A Bibliometric Analysis on Water Footprint in Industry: Global Research Trends and Mapping of Scientific Networks

Öz

This study aims to reveal the development and intellectual structure of global scientific production on the Water Footprint (WF) in industry through bibliometric methods. A total of 3,052 research and review articles published up to 22.12.2025 and indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection database were included in the analysis. Publication trends, citation performance, and scientific collaboration structures were evaluated using performance analysis and science mapping approaches. Co-authorship, co-citation, keyword co-occurrence, and bibliographic coupling analyses were visualized using VOSviewer software. The findings indicate that literature on industrial WF has seen an increase since 2020 with its highest number of publications anticipated for the year 2025 at about 485 articles based on current trends. This growth reflects the increasing recognition of water footprint assessment as a key instrument for cleaner production, resource efficiency, and sustainable industrial water management. Keyword analyses reveal that research is largely concentrated around the concepts of WF, life cycle assessment (LCA), and wastewater treatment. Citation and network analyses show that certain methodological references-particularly the works of Hoekstra and Mekonnen-form the intellectual backbone of the literature. In addition, publications are predominantly focused on environmental sciences and engineering while economic and managerial approaches remain limited. Overall this study provides a systematic framework for literature by identifying main trends gaps and future research priorities in industrial WF research.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bibliometric Analysis
• Cleaner Production
• Industry
• VOSviewer
• Water Footprint (WF)
• Web of Science (WoS)

Sanayide Su Ayak İzi Üzerine Bibliyometrik Bir Analiz: Küresel Araştırma Trendleri ve Bilimsel Ağların Haritalandırılması

Öz

Bu çalışma, bibliyometrik yöntemler aracılığıyla endüstrideki Su Ayak İzi (WF) üzerine küresel bilimsel üretimin gelişimini ve entelektüel yapısını ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Analize, 22.12.2025 tarihine kadar yayınlanmış ve Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection veritabanında indekslenmiş toplam 3.052 araştırma ve derleme makalesi dahil edilmiştir. Yayın eğilimleri, atıf performansı ve bilimsel işbirliği yapıları, performans analizi ve bilim haritalama yaklaşımları kullanılarak değerlendirilmiştir. Ortak yazarlık, ortak atıf, anahtar kelime birlikteliği ve bibliyografik bağlantı analizleri VOSviewer yazılımı kullanılarak görselleştirilmiştir. Bulgular, endüstriyel WF üzerine literatürün 2020 yılından bu yana artış gösterdiğini ve mevcut eğilimlere göre 2025 yılında yaklaşık 485 makale ile en yüksek yayın sayısına ulaşmasının beklendiğini göstermektedir. Bu büyüme, su ayak izi değerlendirmesinin daha temiz üretim, kaynak verimliliği ve sürdürülebilir endüstriyel su yönetimi için önemli bir araç olarak giderek daha fazla kabul görmesini yansıtmaktadır. Anahtar kelime analizleri, araştırmanın büyük ölçüde WF, yaşam döngüsü değerlendirmesi (LCA) ve atık su arıtma kavramları etrafında yoğunlaştığını ortaya koymaktadır. Atıf ve ağ analizleri, özellikle Hoekstra ve Mekonnen'in çalışmaları olmak üzere belirli metodolojik referansların literatürün entelektüel omurgasını oluşturduğunu göstermektedir. Buna ek olarak, yayınlar ağırlıklı olarak çevre bilimleri ve mühendisliğine odaklanırken, ekonomik ve yönetimsel yaklaşımlar sınırlı kalmaktadır. Genel olarak bu çalışma, endüstriyel su ayak izi araştırmalarındaki ana eğilimleri, boşlukları ve gelecekteki araştırma önceliklerini belirleyerek literatür için sistematik bir çerçeve sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Bibliyometrik Analiz
• Temiz Üretim
• Endüstri
• VOSviewer
• Su Ayak İzi (WF)
• Web of Science (WoS)

Kaynakça

1. Arastou, K., Dehnavi, A., Jamshidi, S. (2024). Industrial grey water footprint: Principles, evaluation method, and challenges, in: Muthu, S.S. (Ed.), Sustainable Water Footprint: Industry-Specific Assessment and Recommendations. Springer Nature, Cham, pp. 7–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-70810-7_2.
2. Ashok, K., Doriya, D., Rao, D.R.M., Kumar, D.S. (2017). Design of solid state bioreactor for industrial applications: An overview to conventional bioreactors. Biocatal Agric Biotechnol. 9, 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcab.2016.10.014.
3. Boretti, A., Rosa, L. (2019). Reassessing the projections of the world water development report. NPJ Clean Water. 2, 15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41545-019-0039-9.
4. Braun, V., Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 3, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
5. Brignardello-Petersen, R., Santesso, N., Guyatt, G. (2024). Systematic reviews of the literature: An introduction to current methods. Am J Epidemiol. 0, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae232.
6. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., Lim, W. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. J Bus Res. 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070.
7. European Commission. (2020). A New Circular Economy Action Plan: For a Cleaner and More Competitive Europe. COM(2020) 98 final, Brussels. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0098.
8. European Commission. (2023). Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/2772 of 31 July 2023 supplementing Directive 2013/34/EU as regards sustainability reporting standards. Off J Eur Union. L, 2023/2772. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2023/2772/oj.

9. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2020). Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of 18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088. Off J Eur Union. L 198, 13–43. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2020/852/oj.
10. Feng, Q., Sun, Y., Li, X., He, M., Luo, Y., Liu, C., Wang, L. (2024). A bibliometric analysis of water footprint in China and abroad: Research hotspots and frontiers. Water Sci Technol. 90, 1759–1783. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2024.297.
11. Flick, U. (2018). Triangulation in data collection, in: Flick, U. (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection. SAGE Publ, London, pp. 52–65. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526416070.n34.
12. Franke, N., Mathews, R. (2013). C&A’s Water Footprint Strategy: Cotton Clothing Supply Chain. Water Footprint Network, Enschede.
13. García-Peñalvo, F. (2022). Desarrollo de estados de la cuestión robustos: Revisiones sistemáticas de literatura. Educ Knowl Soc. 23, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.14201/eks.28600.
14. Guzmán-Dimas, A., Torres, Y.S., Vega, R., Cruz, M.C. (2025). Water footprint and sustainable development goals: A bibliometric, semantic, and thematic analysis in economic-administrative sciences. Clean Environ Syst. 100316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cesys.2025.100316.
15. Hoekstra, A.Y., Chapagain, A.K., Aldaya, M.M., Mekonnen, M.M. (2011). The Water Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting the Global Standard. Earthscan, London.
16. Hoekstra, A.Y. (2015). The water footprint of industry, in: Assessment and Measurement of Environmental Impact and Sustainability. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 221–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-799968-5.00007-5.
17. Jamshidi, S. (2019). An approach to develop grey water footprint accounting. Ecol Indic. 106, 105477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105477.
18. Jamshidi, S., Imani, S., Delavar, M. (2022). An approach to quantifying the grey water footprint of agricultural productions in basins with impaired environment. J Hydrol. 606, 127458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127458.
19. Kumar, P.S., Prasanth, M.S., Harish, S., Rishikesh, M. (2021). Industrial water footprint: Case study on textile industries, in: Water Footprint: Assessment and Case Studies, pp. 35–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4377-1_2.
20. Lellis, B., Fávaro-Polonio, C.Z., Pamphile, J.A., Polonio, J.C. (2019). Effects of textile dyes on health and the environment and bioremediation potential of living organisms. Biotechnol Res Innov. 3, 275–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biori.2019.09.001.
21. McLellan, R., Iyengar, L., Jeffries, B., Oerlemans, N. (2014). Living Planet Report 2014: Species and Spaces, People and Places. WWF Int, Gland.
22. Pérez Rincón, M.A., et al. (2017). Metodología para la medición de la huella hídrica en la producción de tilapia, cachama y trucha: Estudios de caso para el Valle del Cauca (Colombia). Ing Compet. 19. https://doi.org/10.25100/iyc.v19i2.5298.
23. Roudbari, M.V., Dehnavi, A., Jamshidi, S., Yazdani, M. (2023). A multi-pollutant pilot study to evaluate the grey water footprint of irrigated paddy rice. Agric Water Manag. 282, 108291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108291.
24. Shea, B., et al. (2002). A comparison of the quality of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in paper-based journals. Eval Health Prof. 25, 116–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278702025001008.
25. Stejskalová, L., Ansorge, L., Kučera, J., Čejka, E. (2022). Role of wastewater treatment plants in pollution reduction – evaluated by grey water footprint indicator. Sci Agric Bohem. 31, 26–36. https://doi.org/10.22630/srees.2313.
26. UNESCO World Water Assessment Programme. (2024). The United Nations World Water Development Report 2024: Water for Prosperity and Peace. UNESCO, Paris. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000388948.
27. United Nations. (2018). World Water Development Report 2018. http://www.unwater.org/publications/un-world-water-development-report (accessed 15 June 2024).
28. United Nations. (2023). Summary of Proceedings of the United Nations 2023 Water Conference. United Nations, New York. https://www.unwater.org/publications/un-2023-water-conference-summary-proceedings.
29. Yapıcıoğlu, P., Yesilnacar, M. (2021). Grey water footprint assessment of groundwater resources in southeastern Turkey: Effect of recharge. Water Supply. 22. https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2021.247.
30. Yi, Z., Li, C., Dong, Y. (2026). Advances in water footprint research: Trends, methods, and implications - A literature review. Water Conserv Sci Eng. 11, 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41101-025-00467-9.
31. Zupic, I., Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organ Res Methods. 18, 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629.