Global trends and status in landfilling research: a systematic analysis

  • Mohammad Reza SabourEmail author
  • Ehsan Alam
  • Amir Mostafa Hatami


Despite the increasing amount of waste being reused, recycled, or energetically valorized, landfills continue to play an important role in waste management strategies. Many researchers have studied various aspects of landfilling, regarding positive or negative features. However, a few of them have summarized the related literature, resulted in a lack of overall progress understanding. This paper aimed to perform a bibliometric analysis of landfilling research during 2000–2017. Various aspects, such as document types, languages, major journals, key countries, authors, and keywords were all systematically analyzed. The collaborations among authors and countries were wholly constructed, visualized, and evaluated through the application of social network analysis based on co-authorship relations. Moreover, to discover the most leading topics on landfill discussion, keyword clustering analysis was conducted using co-occurrences relations. The research showed that the number of landfill-related publications has significantly increased within the period. Regarding both quality and quantity, the United States was the most leading country. As well, Rowe, R.K., from Canada, was quantitatively the most productive author. The findings of this study indicated that landfill leachate was the most studied topic in the literature. Besides, the keywords “global warming” and “sustainability” had the highest rate of growth during the studied period. This paper also demonstrated that the most productive countries in landfill research have had a significant contribution to decrease the total amount of landfilling using other waste disposal alternatives (such as incineration with/without energy recovery) or waste management strategies.


Landfill Research trend Waste management Bibliometric analysis Social network analysis (SNA) 



  1. 1.
    Minghua Z et al (2009) Municipal solid waste management in Pudong New Area China. Waste Manag 29(3):1227–1233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Assamoi B, Lawryshyn Y (2012) The environmental comparison of landfilling vs. incineration of MSW accounting for waste diversion. Waste Manag 32(5):1019–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Danthurebandara M et al (2014) Assessment of environmental and economic feasibility of enhanced landfill mining. Waste Manage 45:434–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    WorldBank (2016) Distribution of municipal solid waste treatment and disposal worldwide in 2016, by method [cited November 22 2018]; Available from:
  5. 5.
    Greedy D (2016) Landfilling and landfill mining. Waste Manag Res 34(1):1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    WorldBank (2016) Distribution of regional municipal solid waste treatment and disposal worldwide in 2016, by method [cited Nov 22 2019]; Available from:
  7. 7.
    Renou S et al (2008) Landfill leachate treatment: review and opportunity. J Hazard Mater 150(3):468–493MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Almeida D, Marques MDF (2016) Thermal and catalytic pyrolysis of plastic waste. Polímeros 26(1):44–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kormi T et al (2017) Estimation of landfill methane emissions using stochastic search methods. Atmos Pollut Res 8(4):597–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lombardi L, Carnevale EA (2016) Analysis of an innovative process for landfill gas quality improvement. Energy 109:1107–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Li S et al (2015) Assessing the role of renewable energy policies in landfill gas to energy projects. Energy Econom 49:687–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of working Groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Naveen BP et al (2017) Physico-chemical and biological characterization of urban municipal landfill leachate. Environ Pollut 220:1–12MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jovanov D, Vujić B, Vujić G (2018) Optimization of the monitoring of landfill gas and leachate in closed methanogenic landfills. J Environ Manag 216:32–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zhuang Y et al (2013) Global remote sensing research trends during 1991–2010: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics 96(1):203–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ye Z et al (2014) A bibliometric investigation of research trends on sulfate removal. Desalinat Water Treat 52(31–33):6040–6049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fu HZ et al (2010) A bibliometric analysis of solid waste research during the period 1993–2008. Waste Manag 30(12):2410–2417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Buela-Casal G, Zych I (2012) What do the scientists think about the impact factor? Scientometrics 92(2):281–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Garfield E (2006) The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA 295(1):90–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hirsch JE (2005) An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102(46):16569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hirsch JE, Buela-Casal G (2014) The meaning of the h-index. Int J Clin and Health Psychol 14(2):161–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scopus (2018) Scopus: access and use Support Center [3 Oct 2018]
  23. 23.
    Otte E, Rousseau R (2002) Social network analysis: a powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. J Informat Sci 28(6):441–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hair JF et al. (2014) Multivariate data analysisGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Braak CJFt, Smilauer P, CANOCO Reference Manual and CanoDraw for Windows User's Guide: Software for Canonical Community Ordination (version 4.5). 2002, Ithaca NY, USA.
  26. 26.
    Borthakur A, Govind M (2018) Public understandings of E-waste and its disposal in urban India: from a review towards a conceptual framework. J Clean Product 172:1053–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    OECD (2017) Enrolment of international students by origin [cited 30 Oct 2019]; Available from:
  28. 28.
    Li LL et al (2009) Global stem cell research trend: Bibliometric analysis as a tool for mapping of trends from 1991 to 2006. Scientometrics 80(1):39–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Naveen BP, Sumalatha J, Malik RK (2018) A study on contamination of ground and surface water bodies by leachate leakage from a landfill in Bangalore, India. Int J Geo-Eng 9(1):27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ishigaki T et al (2005) Estimation of methane emission from whole waste landfill site using correlation between flux and ground temperature. Environ Geol 48:845–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lee U, Han J, Wang M (2017) Evaluation of landfill gas emissions from municipal solid waste landfills for the life-cycle analysis of waste-to-energy pathways. J Clean Product 166:335–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Di Trapani D et al (2019) Assessing Methane Emission and Economic Viability of Energy Exploitation in a Typical Sicilian Municipal Solid Waste Landfill. Waste Biomass Valorizat 10(10):3173–3184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Robertson M (2017) Sustainability principles and practice, 2nd edn. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Townsend TP, Jain J, Xu P, Reinhart D, Tolaymat T (2015) Sustainable practices for landfill design and operation. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fauziah SH, Agamuthu P (2012) Trends in sustainable landfilling in Malaysia, a developing country. Waste Manag Res 30(7):656–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Weng Y-C et al (2015) Management of landfill reclamation with regard to biodiversity preservation, global warming mitigation and landfill mining: experiences from the Asia-Pacific region. J Clean Product 104:364–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Savage GM, Golueke CG, Stein ELv (1993) Landfill mining: past and present. BioCycle (USA) 34(5)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    van der Zee DJ, Achterkamp MC, de Visser BJ (2004) Assessing the market opportunities of landfill mining. Waste Manag 24(8):795–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    OECD (2016) Stat Municipal waste, Generation and Treatment, landfill [cited Dec 30 2018]; Available from:
  40. 40.
    EURELCO (2018) European enhanced landfill mining consortium, Infographic [cited Oct 30 2019; Available from:
  41. 41.
    DEFRA (2018) Germany, Overview. access: [Dec 2018]Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ahmadifar M, Sartaj M, Abdallah M (2016) Investigating the performance of aerobic, semi-aerobic, and anaerobic bioreactor landfills for MSW management in developing countries. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 18(4):703–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Civil EngineeringK. N. Toosi University of TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations