanal, … and M. S. Farhadinia, “A review of the ecological and socioeconomic characteristics of trophy hunting across Asia,” Anim. Conserv., vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 609–624, 2023. doi: 10.1111/acv.12840.
• [12] D. Ma, B. Abrahms, J. Allgeier, T. Newbold, B. C. Weeks, and N. H. Carter, “Global expansion of human-wildlife overlap in the 21st century,” Sci. Adv., vol. 10, no. 34, p. eadp7706, 2024. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.adp7706.
• [13] K. Z. Weinbaum, J. S. Brashares, C. D. Golden, and W. M. Getz, “Searching for sustainability: Are assessments of wildlife harvests behind the times?,” Ecol. Lett., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 99–111, 2013. doi: 10.1111/ele.12008.
• [14] N. Yoh, W. Mbamy, B. L. Gottesman, G. Z. Froese, T. Satchivi, M. O. Ebanega, … and Z. Buřivalová, “Impacts of logging, hunting, and conservation on vocalizing biodiversity in Gabon,” Biol. Conserv., vol. 296, p. 110726, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110726.
• [15] M. Aria and C. Cuccurullo, “bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis,” J. Informetr., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 959–975, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007.
• [16] K. Su, H. Zhang, L. Lin, Y. Hou, and Y. Wen, “Bibliometric analysis of human–wildlife conflict: From conflict to coexistence,” Ecol. Inform., vol. 68, p. 101531, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2021.101531.
• [17] Q. Ridwan, Z. A. Wani, N. Anjum, J. A. Bhat, M. Hanief, and S. Pant, “Human-wildlife conflict: A bibliometric analysis during 1991–2023,” Reg. Sustain., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 309–321, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.regsus.2023.08.008.
• [18] B. K. Guzman Valqui, J. O. Silva López, and N. B. Rojas Briceño, “Human-wildlife interaction, conflict, and coexistence: Bibliometric analysis from Scopus (1987–2023),” 2025. doi: 10.31893/jabb.2025023.
• [19] Z. A. Wani, S. Pant, J. A. Bhat, M. Tariq, S. Siddiqui, and M. O. Alshaharni, “Bibliometric analysis of studies on threat assessment and prioritization of species for conservation,” Front. Forests Glob. Change, vol. 7, p. 1374120, 2024. doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2024.1374120.
• [20] A. Abas, A. H. A. Rahman, T. A. H. T. Md Fauzi, and A. H. M. Yusof, “A bibliometric review of global research on the human-wildlife conflicts,” Front. Environ. Sci., vol. 12, p. 1517218, 2025. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2024.1517218.
• [21] N. Donthu, S. Kumar, D. Mukherjee, N. Pandey, and W. M. Lim, “How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines,” J. Bus. Res., vol. 133, pp. 285–296, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070.
• [22] I. Zupic and T. Čater, “Bibliometric methods in management and organization,” Organ. Res. Methods, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 429–472, 2015. doi: 10.1177/1094428114562629.
• [23] Ş. Berk, S. Özdemir, and A. N. Pektaş, “Visualization of scientific production in Caenorhabditis elegans: a bibliometric analysis (1980–2023),” Genomics & Informatics, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 3, 2024. doi: 10.1186/s44342-024-00002-7.
• [24] C. L. Gonçalves, L. Pereira, and A. C. S. Akkari, “Bibliometric mapping of the research trends on software architecture for e-Health systems,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 219, pp. 1462–1469, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2023.01.436.
• [25] C. Chen, “Science mapping: A systematic review of the literature,” J. Data Inf. Sci., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 1–40, 2017, doi: 10.1515/jdis-2017-0006.
• [26] X. Zhao, J. Zuo, G. Wu, and C. Huang, “A bibliometric review of green building research 2000–2016,” Archit. Sci. Rev., vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 74–88, 2019, doi: 10.1080/00038628.2018.1485548.
• [27] H. H. Emsen, Bilişim Çağinda Mimarlik: Tasarim, Yapim ve Planlama Alanlarinda Makine Öğrenimi Çalişmalarinin Bibliyometrik Analizi, 2022.
• [28] Y. Zhang, E. Ye, F. Liu, N. Lai, X. You, J. Dong, and J. Dong, “The relationship between landscape construction and bird diversity: A bibliometric analysis,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 20, no. 5, Article 5, 2023, doi: 10.3390/ijerph20054551.
• [29] Z. Wu and Y. Ren, “A bibliometric review of past trends and future prospects in urban heat island research from 1990 to 2017,” Environ. Rev., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 241–251, 2019, doi: 10.1139/er-2018-0029.
• [30] E. Roldan-Valadez, S. Y. Salazar-Ruiz, R. Ibarra-Contreras, and C. Rios, “Current concepts on bibliometrics: A brief review about impact factor, Eigenfactor score, CiteScore, SCImago Journal Rank, Source-Normalised Impact per Paper, H-index, and alternative metrics,” Ir. J. Med. Sci., vol. 188, no. 3, pp. 939–951, 2019, doi: 10.1007/s11845-018-1936-5.
• [31] A. M. Matsler, S. Meerow, I. C. Mell, and M. A. Pavao-Zuckerman, “A ‘green’ chameleon: Exploring the many disciplinary definitions, goals, and forms of green infrastructure,” Landsc. Urban Plann., vol. 214, p. 104145, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104145.
• [32] L. Waltman, N. J. van Eck, and E. C. M. Noyons, “A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks,” J. Informetr., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 629–635, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2010.07.002.
• [33] M. Greenacre, Correspondence Analysis in Practice. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2017. doi: 10.1201/9781315369983.
• [34] É. Archambault, D. Campbell, Y. Gingras, and V. Larivière, “Comparing bibliometric statistics obtained from the Web of Science and Scopus,” J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 1320–1326, 2009. doi: 10.1002/asi.21062.
• [35] A. W. Harzing and S. Alakangas, “Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison,” Scientometrics, vol. 106, no. 2, pp. 787–804, 2016. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9.
• [36] Z. Xu, W. Zhou, and E. Baltrėnaitė, “Comprehensive bibliometric study of Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management from 2007 to 2019,” J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag., vol. 27, no. 4, Article 4, 2019, doi: 10.3846/jeelm.2019.11366.
• [37] B. Michelle and M. P. Gemilang, “A bibliometric analysis of generative design, algorithmic design, and parametric design in architecture,” J. Artif. Intell. Archit., vol. 1, no. 1, Article 1, 2022, doi: 10.24002/jarina.v1i1.4921.
• [38] G. Yang, Z. Yu, J. Zhang, and L. Søderkvist Kristensen, “From preference to landscape sustainability: A bibliometric review of landscape preference research from 1968 to 2019,” Ecosyst. Health Sustain., vol. 7, no. 1, p. 1948355, 2021, doi: 10.1080/20964129.2021.1948355.
• [39] C. L. Gonçalves, L. Pereira, and A. C. S. Akkari, “Bibliometric mapping of the research trends on software architecture for e-Health systems,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 219, pp. 1462–1469, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2023.01.436.
• [40] E. Bayazıt, “Academic traces of urban furniture: A bibliometric perspective,” İdealkent, vol. 16, no. 45, pp. 1403–1434, 2024. doi: 10.31198/idealkent.1472595.
• [41] E. Bayazıt. Urban morphology and planning from an entropy perspective: A bibliometric evaluation. Sigma J Eng Nat Sci 2025;43(5):1451−1472. doi: 10.14744/sigma.2025.00157.
• [42] A. Aristovnik, D. Ravšelj, and L. Umek, “A bibliometric analysis of COVID-19 across science and social science research landscape,” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 21, Article 21, 2020, doi: 10.3390/su12219132.
• [43] J. Liu, K. M. Kamarudin, Y. Liu, and J. Zou, “Developing pandemic prevention and control by ANP-QFD approach: A case study on urban furniture design in China communities,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 18, no. 5, Article 5, 2021, doi: 10.3390/ijerph18052653.
• [44] D. Katuk and E. Koseoglu, “Affect, architecture and water: Bibliometric analysis of the literature,” J. Des. Plann. Aesthet. Res., vol. 1, 2023, doi: 10.55755/DepArch.2023.18.
• [45] M. J. Cobo, A. G. López-Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma, and F. Herrera, “Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools,” J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol., vol. 62, no. 7, pp. 1382–1402, 2011, doi: 10.1002/asi.21525.
• [46] J. Song, H. Zhang, and W. Dong, “A review of emerging trends in global PPP research: Analysis and visualization,” Scientometrics, vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 1111–1147, 2016, doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-1918-1.
• [47] J. Xiong, Z. Wang, M. Ruan, H. Yao, M. Wei, R. Sun, X. Yang, W. Qi, and F. Liang, “Current status of neuroimaging research on the effects of acupuncture: A bibliometric and visual analyses,” Complement. Ther. Med., vol. 71, p. 102877, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2022.102877.
• [48] A. E. Siyavus and T. N. Aydin, “A bibliometric analysis of urban sprawl,” Pap. Appl. Geogr., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 163–184, 2022, doi: 10.1080/23754931.2021.1975307.
• [49] Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569-16572. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102.
• [50] Iglesias, J., & Pecharromán, C. (2007). Scaling the h-index for different scientific ISI fields. Scientometrics, 73(3), 303-320. doi: 10.1007/s11192-007-1805-x.